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’m certainly not trying to tell you what you think. I said “you seem to think” which is a way of saying “this is what I understand from what you’ve posted”. If your reasoning was different, please explain it.

Someone I know was raped in a city centre street, recorded on CCTV, and the rapist was found innocent because they said she had consented, and she was drunk.

It just seems so backwards and frustrating that in 2023 rape is legal. The only penalty seems to be societal judgement. Op you are not the only person totally frustrated by this state of affairs even more so when considering that it is the most serious and devastating crime.
Even if the police stopped raping themselves and started investigating crimes properly and people came forward, even then the conviction rate would be absolutely crap compared with other serious crimes. This is because it just isn’t provable to a satisfactory level. You may believe a victim but to convict someone of a very serious heinous crime that just isn’t enough.
i would be very supportive of the idea upthread of reckless penetration but again, even with that in place, we need to realise as a society that rape is heinous yet unprovable and go from there really.
short of all wearing body cams then I can’t see a solution.

The trouble with the jury system is the public.

The Netherlands has similar rape prosecution rates to the U.K.

Do you have a source? I thought the Netherlands conviction rate was close to 10% of rape reports to police, but can’t recall where I got that.

Culture Wars was repeated again last night so I listened to it again. It did seem to be saying that in Spain now a man has to prove that he had consent. On Wikipedia it says this about the 'Only yes is yes law'.

"The law requires for a defendant to prove sexual consent was given, eliminated the offence of abuso sexual and merged it with agresión sexual (sexual assault), a charge that previously required proof of violence or intimidation."

@ElonGates666 I still fail to see how this could be applied to rape within the confines of a relationship (as mine was). Ok I probably said yes 99 times out of a 100 but it doesn't mean on the hundredth time I didnt say no

It can be really difficult to prove OP. In your situation it probably wouldn’t be possible to convict, though sometimes skilled interviewing can elicit a confession in the form of an admittance he just assumed consent/there was no way for you to refuse. It may be in Spain (and I don’t know how this law works there) that such a requirement makes it, effectively essential for the accused to give an account (otherwise he has no evidence of consent) and that account could give investigators hooks they can use to show he is lying. But even with significant resources that would be a long shot in a ltr I would think. Likely much more help in a date rape type scenario- if investigated well.

It seems that the new law in Spain has backfired and hasn't had the effect that they intended.

I remember a while ago on Woman's Hour I heard an Indian woman say that in India if a woman makes an accusation of rape and there is nothing in her account that is obviously untrue then the court will convict.

The claim about India sounds very woman friendly, but it’s not very believable is it?

@NumberTheory considering in India it's still legal to rape your wife I very much doubt this will be brought into force...

This is what I found online

".. where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent."

This comes from Section 114A in The Indian Evidence Act

OP, your situation sounds terrible, I’m sorry.

I’m just interested to know how it would be possible to convict rape if the rapist and the victim had had consensual sex at other times? It just seems like a ‘he said she said’ scenario with no evidence either way.

I think it’s a lot like emotional abuse in a relationship - so hard to prove and prosecute even though it can be just as damaging to the victim as physical abuse.

@Usernamen I think the only time I've heard it be proved is if there were messages eg someone saying they didn't want it and the other apologising, saying I know, etc. (or in my case well if you don't do it with me I'll find someone else and you know it)

In terms of emotional abuse/coercive control that wasn't a crime when I was in that situation but if the evidence on my phone would have been enough to prove it in that case. Easier to prove than rape definitely

What makes me angry and what I find shocking is that male on male rape cases seem to be treated more seriously and without the same attitude that women see (eg, what they were wearing, were you drunk, why didn't you fight back, etc).

I saw a few programs on rape on C4 and how it is dealt with and the stark difference with how the m on m rape is dealt with and how he is treated/believed is shocking when you compare it to m on f rape when the female victimseems more on trial and less believed.

The m on m one was around using grindr which is used for sex hook ups, yet the police, etc, don't mention that at all, (as they shouldn't) whereas on another program with m on f rape, the police officer actually says something like why didn't she fight/ no bruises and something about being drunk....like it made it ok or the victim's fault. Even in the case with 2 woman, against 1 rapist, the rapist was believed, whereas with male on male, it seems the victim's voice has more sway.

It's the difference in how they're treated and viewed that's wrong and shocking to me.

I'm not explaining myself very well, but it feels like another example of misogyny...eg, a man wouldn't lie about being raped, but a woman would, so a man's word is treated more seriously.

Yet we accept that people have bought legitimately from a shop does not mean they could shoplift.

I am going for jury service next week so this discussion has been very useful.

The difficulty is that the legislation and the process is woefully inadequate. Without a complete dismantling of the CPS this is not likely to change any time soon. Cross examination of the victim is no longer permitted in UK law which is actually detrimental - it means the victim cannot provide a detailed statement to the jury. A guilty verdict is dependent on the jury agreeing the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, without a proper testimony from the victim this is virtually impossible to decide. Also when reporting a rape the police are required by law to ask very invasive and accusatory questions which is very distressing.

If a woman is found to have been drugged, then she is a druggie party girl. If not, then it was consensual.
Ever liked rough sex? Ever had anyone say you like rough sex in a text? Then it was consensual.
Unless you are seen publically fighting and not giving up, how can it be proven. You meet a giy, chat and walk with him? Then you are on CCTV happily spending time. You go to his room for sex and he brings in two of his mates? No chance of proving that.

The burden of proof is insane. I did some work where I heard the stories and it was crazy how much the justice system is against women who are raped.

There is the further problem and most men think other men are like them. I find the idea repulsive, and it was not until I had a female partner who preferred reluctance duing sex that my eyes were opened to how different people are. The ones that are predatory think it natural, the ones that are not think it impossible to imagine.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67940103

20% less chance of a conviction with prerecorded evidence one reason may be because juries don't "build empathy" with a recording.

Whereas for many other crimes the victim statement is just taken as read.

"Cross examination of the victim is no longer permitted in UK law"

Not cross examined at all or just not permitting the accused to cross examin them directly where he's elected to represent himself?
If it's the former and accurate it's woefully short sighted.

If it's the latter it's reasonably proportionate and doesn't prejudice the accused greatly.

When did England bring that in?

Not sure the above is true, [when did Cymru bring that in?] But even if it were, why can't the complainant give a detailed account during the examination-in-chief. Their advocates can't ask 'leading' questions, but that's no real problem.

Well a big issue would be, if such a process were ever allowed, that defendants have to put their version of events to the prosecution witnesses if they wish to rely on it.

This is to the benefit the prosecution rather than the defence as it gives the witness a Chance to confirm, deny or comment on it and stops the defence from introducing new elements without relevant witnesses having had a chance to deny it.

If you stop cross-x of victims then you're left with 2 options.

1. The defence can now introduce new elements to the narrative (the witness called me in to room and said x,y,z) and the prosecution can't object on the basis that it was never put to the witness because the law forbid them from putting it to the witness. And evidence which is not refuted is taken to be accepted.

1. They're not allowed to introduce any element the witness hasn't touched upon which could massively prejudice their defence and would most likely end up with such a law being overturned down the line.

There was an online newspaper article I read the other day about a large area of a park, I think it was in Manchester, being completely closed off to the public while the police investigated a male rape.

I do sympathise with all rape victims , male or female , but would feel comfortable knowing that as much care and forensic information gathering was standard for all reported rapes. Maybe if it was the conviction rate for rape would rise.