TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Feminism war against due process. Scottish MP doubles down on judge-only trials as Tories seek to protect juries in rape cases.

NeoNotNeo

January 21, 2022
56 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/bain-doubles-down-on-judge-only-trials-as-tories-seek-to-protect-juries
Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Feminism war against due process. Scottish MP doubles down on judge-only trials as Tories seek to protect juries in rape cases.
Author

NeoNotNeo

Upvotes 56
Comments 18
Date January 21, 2022 9:48 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/s9lwoz/feminism_war_against_due_process_scottish_mp/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/feminism-war-against-due-process-scottish-mp.1098320
https://theredarchive.com/post/1098320
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by NeoNotNeo

Men aren’t going to be there for women in traditional ways and most feminists I know are losing their $hit over it.

1607 upvotes
March 18, 2022
/r/MensRights

Single mom amassed 45 million views crying on how tough she has it, now exposed as a fraud.

1599 upvotes
May 26, 2024
/r/MensRights

Last night Oscars were a dumpster fire of hatred towards men.

1509 upvotes
March 28, 2022
/r/MensRights

Women’s only scholarships, awards and even gym hours are being eliminated or canceled by universities because they discriminate against men.

1476 upvotes
June 21, 2023
/r/MensRights

Paternity fraud should be treated as serious as any major fraud if committed knowingly.

1474 upvotes
July 20, 2022
/r/MensRights

Boy, 14, is stabbed to death in Manhattan subway station by three teen girls.

1432 upvotes
July 10, 2022
/r/MensRights

He spent 24 years for a crime he didn’t commit. He wins 6 million compensation. Then his Ex-wife sues for a piece of his compensation.

1408 upvotes
July 23, 2022
/r/MensRights

Without exception every defense of Will Smith's violent assault I’ve personally heard so far comes from women.

1376 upvotes
March 30, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]63daddy 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Feminists claim a lower conviction rate means victims aren’t being taken seriously and we should therefore deny men accused of rape a trial by jury. Aside from being unjust, their premise is false.

If one looks at the Scottish government website, it clearly shows and explains that as lower merit cases are pushed forward to be prosecuted, the result has been a lower conviction rate for such crimes. Ironically, but understandably, being tougher and pushing more rape cases forward results in a lower conviction rate. (Because a larger percent won’t have supporting evidence). Sexual assault convictions dropped from 73 to 56% specifically which man’s even with lower merit cases being pushed forward, over half of the accused are still found guilty, hardly the dysfunctional system feminists claim. Again, the government states this. See link.

So, not only is denying the accused a jury trial unjust, but so is the premise. The lower conviction rates aren’t a function of a jury flaw, they are a function of what cases are pushed forward for prosecution.

“Taking rape seriously” and pushing more merit less cases forward for prosecution results in a lower conviction rate. This is true of any crime, not just sexual assault.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/criminal-proceedings-scotland-2018-19/pages/4/

[–]lasciate 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's almost as if feminists knew this would happen and wanted it so they could push draconian solutions to the problem they themselves caused...

[–]63daddy 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Feminists have learned how to spin any gender statistic or observation to claim discrimination against women.

In this case they’ve gotten the system to push more low sexual assault cases which is a win for them, but then also doin the results as if it’s more discrimination, when in fact it’s because they’ve been catered too.

Feminists are masters of spin.

[–]lasciate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a similar tactic to the one used to kill government programs: gut the program, then claim it needs to be abolished/privatized because it doesn't work.

Here it's: stack the court system with bad cases, then place justice solely at the hands of judges who will be (and already are) forced to undergo "retraining" when they don't hand out the desired verdicts.

[–]CominSense20 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The purpose of a multi person jury is to eliminate bias and make sure judgement is decided by the evidence. Any judge who wants to remove this due process right in order to push certain outcomes should be removed from the bench.

[–]UnconventionalXY 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Alternatively, all judge-only cases should be heard by 2 judges: one man and one woman, to reduce the potential for bias. There would need to be strict rules against collusion.

