Guardian publishes misleading article about rape

"There's only one definition." [hmmm] The bit you quote is not a definition. It's the beginning of the outlining of a process. Even the document you link to talks about two different ways they could define attrition in that report. Others may define it in other ways for other purposes.

I only talked about the attrition rate being 6% not 12% because Flapper30 had pointed out the article said 12% and I thought the important thing to point out was that that percentage, regardless of what it is rightfully called, claimed to be different to 6% because it included all convictions, not convictions for the crime that was actually reported (i.e. rape). I thought, and continue to think, that this back and forth over the semantics in this context muddies the water.

Correction Sharon. From the Stern Review, 2010, cases reported to the police have a 26% charge rate. Of those, 58% of cases result in a conviction. 50% of those convictions are for rape, 50% are for other charges (eg assault) Was linked on first page. Will try and find original data

the 6% conviction rate is from all cases reported to the police between 2008/2009.

Cases which are reported to the police have a 58% charge rate which means they should go to court.

What happens between charge and trial date the. Reduces to 6%

I would like to point out that the data in these reports is 10 years old. Can anyone link to more recent reports?

It's a simple matter of defining it

Conviction rate for cases prosecuted
Conviction rate for cases reported to police

First stat = 58%
Second = 6% (Or 12% if you include conviction for other offences)

So having just looked at her article again, it is entirely wrong.

If she wants to use the 12% stat (which I think is convicted of any crime after a report of rape) the attrition rate is 88%.

Seeing as the crux of her article is that the language used is misleading... well... um... Not a very persuasive argument then!

sorry, link for last comment

I must admit I had been wondering this through the thread, as I understood the attrition rate to be the number of cases that fell by the wayside during the process. The ones that didn't get anywhere. I thought that maybe in the article she was talking about a different stat but she hadn't said which one.

The attrition rate for rape is not 6% or 12%. It is a very high number.

OK, this puts the CPS conviction rate for burglary at 87.1% nationally. They've defined this as the CPS conviction rate, so that's not for all reports. Perhaps it may be worth using this to define between the differences? EG, when explaining the rate from those that reach court, define it as such? Otherwise, if we all have a different understanding of a word, the message of an article will get muddled.

OK, this article in the Guardian uses the "conviction rate" the same way we do in terms of talking about rape; wrt those reported, not those that reach court, putting the conviction rate for the most violent crimes (not just rape) at well below 10%.

BRB, flitting between research and MN... And Stardust...

But it's the name of a statistic. So it means whatever it is defined to mean. I would tend to agree with you that a common English definition of attrition would see it as 94%, I was merely repeating the use from the article for the sake of ease. I don't care what it's called in the context of this discussion, but I do care about getting the stats confused because everyone is using something different.

Actually, I'd say an argument over the meaning of a word is a pretty important one, especially with a word such as attrition, where you seem to think it means the opposite to what nyac and I think it means.

If nyac and I have the correct meaning of the word, it means that we're reading what you're saying as 94% of cases end in a conviction. If you have the correct meaning of the word, it means you're reading what we're saying as something completely different.

Anyway. Now off to re-read the article.

Criticism of texts happens, btw. Especially from English students, or those who want to understand what they're reading. Doesn't mean they're criticising the authors personality if they mention a negative aspect of the text.

I see there is an argument over the semantics but it's not one I'm that interested in in this discussion. If you want to call it a conviction rate I'm fine with that, but I'm not going to go out of my way to police my language to meet your definitions instead of someone else's. I'm more interested in other points the author was making.

I'm not "having a go at" anyone (and I'm sorry if that bit about hard week wound you up, it was supposed to be a reach out in friendship, not a phrase to rub you up the wrong way). I am saying I think you are missing good points in the article, that the tone of the posts here is hostile to a consideration of those points and that I think that is a shame. And I have already said I disliked the author's use of "hysterical".

Considering the word "attrition" means "The action or process of gradually reducing the strength or effectiveness of someone or something through sustained attack or pressure." (google Attrition definition) I think nyac's definition is correct.

