So what would need to happen for women to report rape and get convictions?

[sethstarkaddersmum]

?

what would need to change?
And how could it be got to change?

I'll start.

1. stricter guidelines on what you can ask a victim when cross-examining her and these guidelines actually being followed
   

1. better provision of rape crisis centres

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Isn't that supposed to happen now as well? Troouble is judges are a law unto themselves, and I suspect the current generation of crusty old misogynists dear old chaps need to retire, as no doubt they are unwilling to change their victim blaming ways.

[tabouleh]

I don't know how to cut and paste a link on my iPod but google "lord advocate addresses sexual crime conference".

Lots of good work being done in Scotland on investigating and prosecuting sexual crimes.

The Lord Advocate in Scotland is female - maybe we should get her on for a webchat?!

I heard her interviewed on woman's hour but can't find a link.

It was really good because she explained how trained investigators can gather evidence and it gets away from the "he said she said".

I will try to add more info on this tomorrow.

[tallwivglasses]

I worked for a while role-playing with law students. Nice job, but one of them was a rape case and I played the victim being cross-examined in a lecture theatre set up as a court room.

It was chilling to hear the 'advice' given on how to undermine the victims, and female students were told that alleged rapists favoured female representation and they should go for it.

[earwicga]

'I'd say all women courts and juries should try rape cases'

Helena Kennedy on women jurors: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/women-tougher-on-rape-victims-694508.html

There have been studies that have shown this as well.

All those surveys which show that women are blamed for being raped don't just ask men y'know.

[barristermum]

Hello,

criminal barrister here who both defends and prosecutes in rape and sexual assault cases with variously male and female complainants, and male and female defendants.

Anecdotally, and speaking generally I really would say the following:

The law basically prohibits questions on sexual history where the questions are designed to suggest the complainant would be more likely to consent BECAUSE of that sexual history.

The law allows previous convictions to go before the jury is they show a propensity to commit crimes like those being alleged.

The law even allows previous acquittals to go before the jury in certain cases - in R v Z 3 previous acquittals were put in evidence before the jury where the defence was reasonable belief in consent. The point was someone whose been tried for rape 3 times in the past ought to take a heap more care in making sure another person with whom he is having intercourse is really genuinely consenting.


Having said all the above,
it is a really difficult crime to prove. There are rarely other witnesses and this makes juries uneasy as we know people do lie and false complaints are made. And when the burden is on the Crown and the jury have to be sure that is a high standard to meet and with the best will in the world one person's word against anothers may not be enough.

Also, and this is the Helena Kennnedy point, women judge each other. I think, fwiw, it's a way of us making ourselves feel safer. It is such a vile crime and one of the most frightening things we can imagine, we do not like to think it could happen to us, even though we know this is the case. So we look at the facts we are presented with and say, this wouldn't have happened to me - I would never have drunk so much/gone to his flat/given him the wrong idea/worn that outfit. If asked simply - do any of these factors mean the rape was somehow her fault we would clearly say No, but even so we look for ways to reassure ourselves we would never go through such an ordeal. And that makes us pass the blame away from the perpetrator and start to judge the victim. It's not right, but we have to find a way of teaching our children to take responsibility for their own safety at the same time as holding predators to full account.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most controversial observation - the consequences are so horrendous - both for sentence and public disgrace, people even if satisfied the facts are against the defendant, sometimes may not convict because they are sure it won't be done again - (s)he may seem respectable, ashamed, supported by a loving partner. I have seen what I had thought to be overwhelming cases not succeed where the only possible explanation seemed, however mad this may sound, the likeability of the defendant - especially if alcohol was involved on both sides.

Sorry for long post, but I had a lot to say....

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Thanks barrister - interesting post. I think your last point is scary, juries just don't want to put men in prison for rape. It's the "you're ruining a good man's life" attitude isn't it.

How has it been done so cleverly, to put the blame for the attack on the victim?

I disagree that we can teach children to "take responsibility for their own safety" though when it comes to rape. Unless we teach them to live in the top room in the tallest tower with a door that locks on the inside that is.

[Sparklerz]

So if it was all women juries the conviction rate would go down?

[chocolatestar]

That is a scary post. No one seems to understand or care how horrendous the consequences are for the woman who has been raped and how important that public recognition is for healing.

I think that police/cps staff/lawyers/judges who are found to be sexist in their dealing with rape cases should be severely diciplined or sacked.

