The police seem to be unwilling to investigate allegations of rape. Why?

[Solopower]

It seems that the police are still not taking rape seriously as a crime. Either they don't believe the victim, or they just think it would be too difficult to prove - but why are they letting (mainly) women down like this?
www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/08/metropolitan-police-rape-victims-detective-arrested?newsfeed=true

Bindell and Townsend had a piece in the Observer at the weekend on the Met's Saphire unit.

AlisonJayne, just to say I am so sorry - as the mother of sons I completely understand your anguish - wishing you and your poor boys the very best - hope it is all soon sorted for him

thankyou Mrs Guy, we are struggling to cope but we will get through for our sons sake, its been the worst time of our lives and he has been through hell and will need help afterwards as i expect his view of females now is very low and id hate for this to ruin his life. Rape is terible and should be properly investigated and we are glad they are doing everything and we understand, but he is going through hell i have cried buckets, my lovley son up against this nasty girl but we are strong as he is innocent and god is good and i believe truth will come out thankyou for ur kind words

AlisonJayne, just sending you hugs, and your lovely boy is lucky he has you to support him - please stay strong.

I will, i have too, just want my boy back happy again not afraid to go outside the door! i will let you know update when we go back and find out. my prayes will have been answered then and i will never moan about anything again as its nothing compared to this. its not always the young girls we need to protect theres a lot of sick people out there as well. thankyou

Alisonjayne, I don't know you or your son but for what it is worth, I thought fastidiablues comment was disgusting.
Statistically she/he may or may not be right, but to throw that line at you when you are going through it all is callous in the extreme.
Good luck with your boy.

And why is the conviction rate so low (7%?)

Several reasons (and I'm not condoning these, just stating them as I see it)

1. Rape by stranger is rare. The majority of rapists are known to the victim. And by it's very nature usually no-one else is there meaning there are no witnesses and it often comes down to his word against hers.

2. Forensic evidence is often of little value. The man isn't disputing he had sex, just that it was consensual. Unless he beat her to a pulp, he will simply argue any DNA gathered is as a result of consensual sex. Ripped clothing will be put down to the heat of the moment.

3. Victims often do not report the rape straight away for a variety of reasons. Meaning any physical evidence is often gone and plenty of time for the rapist to get their story straight.

4. Because of the adversarial nature of our court system, the victim has to relive her ordeal again, retelling the moment again and again whilst being cross-examined by a hostile barrister. Any hesitation or doubt is pounced upon as the victim lying.

5. Any conviction must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Given 1) and the lack of 2) & 3), juries hands are practically tied.

In that sort of context it's probably not that the police don't want to convict a rapist but more they are possibly more realistic on the chances of conviction.

One thing I do think would help matters is if anyone is proven to have falsely claimed rape then the book should be thrown at her. It's people like that who make it 10x harder for genuine victims.

niceguy - well put.
If rape accusations could be fast tracked, (like they managed with teh riots last year ) with anonymity for both parties this would help immeasurably.
I am disgusted that every man accused of rape appear to be convicted by the 'mumnset jury' - those who are signed up to the 'we believe you' thread - on the basis of no knowledge of the detail - should be barred permamently from jury service.

The reason Mners believe rape victims is because the amount of "false" rape charges is so very tiny. About the same for any crime actually.

And I am literally LOL at your crack about jury service. HAhahaha!

"In that sort of context it's probably not that the police don't want to convict a rapist but more they are possibly more realistic on the chances of conviction.". Doesn't really explain the behaviour reported In the article I linked to. Or things like the lack of early investigation and intervention in the Rochdale scandal does it?

I agree that the points you made can be a part of the low conviction rate. Except for 5. Juries frequently convict in cases where it is the case of a witnesses word. They just need to believe the victim but find the accused implausible. I think this is where our culture really harms women. Things like Galloways - "in the sex game" comment illustrates the assumption of consent to sex that society holds. If, as a society we understood that consent is an active thing not a passive one, if we actually wondered - hold on, how did you know she wanted sex? Instead of, how would you have known she didn't want sex? - I think there would be a lot more justice in rape cases without any need to change anything else.

