Anyone else shocked by the rape statistics?

[Nothingyet]

I think this is shameful: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9698711/Shame-rape-justice-sex-offence-convictions-tumble.html

Thing is I've read of loads of cases where there was all sorts of evidence.

The idea it's he said/ she said that's the problem is appealing but not true.

Also bear in mind that women are not stupid. We know that the chances of getting anywhere have always been slim even before the recent worsened stats.

Women triage for themselves. Is there any point in reporting? Is it my word against his? Was I flirting with him? I'd had a drink. I went home with him. He has power/ has a job that makes him credible. Etc etc

Even before all this most women didn't report because we know, most of us, that's it's an awful process that most of the time ends in nothing.

[quote Graphista]@NiceGerbil are you a serving officer? [/quote]
No- why do you ask?

Thing is I've read of loads of cases where there was all sorts of evidence

Of course. I didn't mean to suggest that there is not, or will not be in the majority of cases.

The idea it's he said/ she said that's the problem is appealing but not true

It's true in the sense that, unlike a murder for example, where the pathology proves the victim did not die a natural death, the police have a dead body to begin with, a murder victim, it's undeniably the case that a crime has taken place. With some rape accusations, the police have to begin by ascertaining whether a crime has, in fact, taken place, then go about compiling evidence that is has.

Now obviously a post-mortem on a body does much the same thing, i.e. begin to answer the question of whether a crime has taken place, but with sexual crimes where there is no physical evidence, perhaps they are reported days, weeks, or years after the event, there is no 'smoking gun', or dead body, so you are working on the basis of verbal testimony being your starting 'evidence' that a crime has indeed taken place.

The police should, of course, believe absolutely every accusation brought to them, but unfortunately the simple fact that someone claims to have been raped is not going to be enough to form a case presentable to prosecutors when the accused is denying any crime took place. In the absence of any other evidence, you quite literally have a case of one person's version of events versus another's. How can you possibly proceed with criminal charges and a prosecution in those cases?

Again, I'm not suggesting those are a majority, or even a significant proportion of cases, but this is surely a complicating factor when you compare investigating sexual crimes, to the investigation required when it is empirically clear that a crime has taken place to begin with.

Later this month sentencing with be given to rapist who is charged with raping a minor and for two counts of sexual assault to a minor. The rapist is 15years old!!

My DS will be speaking to someone about a boy who is older 11/12? more so to identify if this kid to see if something going on there.

It’s fucking unbelievable and still shocks me how dismissive attitude are, it’s also fucking unbelievable that still theres this attitude boys will be boys or they just messing about.

The boys that will be adult men one day.

Thankfully the woman spoke who is unrelated to the close knit school has agreed it’s huge red flag the sexual actions of this boy.

My DS is terrified of this boy, he got angry and said doesn’t care about him or if does it to someone else just so long as never see him again as he terrified of him.

He got angry because told him about meeting her as hate it sprung on and he uncomfortable using certain words or not being able to describe it right & having to say things about his body which I get what he means in it’s like being vulnerable and violated again, also repeating sexually language as that not him it what boy said which he didn’t like.

And that is nothing compared what you have to go through before u even get it to court.

I didn't quite follow that but it sounds really difficult facts. I hope your son is ok.

'The police should, of course, believe absolutely every accusation brought to them, but unfortunately the simple fact that someone claims to have been raped is not going to be enough to form a case presentable to prosecutors when the accused is denying any crime took place.'

OMG! Thank you. I thought that if a woman said she had been raped that was it, the man went to prison! I had no idea there had to be evidence and stuff.

The stats make perfect sense now!

Out of interest, what about this small point that hardly any women report, and for many it's because they look at what happened and think, there's no point. Because there's no evidence. It will be my word against his. No chance of that getting anywhere.

@NiceGerbil it was the phrase "my Force" made me think maybe you were an officer

Women triage for themselves definitely!

unlike a murder for example, where the pathology proves the victim did not die a natural death

The exception of "rough sex gone wrong" murders though

I understand what you're saying in reference to rapes and assaults where there's little to no physical evidence.

But there have been a number of widely publicised rape trials where there was an abundance of distressing physical evidence inc evidence of extreme violence and the rapists have got off scot free! Most especially where the accused is a "celebrity" or otherwise rich and powerful. Proving that women's (and children's) bodily autonomy can effectively be bought even without their being involved in the transaction!

Rapists getting reduced sentences because they have a rich father or "old school tie" connections often described as 'they wouldn't cope in prison they're too sensitive' type bollocks - well don't commit a fucking serious crime then!

A perpetrators background should have ZERO to do with prosecution or sentencing

Ah I see

No I was ranting about the met. They've been my force for over 40 years. They're appalling. Mine as in I live in London

'A perpetrators background should have ZERO to do with prosecution or sentencing'

Unless it shows s pattern of behaviour etc.

