Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12

Original poster

To be sad and horrified that rape convictions have dropped to 1.7%

279 replies

darkriver19886 · 30/04/2019 14:01

I am utterly horrified. This article came up on my newsfeed and I am shocked that it has dropped so low and it's likely it will be dropped even further with the move to take victims phones.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-victims-phones-police-investigation-disclosure-forms-cps-a8888376.html?fbclid=IwAR00s8kr5yRHXzqN1xQqeoL95A6u1VYidBaPV-T0RPAe8sclst-b6b5aiFk

OP posts:

MissSueFlay · 30/04/2019 19:48

I have sat as a juror on a case of historic rape and indecent assault. The case against the defendant was really weak, I actually couldn't believe it had got to court - it came down to he-said-she-said. There was no physical evidence to support the allegations and no witnesses to the acts (multiple charges)

As jurors we were told that, to convict, we had to be absolutely sure and certain of guilt. Absolutely sure.

The judge & barristers ran the case very well, respectfully and gently.

We were unable to reach a verdict on the rape charges. The jury was split, some believed her, some didn't. I was one of the ones who just couldn't be absolutely sure he had raped her. It wasn't that I didn't believe her, I just couldn't be sure, and I don't feel good about it because I know that I've contributed to the appalling statistics.

He wasn't acquitted though, we didn't find him to be not guilty of the charge so it remains on record and he could be re-tried. We convicted for the indecent assault and he was sentenced to eight years. I hope she felt she got some kind of justice. I do feel that we let her down.

AngeloMysterioso · 30/04/2019 19:50

AuldJosey prosecution is when it’s taken to court and tried. Conviction is if they’re found guilty.

Charley50 · 30/04/2019 19:51

I'll read the full thread later (trying to cut down on mumsnet) but I'm horrified too. I'm horrified at the 'rough sex' defence, horrified that women are painted as culpable, horrified that the CPS were going to release John Worboys, and generally horrified in the casual way rape is reported in the media, as if it is a bit like having your bag nicked.

PicsInRed · 30/04/2019 19:54

I hope she felt she got some kind of justice. I do feel that we let her down.

If I were her I would feel like I'd hit all the lottery numbers, just for getting heard and believed. Not that this feeling isn't a sad indictment of the present system.

Loopytiles · 30/04/2019 19:58

She didn’t get justice. Half the jury didn’t believe her and those who did weren’t convinced there was evidence “beyond reasonable doubt”.

PicsInRed · 30/04/2019 19:59

The thing that finished my faith in the rape/domestic murder prosecution system was when murdering a woman during sex (or just adjusting the scene to make it look that way, why not? ) became an almost absolute get out of jail free card. And I thought it was bad when they could just say they were all emotional about a break up and she pushed them too far... and

I mean, men can basically rape and murder women with impunity now, just by saying it was a "game".

I don't want play anymore.

PicsInRed · 30/04/2019 20:00

It might not be justice, loopytiles, but it's the best women seem to be getting just now.

DecomposingComposers · 30/04/2019 20:06

Loopytiles

But this is the justice system that we have. If you were ever accused of a crime would you not be grateful that you had the opportunity to defend yourself and that the case against you had to be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Would you want to be on trial in a system where "on the balance of probabilities" was enough?

Asta19 · 30/04/2019 20:26

DecomposingComposers

The problem is though, as a pp pointed out, rape is often not witnessed by anyone else. With a murder you have a dead body. With theft you have witnesses, or missing items/money, etc etc. Rape often comes down to he says/she says. So to prove “beyond reasonable doubt” is always going to be an uphill battle.

I was anally raped. I am 50 years old and have never had anal sex in my life before. For one `I never wanted to and secondly I have terrible IBS (I allowed access to my medical records to police to prove this). I would never have consented to anal sex. And certainly not with a man I had met for the first time that night. Don’t you think a jury deserved to hear that, along with all the other evidence against this man, and have a chance to make up their own minds? Maybe they would have still decided they couldn’t be sure. Who can say. It never got far enough for me to find out. Since the rape my IBS has become uncontrollable. A mixture of the brutal rape and the stress.

The whole “beyond reasonable doubt” thing is why so few cases make it to Court in the first place. That needs to change.

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 20:27

OP, I agree, it’s sickening.... but what’s the answer? Is there an answer?

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 20:28

The whole “beyond reasonable doubt” thing is why so few cases make it to Court in the first place. That needs to change.

To what though?

AuldJosey · 30/04/2019 20:29

Two cases that I followed were the OJ Simpson trial and that other fella from South Africa - his name escapes me - sorry. He was an athlete and shot Riva Steenkamp?

I think the latter is actually serving time for murder after the initial judge finding him not guilty (not sure on this).

AuldJosey · 30/04/2019 20:32

That's why no-one is going to go for a rape trial unless they know it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt. And what does that need to be?
Basically, it's a dummies guide to rape. These bastards know what can get them off.

