AIBU to think rape is now legal in the UK?

That all comes down to the legal arguments in court between the prosecution & defence and the directions given to the jury from the bench

I don't think the 'regretful sex' comes into the figures. If a woman/man believes it was 'regretful sex' then presumably it would not have been reported as a rape.

What is never talked about in rape trials is the jury. The Ched Evans case is awful - but you had to have a jury willing to believe that the evidence that "suddenly" appeared was relevant.

The reason the conviction rate is low is because a huge number of men and women believe that rape is "regretful sex". Until we deal with that myth, which many people believe, then the rate of conviction will be low.

So, do you think we need to consider a closed court? - so the victim/survivor is cross examined by the defence solicitor in a private room away from the court - perhaps done on another day. This can then be transcribed later to the court during the trial.

The fact there there was a serving officer in The Met (Wayne Couzens) whose nickname was 'The Rapist' speaks volumes about police attitudes, and not just the police.

There is the old maxim, people engage with the courts/police to get "justice", but what they actually experience is the "legal system".

The fact that there are any supports/specializations at all there is due to people like @Nat6999 , people who report, speak out, etc. Your experience of the male sergeant is totally shocking Wishing you all the best.

I'm so sorry @Nat6999 and all the other women who have been raped and faced a system that further traumatised you.

I was raped & if I had known that there would have been a 1.6% chance of arrest I wouldn't have put myself through the hell of doing the video interview & being shouted at in my own home by a male sergeant.

I think the police are shit at getting evidence and putting cases forward to prosecution.
I think the court system is so slow and drawn out it puts people off. They want to put it behind them and move forward in their lives, not keep dragging out something awful.
I think that guilty verdicts are so rare is because more weight is applied to the perpetrators version. Reading some of the survivors stories, even on this thread, it's hard to see how they were not found guilty.

Women want justice, but the odds are stacked against them.

Another way to look at it is that the statistics show that in only 1% of cases the victims/survivors get a 'positive' outcome. Therefore in 99% of cases they don't.

But in the 99% are victims/survivors who have got the outcome that they wanted.

I think they published statistics should reflect this.

(I know 'positive' is not the right word again - but you know what I mean hopefully)

its about showing the statistic as to what they are really reflecting. Its not all about a conviction or not.

I'm all for getting dangerous people off the streets and into jail - that's why i think the court processes need to change to help this.

But its more about putting the victims first and focusing on what they want and having the statistic reflect this. A lot don't want to go through the court process

I've never focused on the conviction rate when ever I have attended victims/survivors of these crimes and I don't think that we (as a society) should be putting any pressure on them to pursue a conviction if its something they don't want to do.

Sometimes a victim/survivor informs me that a rape has occurred to them in the past but is not wanting to tell me anything else (when, where or who it involved). Perhaps they are just not ready to talk about it yet, the incident will still be recorded as a crime and will be classed as another non-conviction - but I shouldn't be putting any pressure on them to tell me if they don't want to talk.

I just think it would help victims/survivors coming forward and reporting incidents if the statistics reflect this more and they are aware of all the different outcomes available to them. I sometimes think that victims/survivors may feel that the police will be pressure them into going to court if they make a report to make their figures look better.

A lot of victims/survivors don't really care what happens to the suspect - they just want to put themselves first and get access to the support available.

It also sounds as if you are more interested in fiddling statistics than getting dangerous, violent rapists off the streets.

I really don't get what you mean @Felix125 because it sounds like you think rape victims go to the police, not to get justice, but just so a police person believes them. Have I got that right?

We need to listen to the survivor/victims more. What do they want from the investigation - a lot don't want to go through the court process at all. If that is the case then we shouldn't use these on the prosecutions statistics. The victim has got the outcome which was best for them, so perhaps it shouldn't be seen as a failure.

A lot are happy that they have been believed and the suspect has been arrested & interviewed - they don't want to proceed further and that is enough for them to start moving forward and putting themselves first. This would go down as a failed prosecution on the statistics - but should it fall into a different category? No conviction but a positive outcome for the victim (I know positive is not the right word there, but you get what I mean)

The statistics should also present to the public why the other 98% of the reported cases don't end in a prosecution. How many are through evidence difficulties, how many are through a jury finding them not guilty, how many are through the victim/survivor not wanting to provide any evidence or account.

Do we need to consider a closed court - so the victim/survivor is cross examined by the defence solicitor in a private room away from the court - perhaps done on another day. This can then be transcribed later to the court during the trial.

The thing that really pisses me off is how much we hear about unfounded allegations and the poor men they are made against. Of course it is terrible when it happens, but as it is less than 1% of reports, and the proportion of reported rapes is far less than the total, the amount of attention on it is completely unreasonable.

The Ulster Rugby Rape trial exposed all the faults in the way rape is dealt with by our courts.

There was forensic evidence.
There was evidence of physical trauma.
There were contemporaneous texts for the victim claiming rape.
Including to the rapists friend.
There was the taxi driver's testimony.

But there was no justice for her. There is no justice for rape victims in the UK because rape is practically decriminalised in this country.

Wow.

@Felix125 what do you think needs to be done to improve our dreadful rape conviction statistics?

AIBU to think rape is now legal in the UK?

Only if the perpetrator has a penis.

I think the right to a fair trial is important so not admitting certain evidence is reasonable.

What I'd like to see is rape victims being treated the same way as any other victim. So their statement is admitted to court and they aren't cross examined unless there is very good evidence that they are lying

I'd also like to see certain things being unacceptable as a defence. Previous sexual history being one of them.

In Ched Evans appeal, his conviction was overturned because the defence found a previous partner who testified that the victim said "fuck me harder". Evans claimed she said that to him, and the fact she said it in other sex proved his intercourse was consensual.

I think a really common phrase like that should not have been grounds for appeal. If he claimed she said "spank me with a mackerel, this is fucking great" then maybe her previous partner saying she said the same to him was relevant.

Basically "rape myths" should be barred from defence

Not going to happen though as there are enough sexually predatory men out there that it suits them to make out consent is somehow confusing and women lie

Just read the full article, it's horrifying. Particularly the challenging of the victim on her wording, at the end. It's a completely normal way to talk about a traumatic event.

It does seem biased, doesn't it.

I'd love to understand why this is the case and whether it can be changed.

As I said upthread, prior allegations/Convictions aren't admissible as it might prejudice the jury.
However the victims sexual history is absolutely fair game.

The ulster rugby trial was a good case in point. The victim spent 2 weeks being cross examined in minute detail, while evidence about the misogynistic attitude of the defendants was not admitted

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43739323.amp

The problem with rape is that it's pretty much 'he said she said' and bloody hard to prove. I really don't know what the answer is :( it's terrible :(

Like non-crime hate incidents - perhaps against an individual or a group

As a slight aside (not to.derail) but a PP mentioned someone not being picked up for priors. The problem is there are lots of things these men do that aren't 'worthy' of complaint, i hesitiate to call them 'micro' agressions but stuff that really wouldn't be entertained in the police station. So there probably is usually a pattern, it just may not be immediately obvious when you don't know the person.