I never understand why the victims background is scrutinised but not the accused.

Out of interest, what about this small point that hardly any women report, and for many it's because they look at what happened and think, there's no point. Because there's no evidence. It will be my word against his. No chance of that getting anywhere

What about it?

I was actually asking that question myself in a round-about way. What are the police supposed to do in circumstances where there is an accusation but no corroborating evidence, or at least the evidence is insubstantial or weak? Submit it to prosecutors, try the case, and watch it fall apart in minutes in the courts, simply to bump up the statistics for cases brought to trial?

I can't see how that would encourage more women to persist with reporting when all it would do is shift the balance from a lack of prosecutions to an overwhelming majority of cases resulting in an acquittal or being thrown out before a trial even takes place.

Sure, you might encourage a few simply because they might believe that the case would at least be prosecuted, but how is justice served in any way by cases continually failing to result in a conviction? Is that genuinely a progressive step? I think you could easily argue that all that would achieve would be to further entrench attitudes that huge numbers of rape accusations are entirely fictitious, and put even more women off due to the even longer, more traumatic process that still results in no conviction.

I also can't see how you are going to convince prosecutors to try cases they know haven't a hope in hell of achieving a conviction, or have the courts persist in entertaining them.

Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially, I don't see how it's really possible to make any inroads here with the strictures of the justice system being what they are.

I totally accept that there is undoubtedly more the police could be doing, and that what they do already needs constant scrutiny, because it's self-evident women are being failed given the statistics published yesterday, but the biggest failing does not appear to lie with the courts or our judicial system.

As a rape survivor, nothing surprises me, I fully understand why many victims don't bother to report rapes, why put yourself through the investigations & intrusions in to your private life for there to be no outcome. I wnt through all the video interview where I had to relive what my then husband did to me & being questioned about had I had sex with anyone else & how often I had sex with my husband, did I enjoy sex, to weeks later have a detective sergeant sit in my parents living room shout at me that I was making the rape up to get back at my husband because he was living in my house. It didn't matter that I had tried to commit suicide & had been diagnosed with PTSD because of what he had done to me or the fact I had ended up at A & E with an infection due to the damage he did when he raped me.

Saddened but not shocked.

What really disgusts me is women's underwear being used as evidence.
After the case where the woman was raped by 2 Irish rugby players. Where rugby players are seen as God's. And women were supporting the men over the victim.

And men representing themselves in court, being allowed to cross examine a person they raped, further adding to a woman/girls trauma.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Out of interest, what about this small point that hardly any women report, and for many it's because they look at what happened and think, there's no point. Because there's no evidence. It will be my word against his. No chance of that getting anywhere

What about it?

I was actually asking that question myself in a round-about way. What are the police supposed to do in circumstances where there is an accusation but no corroborating evidence, or at least the evidence is insubstantial or weak? Submit it to prosecutors, try the case, and watch it fall apart in minutes in the courts, simply to bump up the statistics for cases brought to trial?

I can't see how that would encourage more women to persist with reporting when all it would do is shift the balance from a lack of prosecutions to an overwhelming majority of cases resulting in an acquittal or being thrown out before a trial even takes place.

Sure, you might encourage a few simply because they might believe that the case would at least be prosecuted, but how is justice served in any way by cases continually failing to result in a conviction? Is that genuinely a progressive step? I think you could easily argue that all that would achieve would be to further entrench attitudes that huge numbers of rape accusations are entirely fictitious, and put even more women off due to the even longer, more traumatic process that still results in no conviction.

I also can't see how you are going to convince prosecutors to try cases they know haven't a hope in hell of achieving a conviction, or have the courts persist in entertaining them.

Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially, I don't see how it's really possible to make any inroads here with the strictures of the justice system being what they are.

I totally accept that there is undoubtedly more the police could be doing, and that what they do already needs constant scrutiny, because it's self-evident women are being failed given the statistics published yesterday, but the biggest failing does not appear to lie with the courts or our judicial system.

I think you misunderstand the point I'm making.

My point is that women think, will this get anywhere. And if they think probably not. Then they don't report it.

The women who report are generally the ones who think, there's stuff that backs up what I'm reporting.

Are there attitudes that 'huge' numbers of rape reports are 'entirely' fictitious?

I know that some people assume rape victims (are you thinking of women only? Or including children and men?) are pretty much always lying (for ??? reasons) but I don't know that those attitudes are totally normal and widespread. That's a big claim.

I don't understand why you think I'm suggesting putting cases to court no matter what.

'Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially'... Have I said that? Has anyone said that? No. You jumped too fast on that.

Nat6999 I am so sorry.