Even a Jury doesn't eliminate bias but with increasing numbers, bias should start to even out: it's why democracy eventually needs to become 1:1 with the citizens of a country.

[–]63daddy 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That’s a problem we see in title ix tribunals. Colleges hire a single feminist “judge” to adjudicate title ix sexual harassment cases. Incredibly biased. In fact many lawsuits have been filed due to this bias.

Our system is imperfect but denying the accused due process is not the fix.

[–]mistralol 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

By the time you throw the stuff into a committe about how many judges are required to sit until the bias is eleminated and stuff.... chances are you will have something the size of a jury again by the end of it all.

Its like.... we did this already this is why we have a jury....

[–]UnconventionalXY 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A Jury originally was 12 good men, no women I believe, but there was little bias because women weren't responsible for crimes, only their husbands were, and only men put in the dock.

2 judges: a man and a woman, has the best value for money in reducing bias against 1 female judge. The only issue then is a hung verdict, but that can be resolved by erring on the side of "it's better to let a guilty person go than convict an innocent man".

I think women are more vengeful than men, so the above approach would likely ensure greater justice (in the broader sense).

[–]TheSnesLord 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Time for mandatory bodycams for everyone. Bodycams that save footage onto the Cloud and are Internet time-stamped.

[–]erik-the-first 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Scotland already has a 6 percent conviction rate for rape. If anything, that's higher than most countries. When you consider most reported rapes are false, how much higher do feminists want this rate to go?

[–]63daddy 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

According to this official Scottish government website the conviction rate for rape and attempted rape is 47% And 56% for sexual assault.

https://www.gov.scot/publications/criminal-proceedings-scotland-2018-19/pages/4/

[–]erik-the-first 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There were 2343 reported rapes in Scotland. And 130 convictions.

[–]63daddy 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I was talking about actual government conviction rates. Go to the government websites that reports actual conviction rates.

Feminists like to divide their estimates of sexual assaults by convictions and claim a low conviction rate, but that’s not a conviction rate. Again see the government reporting on actual conviction rates.

[–]mistralol 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Sounds like somebody is taking figure from reported to police and another is cases which the CPS has actually accepted at court for trial.

[–]Souseisekigun 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

They say that false rape accusations are extremely rare and as a result they believe that any not guilty verdict or even not proven verdict is a rapist walking free. To this end they want the conviction rate to be 98-100% and have been systematically trying to make it easier to score convictions. In the past years they have

  • suggested abolishing not proven entirely so juries are forced to choose between guilty or not guilty - any jury that has enough reasonable doubt to return not proven should also return not guilty if not proven is abolished anyway so this is either totally useless or an attempt to squeeze guilty verdicts that otherwise would not have come

  • pushed police and prosecutors to go forward with cases they would have previously not gone forward with because they did not believe there was enough evidence to convict - resulted in a mess because there still was not enough evidence to convict and the push to get the numbers up year after year lead to a series of dodgy cases publicly falling apart

  • tried to tell juries that they are wrong and we should let the judges do it instead - technically it's true that other countries have judge trials and some trials are settled by judges here, but they are in for crushing disappointment when they discover that judges are not going to just start convicting everyone either

  • tried to weaken the standard of evidence in Scottish courts - the standard of evidence in Scottish courts makes it harder to convict than in English courts and this especially makes it more difficult to deal with rape cases so naturally yet another part of Scotland's legal heritage needs to be scrapped in the name of getting the numbers up

  • bonus: tried to say that fake rape fantasy porn lead to real rape and became the only country in the Western world to make it illegal to possess under the extreme pornography law despite little to evidence to support their claims - seems to have accomplished nothing in terms of combating rape and was immediately relegated to a joke law that the police use as a consolation conviction. Outstanding move.

It's very annoying, because you can't even donate to rape charities without worrying if they're going to piss your money away on crap like this.

[–]sgt_oddball_17 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Scotland has fallen.

[–]NeoNotNeo[S] 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

?

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter