Harriet Harman's 'misleading' Rape figures

[atlantis]

"The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. In fact, the conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime.

Her (Lady Stern ) report said: 'The figure for convictions of those charged with rape as the term is normally used is actually 58 per cent.

'There is concern that the six per cent figure can make victims feel it is not worth reporting.' "

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.ht ml

I take the point, but I can't see the relevance. Harriet Harman's figures represent the reality of reporting this crime and achieving a conviction and are therefore more useful to me.

I think Lady stern is right, if someone had cancer and the dr said you have a 6 per cent chance of surviving you'd make your will and say goodbye but if the dr said you have a 2 out of 3 chance of living you'd fight your corner, is this any different?

"re cancer, what a weird analogy. victims of rape who report it have already 'fought their corner' by going to the police, the police and the cps decide whether or not to bring charges, not the victim. "

But they are not reporting it and that's the problem.

"it is myths and entrenched bad attitudes about rape that scare victims off reporting it, not harriet harman"

It's the 'myths' that she is perpetuating.

Er, they are reporting it. Hence the fact that only 6% or reported rapes end in conviction.

I was told they have to be 80% sure of a conviction to prosecute and even then not all are. You have no chance if you wasn't jumped by a stranger in the street and beaten up as you tried to fight back.

f someone had cancer and the dr said you have a 6 per cent chance of surviving you'd make your will and say goodbye but if the dr said you have a 2 out of 3 chance of living you'd fight your corner, is this any different?

this is more like if doctors decided to treat only a certain number of cancer patients. of that number, 2/3 get better. however, these people are only 6% of all cancer sufferers.

frankly i would make a will.

the onus is not on rape victims to do anything here.

Yes Atlantis, it is different from your weird cancer analogy.
The reality if that if a woman reports that she is raped most likely her assailant will not be convicted.
I think this Daily Mail article is very carefully spun to give it an anti-Harriet Harman angle, it doesn't reflect the report. They have actually been very negative about Baroness Stern in the past. Now she's flavour of the month, just to suit them. Readers' comments say it all - nasty stuff.

"The reality if that if a woman reports that she is raped most likely her assailant will not be convicted."

By continually publicising the 6% figure the victim is less likely to do anything, less likely to report it, but if you say 2 out of 3 rapists are convicted more victims will likely step forward and report the crime.

The only people disuading rape victims from reporting the crimes are the ones who continually persuade them with misleading figures that it is not worth them reporting it.

And yes if you tell someone with cancer 'you are going to die' they will not bother to fight it, if you tell them there is a good chance they will survive then they believe it. Both are psychological victims of the statistics.

"The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. In fact, the conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime."

What this statistic is telling me is that not enough rape cases are being charged and prosecuted - that the CPS is a bit too reluctant to make a case.

That's interesting, no?

I really don't understand this disparity- can someone explain it?

Ah, right, I see. Thanks for explaining- that makes sense to me now.

"Why is it worth reporting it when you only have a six per cent chance of seeing your rapist convicted.."

That's exactly my point Dittany, women are saying why is it worth reporting on a 6 % figure , so they are not reporting it, but if it was actually put out there that 2 out of 3 rapists are convicted then would many more women come forward and report it.

The more women who come forward and report it the more cases will be prosecuted, the more rapists are off the streets.

The 6% figure is a self fulfilling prophercy (hence the cancer anology) if you tell someone they have very little chance ( 6%) of seeing there rapist behind bars then they wont bother leaving the rapist free to rape another woman.

"Those sexually assaulting are to blame .."

How can those sexually assulting rape victims be to blame for the government dissuading those assulted by publishing wrong figures that make victims not want to report a rape because they believe on the governments figures that the rapist wont be prosecuted?

"Only one in ten reported rapes result in prosecution according the government's figures. "

Those figures are misleading because you would need a breakdown in how many rapists were never caught, how many women changed their minds about going ahead, how many cried wolf (and yes it does still happen), and why out of the ones that were left did the cps not continue.

So the 6 % figure deters women from reporting rape because they see it as a no win situation.

But if you say 2 out of 3 cases that go to trial result in a conviction it more accurately shows that rapists are being prosecuted and encourages women to come forward.

The CPS may be many things but they're not stupid - they're not going to bring a case to court if there's no chance of conviction.

I'd imagine the only rape cases where a conviction is likely is when it's stranger rape which is - thankfully - rare.

Not saying that's a good thing...far from it.

I don't think more prosecutions will result in more convictions.

R

"The CPS may be many things but they're not stupid - they're not going to bring a case to court if there's no chance of conviction."

Indeed, and neither should they, it's traumatic for the victim and (being rather mercinary) it's a drain on public finances, (which should be put into rape counselling, in an ideal world).

"I don't think more prosecutions will result in more convictions. "

No but more women coming forward may result in more convictions, how many women who could get a conviction stay silent because they have seen the 6% figure and decided it wasn't worth it.

"The CPS may be many things but they're not stupid"

Touching faith

The point is that they're not prosecuting enough cases. They're selecting too many of them out before the cases get to a court room. IMO

they're selecting the ones where there is a reasonable chance of conviction - which is what they're paid to do.

In cases where there are no witnesses, no forensic evidence and simply the word of one person against another - there is little chance of a conviction. So bringing such cases to trial is a waste of tax payer's money.

If you knew the guy you are very unlikely to get anywhere. If you weren't beaten up or you didn't fight back (ie you need to be injured) or you don't take MAP you're unlikely to get anywhere.

They're too aware of how grey an area it is when the two knew each other - "date" rape.