Women are being failed massively on this.

You were very brave. Very very brave.

Take care. You did the right thing. You were strong to do what you did. You are strong xx

Torvean I remember s case with a girl who had been abused by many men. Each man had a barrister and they all got to question her at length. It was outrageous.

want to ask you once more why you are telling lies?" demands defence barrister Tayyab Khan. He is cross-examining a witness on her evidence relating to the multiple violent rapes she suffered at the instigation of a child-grooming gang operating in the West Midlands.

"No," she says. "I'm not telling lies." She breaks down, but the court transcript shows the barrister pressing the point. "You're a compulsive liar," he states. She's shouting and crying now. "Was you there? Was you there?" she asks.

You're telling lies," Khan insists again. "No, I'm not, shut up, shut up!" she shouts. She's clearly distressed, but this seems not to bother him as he continues with his line of questioning regardless.

Khan's client, Ahdel Ali, was convicted of crimes including the rape of a 13-year-old and multiple sexual offences with children as part of a three-year investigation called Operation Chalice – but not before the main victim in the trial, a girl called Abby, was aggressively cross-examined by seven barristers every day for three weeks. Each represented a different man charged with sexually exploiting her over two years, and all in turn had their go at testing not only her evidence relating to their client, but also calling into question her integrity, lifestyle and issues of consent. Seven men were eventually convicted as a result of Operation Chalice, one of the first cases dealing with grooming of the kind that last week saw the conviction of seven men in Oxford for preying on vulnerable girls.'

Sorry that was from this, about the case I posted about.

amp.theguardian.com/law/2013/may/19/lawyers-oxford-abuse-ring

Are there attitudes that 'huge' numbers of rape reports are 'entirely' fictitious?

Every report I can recall suggests that rates of false claims are vastly overestimated by the general public. The BBC article alludes to this. And yes, I'm including 'children and men' given that I can't recall any statistics that were based on the attitudes of women exclusively.

I don't understand why you think I'm suggesting putting cases to court no matter what

I don't think that at all.

'Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially'... Have I said that? Has anyone said that? No. You jumped too fast on that

Again, an entirely rhetorical 'you'.

You asked a question, so I quoted you given that I wanted to address your question, but my responses are rhetorical, hence my use of question marks. I didn't mean to imply you were suggesting anything at all, I'm simply extrapolating on what I see as potential pitfalls as a means to provoke some discussion on your point about women being reluctant to report.

So to that end, what do you personally think could be done to encourage more women to report short of 'convict more rapists', because as I see it, that isn't going to happen simply because the problem has been acknowledged. It's obvious it's going to require some pretty dramatic changes, I'm interested in the what and how.

You still haven't responded to the point that most women triage their own attack when considering to report. Women know that he said/ she said is very unlikely to get anywhere. And that the process is very difficult. And so they don't report.

'
I'm simply extrapolating on what I see as potential pitfalls as a means to provoke some discussion on your point about women being reluctant to report.'

You extrapolated from the very low rate of reporting, to, 'Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially,'.

That's quite a massive extrapolation.

You still haven't responded to the point that most women triage their own attack when considering to report. Women know that he said/ she said is very unlikely to get anywhere. And that the process is very difficult. And so they don't report.

I'm not sure what 'response' you are expecting me to make? I acknowledge it, recognise it, accept the truth of it. What else can I say?

You extrapolated from the very low rate of reporting, to, 'Unless you are talking about somehow reducing the burden of proof required substantially,'.

That's quite a massive extrapolation.

Yes, your point?

Did you read the case about the girl being cross examined for 3 days?

Do you have a view on that?

And here's one from the news today. Interested on your comments.

There are stories like this in the news all the time.

Let's not extrapolate. Let's talk about some actual cases and see what happened.

You might say that one off individual cases are not relevant to the whole picture.

I say, each case like this, and similar stories are in the news all the time, is a real person who has been failed. And each report is read by lots of women who think. Well. There's no point reporting really.

www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/west-yorkshire-news/woman-raped-father-takes-legal-20828565

'Miss Higgins reported the abuse to the police in 1985, 2005, 2012, 2014. But her claims were only finally investigated when she complained for a fifth time in 2015.'

So you acknowledge that saying the stats are poor because it's he said she said, is incorrect because women in that situation generally don't report.

You agree that you made a massive extrapolation. And so the fact I don't understand why you want to discuss the results of your massive extrapolation is understandable I imagine.

I never understand why the victims background is scrutinised but not the accused.

Well quite!

@XDownwiththissortofthingX you seem oddly determined to lay the fault solely on police! Are you a lawyer?

