Rape Convictions

[InAMess2023]

Apologies for the heavy thread so close to Christmas. This has been weighing heavily on my mind, not sure what I'm even asking for but sick of feeling utterly powerless.

I'm currently receiving therapy after an abusive relationship which included rape, it ended a long time ago but I'd never really processed those feelings. Plus I didn't even appreciate that's what was happening as a) he was my partner, and b) it was more just allowing him to do what he wanted to me because the alternative (physical hurt) wasn't worth it.

But then you learn that only 1% of rape cases end in prosecution - you pretty much need a witness or confession! I never thought about it until it was brought up in my therapy group that any member of the public can sit on a jury and bring in their preconceptions. There's a famous case I've followed closely and almost every comment from men implies that it's false allegations, the woman is a gold digger, she deserved it due to what she was wearing/past history, women lie all the time etc etc etc. just this morning someone responded to me calling me a 'slag' - just for disagreeing with female abuse.

Question is what the hell can be done about it?! Apparently there is a petition to get any jury members in this type of case to undertake 'rape myth' training but I doubt it will do much good. I know I'll never get justice for myself but I just feel so powerless that so many others never will either! I'd love to be able to actively do something about this but I'm at a total loss...

Thanks for reading if you got this far and Merry Christmas!

I asked something similar here some time ago. Could the law or prosecution process be improved and what is it like in other countries. Do they do it better. Generally the response was that few countries have better outcomes, and the scandi countries are surprisingly not at the forefront of success.
My own feeling is that like turning the acceptance on smoking it is a long and niggling journey, prodding and poking is necessary and constant advocacy needed. Push the "reclaim the night", push for multi lingual leaflets and communications, push for protests outside lapdancing - get as close to a joint consensus from women/feminists - if half are saying prostituton is liberating girl power and half that it is treating women as objects, only the abusers win. Push more about rape within a relationship. Push, push push.

I was listening to the radio today and there was a programme called 'culture wars'. I think it said that in Spain now a man has to prove that he had consent.

One possibility that the Netherlands use and Scotland talked about piloting is having non-jury rape trials, heard by a professional judge who is trained to understand the sorts of biases that might lead to an unjust verdict.

Another possibility would be to massively increase the police budget for investigations and to start treating every report as one crime of a serial offender, searching for other victims and building more complex cases that corroborate by presenting unconnected victims who experience similar treatment. (Need to improve officer treatment of witnesses too - which would be a lot easier with bigger budgets and specialist teams).

But how do you do that? Actual proof?

That's what I don't understand.

I genuinely can't see either how consent can be proved... for example, my ex raped me repeatedly during our relationship but there were also times when I had sex with him consensually. We didn't produce written evidence each time!

For a court case, the evidence would be your statement.

Thanks to shows like CSI people seem to think that evidence must be infallible and science based. But with most crimes convictions are based on witness statements. The question becomes - does the jury believe the witness beyond a reasonable doubt. Corroboration from other independent witnesses helps juries believe them and rape cases rarely have that, they are always going to be trickier crimes to prosecute than a punch up in front of witnesses. Which is why I think looking for other victims is an important step. But also skillful questioning of a suspect, along with an investigation that gathers as much other evidence around the incident(s) as possible can bring out small things that support the victim’s version of events over the accused’s - from physical evidence of force, to CCTV evidence, or neighbours who overhear shouting, etc.

Unfortunately, jury’s often take a view that any doubt at all, no matter how unreasonable, is enough to take the view the woman might be lying.

As someone who has just sat on a jury for a rape case (oral) I am saddened, disappointed and angry. Awful old fashioned views, from male and females. All looking for some sort of smoking gun or better injuries. I still feel sickened.

Oh @RausageSoul this is exactly my worry 😢 the worst attack I suffered the police claimed I could have strangled myself and ripped off my own clothes... what hope do any of us have when that's coupled with the attitudes that are so prevalent still

Isn't that close to guilty until proven innocent?

Consent is an intangible concept. Without a witness of CCTV it boils down to on person's word against another's. Conclusive proof is often not possible.

In theory, this is also true in a lot of theft cases. Theft isn’t theft if the owner consents to something being taken. People willingly give or exchange things all the time. Yet juries often come to a conclusion without needing CCTV evidence.

I’m not suggesting theft and rape are similar, just pointing out that juries deal with intangible ideas quite a bit. Evaluating who is telling the truth when there are conflicting accounts is part of what they are supposed to be doing. Which is why the “awful old fashioned views” that RausageSoul encountered are a problem for justice in a jury trial.

Fair point.
But in the majority of theft cases possession is - in some ways - proof of a crime.

