So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

The police need to still have a complete change in attitude - I was talking to a close female police officer and she basically said that all the rape allegations she sees were women trying it on -I sat there just aghast.

She was telling me that in her area all the women who report rape were prostitutes and drug users and couldnt be relied on - Surely they are going to be the most vunerable to rape and therefore are going to be the group most reporting it.

I was really and just depressed by the whole conversation tbh.

I still don't believe that many men really believe rape is all that serious. I think, unless it's accompanied by severe, visible, physical injury that they think it's just not that bad a crime. I think this attitude is present in the police force and judiciary as well as the general public. I don't believe things will materially alter unless the reality of rape for a woman (or a man) is better understood.

I don't think we can stop rape by teaching people safety. All I mean by that is that without in any way judging different behaviour we have to explain without frightening that if someone is looking for sex at any price they most likely will prey on the vulnerable - those who are very very drunk/separated from friends and so on. Almost like a oppportunistic burglary where they go in through an open window - the householder was not responsible for the burglary and the burglar was the criminal, but the householder didn't protect their house as best they could. That will not prevent the person determined to burgle or rape THAT particular victim though. And it never justifies the crime - it is still never the victim's fault.

In terms of "ruining a man's life" - I've mainly seen that where someone has clearly been terribly ashamed by what happened - so it almost doesn't look like they're blaming the victim eg. it must have been awful for her to feel like this but I had so much to drink I don't remember what I did, I just know I wouldn't have raped anyone because I'm not that sort of guy. It's not convincing written down like that, and I'm not saying I'm convinced, but I think sympathy (especially for the family affected by what he's done) (Remember Abi Titmuss?) can be very influential.

That is a scary post. No one seems to understand or care how horrendous the consequences are for the woman who has been raped and how important that public recognition is for healing.

I think that police/cps staff/lawyers/judges who are found to be sexist in their dealing with rape cases should be severely diciplined or sacked.

People go on about how hard it is to prove but I have seen cases where the CPS laywers didn't even bother to call the witnesses, did not allow the woman to tell her story, where the police have encouraged women to drop the case or have 'lost' the evidence that the woman handed in and where the CPS have misunderstood the evidence they have been presented with so dropped the case. Of course it is hard to prove if the evidence that women do have is dismissed like this.

So if it was all women juries the conviction rate would go down?

Thanks barrister - interesting post. I think your last point is scary, juries just don't want to put men in prison for rape. It's the "you're ruining a good man's life" attitude isn't it.

How has it been done so cleverly, to put the blame for the attack on the victim?

I disagree that we can teach children to "take responsibility for their own safety" though when it comes to rape. Unless we teach them to live in the top room in the tallest tower with a door that locks on the inside that is.

Hello,

criminal barrister here who both defends and prosecutes in rape and sexual assault cases with variously male and female complainants, and male and female defendants.

Anecdotally, and speaking generally I really would say the following:

The law basically prohibits questions on sexual history where the questions are designed to suggest the complainant would be more likely to consent BECAUSE of that sexual history.

The law allows previous convictions to go before the jury is they show a propensity to commit crimes like those being alleged.

The law even allows previous acquittals to go before the jury in certain cases - in R v Z 3 previous acquittals were put in evidence before the jury where the defence was reasonable belief in consent. The point was someone whose been tried for rape 3 times in the past ought to take a heap more care in making sure another person with whom he is having intercourse is really genuinely consenting.

Having said all the above,
it is a really difficult crime to prove. There are rarely other witnesses and this makes juries uneasy as we know people do lie and false complaints are made. And when the burden is on the Crown and the jury have to be sure that is a high standard to meet and with the best will in the world one person's word against anothers may not be enough.

Also, and this is the Helena Kennnedy point, women judge each other. I think, fwiw, it's a way of us making ourselves feel safer. It is such a vile crime and one of the most frightening things we can imagine, we do not like to think it could happen to us, even though we know this is the case. So we look at the facts we are presented with and say, this wouldn't have happened to me - I would never have drunk so much/gone to his flat/given him the wrong idea/worn that outfit. If asked simply - do any of these factors mean the rape was somehow her fault we would clearly say No, but even so we look for ways to reassure ourselves we would never go through such an ordeal. And that makes us pass the blame away from the perpetrator and start to judge the victim. It's not right, but we have to find a way of teaching our children to take responsibility for their own safety at the same time as holding predators to full account.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most controversial observation - the consequences are so horrendous - both for sentence and public disgrace, people even if satisfied the facts are against the defendant, sometimes may not convict because they are sure it won't be done again - (s)he may seem respectable, ashamed, supported by a loving partner. I have seen what I had thought to be overwhelming cases not succeed where the only possible explanation seemed, however mad this may sound, the likeability of the defendant - especially if alcohol was involved on both sides.

