Lack of convictions for RAPE...I really want to do something about this, if possible

Thanks for explaining. Juries do convict rapists, but not enough women get them into court. Are you, then, thinking that more women would pursue their case in a civil court? Why would that be?

Sorry, just trying to understand why it would be better than encouraging more women to press criminal charges.

you can have a civil jury, probably almost never happens now though

The level of proof is different garlicbutter.

For criminal conviction it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury.

For civil conviction it is balance of probability and I think it's just a judge (not sure TBH).

So someone could well find that their super-strong case was rejected by a jury (rape myths etc) but that a civil court would find that on balance of probailities yes it probably did happen and find in their favour.

Different standard of proof is due to different level of punishment and criminal record I think.

standard of proof is much lower

Would the procedures for a civil case be different from a criminal one? Surely the crime would have to be proven in either case?

Also a thing I read on here linking to a lawyers blog where it said that although victims sexual history etc starting point is that defence can't bring it up, apparently it's teh first thing the defence approaches the judge about - to say it's relevant etc and we need to include it - and defence knows that as soon as they can bring up victims sexual history it increases their chances of winning loads.

Yes from what I have read the proportion of convictions on those that go to trial is similar to other crimes. Difficulty is not many get to trial.

Having said that you read about what happened to BG, and that other woman, and things that have happened to people here on MN and it feels that rapists are getting away with it in what sound like open and shut cases pretty frequently.

I think that the civil conviction thing is good - but there is a real danger that if it worked and the criminal prosecution system doesn't for this crime, then it would become the done thing that sexual offences weren't bothered with as criminal at all any more unless they were really ludicrously extreme.

However that is a long way off and not a reason to stop the idea now IYSWIM.

The conviction rate for cases that complete a trial isn't bad at all - 58% iirc. The problem lies with the small proprtion of cases that do go to trial. This is mostly due to fear of disbelief, police mishandling of rape complaints and fear of aggressive examination in court.

Perhaps some others have read Abi Grant's "Words Can Describe"? It could be an idea to contact her for her thoughts on what needs to be changed, and any others who have publicly described their experiences.

I don't know why bad character was not introduced for that case (defence will fight every time to have it rubbished). It may be that the Police did not cover it properly at the end of the interview (or at all).

It all changed in the SOA 2003, Mamaz0n. See here

The defendent needs to show how they obtained consent and/or why they believed consent was given. Or at least, that's what the law says. And the jurors need to understand this. Everyone does.

Prole, again it is to do with how relevant it may be for the complainant's history to be brought up.

These incidents are covered at the end of the police interview too so can be introduced in court.

In basic terms bad character of the defendant can be used in court if it is relevant. So things like sexual harassment at work allegations or a number of arrests but no convictions of say sexual assaults would be relevant but a previous allegation of theft may not be.

what do you mean by bad character? previous convictions or accusations? I think they are only given for sentancing, not during the actual trial.

Which seems ridiculsou given that the victim has her past raked through but not the defendant.

Think it was 2001/2.

It was a non stranger rape case. she had allowed him to start performing a specific sexual act but then changed her mind. prior to penetration.

she had her underwear shown to the court. Her sexual history picked over and insinuations of her promiscuity. It was painful to watch.

It made me certain that unless i was raped by a stranger at knife point in the middle of oxford street in borad daylighta nd it was caught on CCTv iwould never ever report it.

That is why the conviction rate is so low. Because very few women feel strong enough to go through such an ordeal.

It does sound pre SOA 2003 which is why I questioned it. It may well be Scottish law (which I think has just changed too).

"He made it very clear that consent must not only be withdrawn but that the rapist must have understood that it had been withdrawn." Was this since 2003, Manaz0n? Is it just me, but that reads like the judge thinks that consent is presumed until withdrawn?

MamazOn, in England and Wales now the defendant has responsibility to ensure that the person is consenting - it is no longer enough to say "I thought she she was consenting".

Been reading a bit about this today after seeing that case where a woman won damages after a sexual assault. Two immediate major drawbacks for civil cases are that it costs money and that the defendent can cross-examine the victim. I am sure there are more, but I am no lawyer.

Challenging rape myths on a day to day basis is one way of making a big difference. The wider public need to be seeing rape and consent to sex in a very different way than they do now. Juries need to be much more sceptical about the reasons given for belief in consent e.g does anyone here really believe that a woman giving a look to a man whilst having sex with another man means that she is consenting to oral sex? And juries are you or I or the person down the street that thinks that women in short skirts are asking for it. Let's really get the ripple effect in action and challenge at every opportunity (which I am sure you all do already. )