Most rapes take place in exactly the same circumstances as consensual sex - very few are the stranger in a dark ally type.

Consent or lack of it will very often be very difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know what can be done. I would like to keep trail by jury, innocent until proven guilty and guilt established beyond reasonable doubt for all crimes.

@Qwerty556 yes I feel like that is one of the biggest myths that needs to be dispelled, the 'stranger down a dark alley'. I even had someone earlier today say to me that rape should have been able to be proved in a hospital setting 🙄 in my own case I was raped repeatedly by someone I'd also had consensual sex with hundreds of times... so I had no way of ever proving it. But I guess when the police also claimed I could have strangled myself it shows what we're up against

Sweden were able to increase their conviction rate by specifically removing any need for their to be coercion, threat of violence etc, here it is also clear that people who are drunk cannot consent and nor can those with a power dynamic etc. They also introduced a seperate offence negligent rape, supposedly where consent isn’t established, but for the cases where rape is harder to prove it does provide another option that is easier to prove for victims. They are also bringing in a requirement for jury members to have specific training around the complexity of rape cases. Here rather than presuming innocence, what the jury actually decide is whether or not consent was given, the accused essentially has to prove that consent was given, rather than the victim having to prove they did not consent. Changes in Sweden increased convictions by around 75%.

Conviction rates are still too low, but they’re going in the right direction.

Possession is no more proof of theft than sex having taken place is proof of rape.

Pretty much my whole post was pointing out that consent is an element in many crimes - but culturally we aren’t primed to disbelieve someone who says they’ve been stolen from in the same way we’re primed to disbelieve someone who says they’ve been raped.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm just saying that proof beyond reasonable doubt is significantly more difficult to show in rapes cases as there will very often be zero evidence. This is sometimes true with theft but much less often. In theft cases where there is no evidence I'd image the thief won't see the inside of a police station let alone a prison.

I post regularly on these threads, this is what I would do if I was in charge:

1. introduce a lesser crime of "reckless penetration" for cases where the man hadn't done enough to check the woman was capable of consent and had consented. Sex with a woman so drunk she couldn't speak? Reckless. Sex in the dark with a woman who might think you were someone else? Reckless. Sex with your wife who is asleep? Reckless. It would be all about the man's actions and not so much about the woman's
2. remove the "reasonable belief in consent" clause - any cases of that type would be charged as "Reckless penetration" not rape
3. move to an inquisitorial (fact finding) as opposed to adversarial trial system
4. victim statements to be taken as read, no cross exam of victims (unless there is a clear compelling reason to believe they lied)
5. educate juries on rape myths or even better don't allow certain defences (e.g. "gold digger")

There is a lot of change coming and massive improvements - have a research and the changes and new model will result in further charges and convictions

@AdamRyan those cases you mention ARE still rape though and it sits very uncomfortably with me that you would recommend treating them as a lesser crime, especially the last example of someone being asleep!

I am trying to think about how to secure convictions, not how serious an offence it is. At the moment it cones across to me like being "falsely accused" of rape seems worse than anything else so too many rapists are getting away with it. Coupled with the "reasonable belief" clause which puts the belief of the rapist above the experience of the victim.

Making a scenario where the man could say he "believed" she consented but its still a crime because he didn't do enough to be sure would increase convictions.

We shouldn't have to do this but I can't see another way.

Again, to emphasis, these aren’t cases with no evidence. The victim’s statement is evidence. A medical exam confirming sex has taken place is evidence. As are photos of injuries, DNA on clothing, ripped clothing, etc. What we rarely have in rape cases are independent witnesses. Theft cases without independent witnesses certainly do get investigated, people arrested, charged and prosecuted.

What they don’t tend to have, even when the accusations are between people who know each other, is an underlying current of belief that runs throughout the prosecution from the moment the report is made, and regardless of any lack of corroboration for the idea, that the accuser is quite likely to be making it up because that’s what women do.

The accused statement is evidence too; of equal weight and value.

A medical exam confirming sex has taken place is not evidence of rape. In the vast majority of rape cases nobody denies sex has taken place.

We are of no further forward.

We’re no further forward because you have ignored what I pointed out at the beginning.

The accused’s testimony (they don’t provide statements in the same way as witnesses) is evidence too. But the relative weight and value of evidence is weighed by the jury. Juries have to decide who they believe. Which is why the rape myths that are so prevalent in society make rape convictions harder. Many jurists are primed to disbelieve women who say they were raped - regardless of how convincing the accused’s version of events is.

You seem to think that in any crime if one person says “it happened like this” and another person said “no, it happened like this.” then, absent an independent witness, the jury can’t possibly convict. This isn’t the case.

Thank god a feminist was around to tell me what I was thinking.