Guardian publishes misleading article about rape

sunshine..maybe this blog will interest you more than the first site I linked

beneaththewig.com/the-58-campaign

It's a playground for them, SGM

Frothy that's exactly it. The number of men forcing women to have sex against their will probably didn't increase as a result of the Rape Within Marriage Act, but the change in the law resulted in an increase in the number of women reporting it.

That straightstats site is vile to read. The gap between reports and cases going to trial isn't a credibility gap. As outlined above, there's victims who withdraw their reports for various reasons. There's also reports which are "no crimed". And there's also reports where the CPS believes there's a lack of evidence.

We already know the false report rate. It's between 3 and 8%. Not whatever straightstats is pointing to in it's "credibility gap".

No but rather than trawl through it I'm happy to retract and say at least a few, me included. My point was just that it doesn't start and stop with the conviction rate.

It rose quite significantly after rape within marriage was made illegal, didn't it?

SURELY the less acceptable rape is in the public eye, and the less rape myths are circulated, alongside the improvement of how victims are treated goes a long way to improving the reporting rate?

Has anyone read the comments at the end of that straight statistics article? It may not be an MRA site but it reads like a rape apologist's manifesto, implying that women are making it up, exaggerating and that rape victim advocacy groups are artificially inflating figures to suit their own twisted agenda - because wanting to stop people raping women is such a terrible agenda and will lead to the end of civilised society as we know it in which men can get away with rape?

It was always my understanding that the whole reason the rape conviction statistics were calculated in this way is to make the point that, unlike other crimes involving violence, rape claims have often been treated with scepticism and disbelief, and many cases are not pursued in the interests of being able to publish successful rate conviction figures.

But even if we include the 47% figure given from that straight statistics article, it's still way less than conviction rates for other violent crimes of 71%.

Also, has no one stopped to consider that the reason rape as a reported crime has risen so high, so quickly, is not because more women are making it up or even that more rapes are taking place, but simply because more women are reporting it - in which case the notion that the 6% figure is 'putting women off reporting' is clearly wrong.

I think that's the "not recorded".

Sorry, I know it's confusing.

I think we really need a crack down on police "no criming" rape reports. Every report deserves an investigation. And I do think that perhaps we need improved support for victims who are reporting. Just that little extra support could make all the difference for someone teetering on the edge of withdrawing their report, and convince them to press ahead with it.

Sorry for multiple posts

I think that women are put off by the court thing as well as other reasons.

The recent reid and warboys cases didn't exactly inspire confidence.

Or is that the "not recorded" thing?

No criming is a problem as well frothy.

I think that women are put off by the idea they will be taken to pieces in court.

Even though the defence people are not supposed to bring up sexual history any more, there was a thing written by a lawyer which said the first thing the defence do in rape cases is apply to the judge that it is "relevant" in the case they are defending.

I know when I finally twigged I was raped by DS's father, I knew I couldn't bring myself to report. I'd been in a relationship with him. I didn't want people telling me it couldn't have been rape if I'd stayed with him so long. I didn't want my DS finding out his father is a rapist, nor that he may be the product of a rape. I didn't want that for my son.

Right. If the report is reported, and isn't "not recorded/withdrawn/retracted" or "later retracted by victim" we have 65 cases where the victim makes a report and it's recorded, and the victim stands by their report.

26/65 = 0.4, meaning 40% cases where the victims report their rape, and the report is recorded and not later withdrawn, result in a court case. This means

19/0.2923: 29.23% of the aforementioned cases will result in a trial.

12/65 = 0.1846: 18.46% of all these cases end in a conviction, although not all are a rape conviction.

6/65 = 0.923: 9.23% of all these cases end in a conviction for rape.

I think, if we had more victims not feeling pressured into withdrawing their statements, and all reported rapes recorded, we'd see a rise in the conviction rate. But again. It is always the victim's choice. We need to stop dividing rapes into "date rapes" and the stereotyped rape we see in the media and treat all victims with the same manner of support and empathy.

A lot of the respondents on the MN survey who said they wouldn't report a rape had other reasons, such as not wanting their psychiatric or sexual history picked over in court.

Hang on, just revising stats for those where the victim doesn't withdraw the report.

Christ, this again? (frustration at Guardian, not this section, btw)

Right. From the Stern review findings.

Out of 100 reports of rape, the results are as follows:

74 will see no further action for a variety of reasons.
26 will see the suspect charged with rape.

Of the 26 suspects charged, 7 cases won't proceed. 7 cases will end in no conviction. 6 will be charged for a related offence (this is NOT the same as a report for rape ending in a conviction; it's the related offence that has resulted in a conviction.) 6 suspects will be charged with rape.

Now, I've checked and double checked. That means 6% of all reported rapes end in a conviction. It also means around 23% of suspects charged will be convicted of rape. Of the rape cases that end up in court, just under a third end in a conviction for rape.

That section seems to hint that the law has been changed just for rape cases so that innocent until proven guilty no longer applies

I liked this bit.

"This official misinformation, one suspects, was a deliberate policy choice (beginning somewhere around 1988) to ensure that no matter what the cost, rape and sex crimes would climb remorselessly up the political agenda."

With no indication as to WHY he thinks successive administrations would decide to do that!

That straight statistics article is horrible... key paragraph here:

'Since the 1980s certain of the standard defence options normally available to a person deemed innocent until proven guilty are no longer available in rape cases. The requirement of corroborating evidence, so essential in ordinary criminal cases has been waived for rape cases and is no longer available to the defendant.'

The point is that with rape there often is no corroborating evidence. Certainly the many women who post about being raped by their partners on the Relationships topic would have no corroborating evidence... and they don't report the rapes.

I do see that it would be useful to quote the attrition rates of other crimes for comparison purposes, but to be honest I find it pretty depressing that the attrition rate of Violence Against the Person (say) is 4%. Certainly not a great reflection on the police and CPS.

Of course most women also "screen" their attacks to see how they measure up to the sort of crime that is more likely to get taken seriously IYSWIM.

So most women don't just think 6%/58% anyway. They think what has happened, are they going to be interested/take it seriously.

Sardine, Mrscellophane just said that if she'd had the new information she would have reported.

You have just reinforced that view that the chance of seeing a conviction is 6%. Why would you say that? Essentially it's like saying, don't bother, you won't win. I can't understand that, sorry.