DecomposingComposers · 30/04/2019 20:33

Asta19

I think the CPS choosing to allow a case to proceed to trial is different to beyond reasonable doubt.

Why the CPS makes the decisions that it does is way beyond me. Often on the police documentaries you see them pushing for the CPS to charge and when they decide not to you can see the frustration.

Does anyone know how the CPS make these decisions?

When cases get to trial beyond reasonable doubt has to stand surely? What would have helped you Asta19? Would it have been more upsetting to go to trial, give evidence and then he get let off or never going to trial in the first place?

Prawnofthepatriarchy · 30/04/2019 20:34

God, that's awful, Asta19. So sorry that happened to you.

AssassinatedBeauty · 30/04/2019 20:34

The issue @DecomposingComposers is the underlying assumption by nearly everyone involved in getting a rape case to court, that women are probably lying. That because they can't 100% prove they didn't consent it means that they must have consented and are now lying.

It should be required for the defence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they had consent. Not that they believed they had consent, but that they had active and enthusiastic consent throughout. I don't much care how they might try to show that, but let's make assumptions about who's lying based on the inability to prove enthusiastic consent.

AuldJosey · 30/04/2019 20:34

It's virtually impossible without CCTV to prove rape. That's sad. Because you have jurors like the above poster who don't believe the victim. What can you do with that?

DecomposingComposers · 30/04/2019 20:39

@AssassinatedBeauty

But how do you prove active and enthusiastic consent throughout? Think about all of the instances when we have sex - how do could you prove that you had active and enthusiastic consent whenever you have had sex?

You are wanting to entirely flip our justice system here - the presumption of innocence will no longer exist. Do you want to defend yourself under these circumstances because I doubt that you are able to prove the consent of your partners to this level.

AssassinatedBeauty · 30/04/2019 20:41

I'd be happy to defend myself under those conditions.

It's not removing the presumption of innocence, it's removing the assumption of lying women. In any other crime, if the perpetrator claimed they had permission to do xyz they would be required to prove it.

pretzelfiend · 30/04/2019 20:42

the only upside is that with phones and CCTV being more available, more crimes are being recorded.

We need a different standard of proof to be able to take into account previous allegations in sexual assault and rape claims - it's the one crime where it's directly relevant to a person's word and if there are multiple allegations from different women it's much more likely to be true.

It looks as though the police are struggling overall - only 8 percent of reported crimes resulting in a summons, and rape has suffered most as probably one of the hardest kinds of case.

If I knew any woman that had been raped, I'd really struggle to encourage them to report - it's a humiliating ordeal with pitiful chances of success.

MissSueFlay · 30/04/2019 20:42

@loopytiles, she got justice for the indecent assault. And he wasn't found not guilty of the rape.

When you are on the jury, and you've heard the evidence, and you know that a conviction would change someone's life irrevocably, that they would be spending a significant amount of time in prison, THAT is why you have to be absolutely sure. And if you aren't sure then you should not convict, it wouldn't be right.

She said he raped her, and although I can say that my gut feeling was that I believed her, I couldn't be sure of it enough that I would convict him.

It really is one of this things where when you are on the jury, in the court etc. It really is very different to seeing cases on tv, or reading about cases in the press etc. It's very, very real.

Asta19 · 30/04/2019 20:42

What would have helped you

Going to trial would have helped me. Whatever the outcome. I could have sympathised with a jury and known they faced a tough decision. But I wanted to stand up publicly and have people hear what he did to me. I wanted my day in Court. I didn’t even want a screen when that was discussed because I wanted to look him in the eye and for him to know what he did to me. Whether he was found guilty or not. Me and him both know what he did and I wanted him to face that.

But the CPS won’t proceed without a rock solid case. Therefore the police won’t send to the CPS without a rock solid case. So victims like me get told “sorry. No further action” and get left to try and pick up the shattered pieces of our lives. While the man laughs his head off at how he got away with it.

I want to see more cases go to Court. Whether that results in more convictions or not. Because we need to be heard, not swept under the carpet.

pretzelfiend · 30/04/2019 20:46

I can see that logic - the effect of going to court and having it hang over you will have a deterrent effect whatever the overall outcome. That's a good point, maybe we shouldn't be so concerned about the conviction rate on this crime.

AuldJosey · 30/04/2019 20:47

They don't even care if you have consented to any one sexual act at all. Then it's 'ambiguous' apparently. How about I shove ambiguous up your hole??????? That's why my second rape didn't go past the CPS. I had consented to previous sexual acts and was then raped. But they couldn't proceed as there was ambiguity about consent. No. There wasn't. I said no, shouted no, pushed him away and then he penetrated me anyway. But that's a bit 'dodgy' in terms of testimony apparently.

Oakenbeach · 30/04/2019 20:47

@AssassinatedBeauty

Surely the only way you could prove (and even then it might not be enough) enthusiastic consent would be to video it from start to finish for various angles!

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6 ··· 11 12