Yes SOME cases may not have enough evidence, BUT we KNOW (because they've been in the news!) that some cases haven't been prosecuted because the victim 'comes across as unsympathetic' or for goodness knows what reasons its 'not in the public interest' or the victim has been SO traumatised by the process up to the trial point they cannot face giving evidence (and who could blame them) which is being addressed somewhat by the plan point of victims giving pre-recorded evidence...

It's not always because of a lack of evidence

@Nat6999 I'm so sorry for what you went through that is disgusting and should never have happened

Each man had a barrister and they all got to question her at length. It was outrageous.

Yea this kinda crap needs to stop!

and issues of consent.

Yea when the victim is a minor I feel the defence shouldn't be allowed to direct questioning to imply or even directly say there was consent and the jury should be clearly told there WAS no possibility of consent as they are underage - keeps it simple and correct

Regarding what and how -

As i said earlier I'm very much "an oz of prevention is worth a Lb of cure"

But yes failing that:

Address recruitment of police officers to weed out misogynists certainly at least extreme misogynists - and I certainly don't just mean men! I think the first to go should be that appalling excuse for an officer leading the met!

Train officers in how to properly deal with victims reporting - ALL officers not just those working in rape investigation roles because the first person a victim reports to is usually a desk officer

Standardise how a reported rape or sexual assault or other sexual crimes are recorded and processed, I feel this really needs to be a different process than for other crimes.

How forces deal with such crimes needs to be overseen and audited more often and more closely than for other crimes - at least for a while as we start to redress the balance

It should be easier to complain about/report officers who are arses like the one @Nat6999 had to deal with - he should no longer be in the police, but I've dealt with arsehole officers myself and my brother also says it's way too hard to get rid of bad officers, not impossible but far too hard.

Cps - again recruitment and training needs to be seriously looked at. Not all lawyers and admins are suited to the roles in this dept but it's not a sought after job really which means it tends to get the people who aren't good enough to work elsewhere. Not always, but often.

Standardisation and improvements on how cases are assessed as to whether they should be prosecuted or not. Personally I think there should NEVER be a rape case not prosecuted as 'not in the public interest', if there's a serious lack of evidence I can understand that being a possible reason but otherwise they should be prosecuted.

I do think there's an argument for selecting judges who have more sense around these issues - but then tbh I would sack the arsehole judges that make judicial comments that are victim blaming crap! Maybe that's just me but I don't think such people should BE judges at all!

Ditto the lawyers on both sides of the case should have specialist training on such cases. Not all law is the same not even all criminal law is the same

Juries - there should be a set of remarks drawn up that should be read to every jury serving in such a case in hopes of swaying their minds AWAY from the copious rape myths

Sentencing - personally? I'd make rape a mandatory life sentence if convicted and no parole whatsoever. I'd do the same with murder. Lock em up throw away the key. I don't hold with death sentence not because I'm a softy but because it's an easy way out for perpetrator, let em live in misery, death sentence makes us as bad as them and on the rare occasion of a false conviction there's a possibility of some kind of remedy. But yea other than that they don't deserve to live in decent society - plus deterrent! I'd certainly ban community sentencing crap! Always a custodial sentence for crimes of this nature

I'd also bring in laws about how such crimes are reported in the mainstream media (precious little we can do with sm but we can try) - ban victim blaming and the use of rape myths. Make those reporting stick strictly to the facts AND to rules around anonymity. I'm generally a huge advocate of a free press (which we don't really have anyway!) but there are limits! Sensational, biased against victims reporting needs to go!

Will that do for starters?

Did you read the case about the girl being cross examined for 3 days?

Do you have a view on that?

Yes. It's outrageous.

Again, I'm interested in what practical changes you think could be made in order to encourage more women to report, and also those necessary to increase rates of prosecution and successful conviction?

This, for example, seems perfectly reasonable to me -

'Rantzen suggests cross-examination of vulnerable complainants should be filmed before the trial and carried out by the judge, supplied with relevant questions by the defence. But what if more questions emerge later as a result of new information or additional arrests?

"The lord chief justice has gone on the record to say you just go back and ask further questions of the child," she says.'

And here's one from the news today. Interested on your comments.

I thought I'd already made it clear I believe the police are by far and away the biggest problem here, so I don't know what I can add beyond saying that I'm not particularly surprised. It's shocking, but not surprising, to me at least.

you seem oddly determined to lay the fault solely on police! Are you a lawyer?

I've never once said I believe the problem is solely the police.

What I have said is that I think it's self-evident that when courts are convicting two thirds of the cases prosecuted, but only 3% or reports result in criminal charges, where by far and away they biggest institutional failing is.

You can argue that non-reporting is an even bigger problem and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you, but with regards to the organisations involved in the process of investigating and prosecuting rape, and administering justice, yes, I absolutely do see the police as carrying most of the blame. Not all, most.