Yes but NameGames, there are no witnesses. So the jury cannot convict based upon the defendant's word alone. It's the way our court system works.

It would be incredibly dangerous to have a system where the victim's word is given more credibility than the accused's.

As for Galloway, the guy has always been an idiot and it is a feature of democracy that idiots will always say what they want regardless of how unpalatable their words are. I don't for a minute think his opinion reflects most people in this country. Just in the same way that Nick Griffith's is a racist but just because he opens his mouth doesn't mean we have a huge problem with racism.

Can the police do better? I'm sure they could and should. It's how they do so which is the difficult question to answer.

Clearly in any situation where there are no witnesses or other evidence, ther cannot be a safe conviction. That's just life, cannot expect the police to be able to do anything. Last week a guy drove inot my car. Thee were no witnesses, his word against mine, so how can I establish his fault? I can't - its just bad luck, chalk it up to experience and try to avoid situations like that in the future.

So are you saying then that rape can never be proven as there are no witnesses? And that all rape convictions are basically unsafe?

If it is agreed sex has taken place, and the disagreement is whether the man believed there was consent, then how can you arbitrate as to who is telling the truth?

niceguy the victim is a witness. The credibility of any witness or defendant is decided by the jury. That is the way our court system works for all crime. I'm saying juries would find rapists' excuses much less credible if society generally (and so most juries) didn't subscribe to the idea that women are in a general state of concent to sex. They would be asking themselves "how did he know she wanted to?" rather than "did she really say no?". And I think that would lead to a lot more justice.

Courts decide on all sorts of cases where there are no witnesses apart from the victim. Rape is not unique. Theft, assault, criminal damage. These are frequently taken to court without other witnesses or forensic evidence.

Can you answer my question please? I'll post it again.

So are you saying then that rape can never be proven as there are no witnesses? And that all rape convictions are basically unsafe?

If it is agreed sex has taken place, and the disagreement is whether the man believed there was consent, then how can you arbitrate as to who is telling the truth?
How you suggest a jury decides?

Are we playing a game of asking each other questions and replying with questions?

Meh. I can't even be arsed.

childrenofthestones i agree the comment was nasty and no need for it. i have a son and two daughters and im always there to protect them but i never thought id have to protect my son from a girl, thats what im doing now though! and its very sick and yes it makes genuine rape victims less likely to get convictions, so she is very silly girl.

Maybe trail by jury isn't a good idea for rape trails

It happens.I'm proof.I was not believed because of what i was wearing.I said no quite a few times.But they made me feel awful.I was underage that didn't matter either

i know it happens and im very sorry it happened to you truly x i have two daughters as well as my son, but all im saying is there are some false accusers out there too, i know coz my son is going through it real bad and i think it makes it tougher on real rape victims like you to get the real rapists put away, thats why police must investigate fully and they are in my sons case, it has been going on 8 months now but we understand why but again he is innocent .

So are you saying then that rape can never be proven as there are no witnesses? And that all rape convictions are basically unsafe?

No, what I'm saying is that our courts require in criminal cases for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the offence took place.

It is not the job of the defendant to prove his/her innocence. In other words it is down to the prosecution to prove rape happened.

So if there is no other evidence available and the whole thing boils down to one person saying there was consent and another saying there was not. Then I can't see how there is a case.

What I think is dangerous is for juries to start with the premise that a woman should be automatically believed more than a man. As Alisonjayne's example shows, false allegations can & do happen. Would this help her son if the police & juries put more faith in the woman's words just because she's a woman?

Innocent until proven guilty. I've been arrested myself for a crime I didn't commit. Let me tell you that when you are sat in a cell for something you didn't do, you quickly realise the value of this principle. And as hard as it is, I can't see any justification for watering down this principle just to secure a higher conviction rate. Because there's a good chance an innocent person may be sent to prison.