Sorry for long post, but I had a lot to say....

'I'd say all women courts and juries should try rape cases'

Helena Kennedy on women jurors: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/women-tougher-on-rape-victims-694508.html

There have been studies that have shown this as well.

All those surveys which show that women are blamed for being raped don't just ask men y'know.

I worked for a while role-playing with law students. Nice job, but one of them was a rape case and I played the victim being cross-examined in a lecture theatre set up as a court room.

It was chilling to hear the 'advice' given on how to undermine the victims, and female students were told that alleged rapists favoured female representation and they should go for it.

I don't know how to cut and paste a link on my iPod but google "lord advocate addresses sexual crime conference".

Lots of good work being done in Scotland on investigating and prosecuting sexual crimes.

The Lord Advocate in Scotland is female - maybe we should get her on for a webchat?!

I heard her interviewed on woman's hour but can't find a link.

It was really good because she explained how trained investigators can gather evidence and it gets away from the "he said she said".

I will try to add more info on this tomorrow.

Isn't that supposed to happen now as well? Troouble is judges are a law unto themselves, and I suspect the current generation of crusty old misogynists dear old chaps need to retire, as no doubt they are unwilling to change their victim blaming ways.

I think I'd be willing to get sent down for contempt of court by saying "What's that got to do with it?" at the start of every response to nonsensical questioning.

Rape myths to be explained in detail to every jury at the start of rape trials.

why did they do that ?

for what fucking purpose ?

semen stains ?

a forensic report would tell them that

when i was on jury service for a rape trial they actually held the poor girls knickers up for the court to see.

it was absolutely horrific. i could have dried for her i really could.

I would be very good in court

I argue a good argument

I am in the wrong profession

that report says that sexual history evidence is introduced into 75% of the trials they followed.

And that lawyers use "rhetorical devices" - I bet they do, the fuckers.

I think a huge issue for women may be that they can be questioned over their previous sexual history which really has no bearing on the crime in question. That should not be allowed.

to clarify, I wish we were top notch lawyers, not that we were actually copulating with them.

me too AF. I wish we were fucking top notch lawyers though. Would love to see you do your thing in court :)

prior convictions and allegations can't be used in court because it may sway the jury. they may convict on the "no smoke without fire" theory or worse still assume that just because he has done it before means he must therefore have done it this time.

this is wrong of course.

But surely this should work the same way for the victim.

whether i shagged 40 men who all held tickets in roder to form an orderly queue to come fuck me every which way, that doesn't mean that tonight i said and meant no.
if you can't convict based on prior form then surely you shouldn't aquit either.

as you can see, I am a total and complete law novice

thanks ele, fascinating (and scary)

interesting article about how some barristers get around it.

AF - just found this:

"Character of victim - previous sexual history
Sections 41-43 of the Youth Justice & Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (Archbold 8-123k-123q) came into effect on 4 December 2000. See R v Kevin John Cartwright, unreported, (2007). The sections restrict the circumstances in which evidence or questions about a complainant's sexual behaviour beyond the circumstances of the alleged offence can be introduced in rape or in certain other sexual offence trials. It is essential that prosecutors are robust in dealing with applications under section 41.

At the trial of a person charged with a sexual offence as defined by section 62 of the YJCEA 1999 (Archbold 8-55x) no evidence may be adduced or questions asked in cross-examination by or on behalf of the accused about any sexual behaviour of the complainant except with the leave of the court, (Archbold 8-123k-123q).

Such evidence will only be permitted if statutory criteria are met and the court considers that it may reach an unsafe conclusion on an issue to be decided in the case if such evidence were not to be heard. Any questions asked or evidence to be adduced must relate to a specific instance of behaviour."

from here