It's used in this document as " the number and
proportion of cases that fail to reach court and result in a guilty verdict. " [[http://www.rcne.com/downloads/RepsPubs/Attritn.pdf source is here", can search document. So wouldn't that mean the attrition rate is 94%?

I'm a bit confused Nyac. The 6% is the one that's been used throughout this thread, 6% of recorded rapes end in a conviction for rape. I wasn't particularly trying to champion one number, just going with what has been used throughout this thread and pointing out to Flapper30 why people were using 6% not the 12% mentioned in the article. Is it the semantics of the term attrition you're questioning, or do you think the rate is different? If the latter, which rate do you go with?

Tone is a big deal. Tone is often used to stop women feeling like they can speak, or to make others thing women's words aren't as important without directly attacking them. Arguments being ignored or misread. Assumptions about bad intentions rather than assumptions of good faith. The idea that a feminist being sensitive to tone on a feminist forum is about not having much of an argument is sad. So while an opinion piece certainly invites comment, and in a place of free speech everyone is entitled to comment as they please, it doesn't make for a useful or enlightening discussion if the tone is to be dismissive of the point the author is trying to make. And when aims of the author are in keeping with goals that this forum generally in favour it seems particularly absurd to be combative about it. I know it's been a hard week here, but it would be a shame to eat ourselves up getting defensive.

Just had a quick google about the number of reported rapes over the last 2- years and it seems they've risen year on year quite dramatically, so clearly women are not put off from reporting, it's just that for the vast majority of them little happens as a result of that.

Sorry, that should have been 6%. Not sure why I typed the extra .5

There aren't any direct attacks, it just seems like the tone of the thread to me. I read a woman who is concerned that women are put off reporting rapes to the police because the media frequently report on the negative aspects of reporting rape and so build a sense of hopelessness in women. Analogous to the way they report the negative aspects of violence against women - they sensationalize and distort. Concentrate only on the bad.

Personally I don't think the use of 6%/58% is the key part of the negative expectations women have of the criminal justice system in regard to rape. But I think she might have a point that a negative portrayal of reporting rape is detrimental to the cause of getting more rapists behind bars.

Flapper the higher attrition rate includes convictions for any charge. If you look at the number of convictions for rape the attrition rate is 6.5%.

Can I just point out the attrition rate, as noted by the article actually puts it at 12% not 6%.

I think this thread is being unfair to the author. I don't think her intent is to tell people to no crime their rapes. Or to offer a get out clause for the criminal justice system. I read the article as her wanting the 58% number to be out there so that more women would report rape, and I read into the piece that she sees this as a way to get more prosecutions and more rapists convicted and punished. She sees the negative talk inMaHelen public domain about conviction rates as being a way to suppress women and stop them pursuing justice.

I think it's the wrong way round, and she is ignoring the reason women faught to have the attrition rate measured and reported, but I don't think her intent is bad. I tend to think it would be a good thing for the public in general if more women reported rape.

I also agree with her that some of the reporting over Sarah's case concentrated on the wrong aspects and gave a false picture of the current state of things. I dislike the use of the word "hysterical" because of its use to silence women. But it was done in a "get all worked up over the wrong things" way. Coverage didn't talk enough about how unusual the prosecution was (because Sarah isn't the first woman to retract under pressure) or how the guidelines have been change and what impact that will have. And it concentrated on Sarah's report and retraction, not on the people who made the terrible decisions that resulted in a patent miscarriage of justice or the lack of process in our system to put it right.

I think the 6% figure is important, but I am a bit concerened by the idea it may discourage women pursuing justice. I think the way to deal with that is to change the 6%, but I can also see that fewer women reporting is likely to make things spiral down, not improve.

I'm not arguing that I agree with the author, but the comments on this thread seem like a bit of an attack on the character of the woman, and I don't think that's justified, or a good way for women who disagree on tactics and approaches to treat each other.