People go on about how hard it is to prove but I have seen cases where the CPS laywers didn't even bother to call the witnesses, did not allow the woman to tell her story, where the police have encouraged women to drop the case or have 'lost' the evidence that the woman handed in and where the CPS have misunderstood the evidence they have been presented with so dropped the case. Of course it is hard to prove if the evidence that women do have is dismissed like this.

[barristermum]

I don't think we can stop rape by teaching people safety. All I mean by that is that without in any way judging different behaviour we have to explain without frightening that if someone is looking for sex at any price they most likely will prey on the vulnerable - those who are very very drunk/separated from friends and so on. Almost like a oppportunistic burglary where they go in through an open window - the householder was not responsible for the burglary and the burglar was the criminal, but the householder didn't protect their house as best they could. That will not prevent the person determined to burgle or rape THAT particular victim though. And it never justifies the crime - it is still never the victim's fault.

In terms of "ruining a man's life" - I've mainly seen that where someone has clearly been terribly ashamed by what happened - so it almost doesn't look like they're blaming the victim eg. it must have been awful for her to feel like this but I had so much to drink I don't remember what I did, I just know I wouldn't have raped anyone because I'm not that sort of guy. It's not convincing written down like that, and I'm not saying I'm convinced, but I think sympathy (especially for the family affected by what he's done) (Remember Abi Titmuss?) can be very influential.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

I still don't believe that many men really believe rape is all that serious. I think, unless it's accompanied by severe, visible, physical injury that they think it's just not that bad a crime. I think this attitude is present in the police force and judiciary as well as the general public. I don't believe things will materially alter unless the reality of rape for a woman (or a man) is better understood.

[omnishambles]

The police need to still have a complete change in attitude - I was talking to a close female police officer and she basically said that all the rape allegations she sees were women trying it on -I sat there just aghast.

She was telling me that in her area all the women who report rape were prostitutes and drug users and couldnt be relied on - Surely they are going to be the most vunerable to rape and therefore are going to be the group most reporting it.

I was really and just depressed by the whole conversation tbh.

[Beachcomber]

Good god, barristermum, your posts are really showing how bad the situation is.

I can't believe juries really let rapists off because they are worried about the consequences these men will suffer. Except I'm afraid I can believe it. What about the victim FFS?

It really does come down to the fact that society thinks that rape/sexual assault is an occupational hazard of being a woman, and is something men are entitled to do to us.

You know I think I would take the law into my own hands were some entitled piece of shit ever to have a go at me or my DDs.

[barristermum]

I've defended women for sexual assault, not actual rape.
I've never cross examined about sexual history as in saying that history made it more likely she would have consented. In some cases the prosecution have left in parts of a video interview where a complainant talks about it but if prosecuting I would almost invariably edit that out myself.
I have covered limited sexual history - for instance if with the same partner to discuss reasonable belief in consent, or if alleging there's been a false allegation made against a previous partner

[sethstarkaddersmum]

Are there restrictions on asking about mental health? It seems to me that because there is such a stigma around mental health problems, it would be possible to go quite a long way to discredit a woman simply by getting her to admit that she had once seen a psychiatrist or taken anti-depressants, whereas surely they should only really be allowed to bring it up if there is evidence the woman has actually been delusional in the past.

QueenGigantaur's point about how 'no smoke without fire' should work both ways is a really, really good one I think.

[vesuvia]

barristermum wrote - "people even if satisfied the facts are against the defendant, sometimes may not convict because they are sure it won't be done again"

I am assuming that by "people" you mean jurors, as I believe it is their role to assess guilt. Your post gives me the impression that the jurors have found a rape defendant not guilty because they feel a guilty verdict would ruin the rapist's life "unnecessarily".

I thought jurors were supposed to decide the verdict only, not the sentence? I thought the sentence was determined by the judge after the jury's verdict?

Aren't jurors only supposed to decide guilt of a defendant's past, not predict his future? Are juror's given any legal advice on this by the judge?

Is rape the only crime for which jurors have the authority to predict whether a defendant will re-offend? I thought that was the role of the judge and parole board?

If jurors find a rape defendant not guilty for any reason other than the evidence of whether he committed the crime or not, is that perverting the course of justice (a crime in itself)?

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Like the judge who sentenced that Welsh woman to 8 months you mean? I wouldn't trust an overwhelmingly male wealthy privileged judiciary with it.

[ElephantsAndMiasmas]

Yes, a view I was born with and which has in no way been formed by my experiences or reading :o I do know a few judges all of whom happen to be very comfortably off white middle class men. Some lovely, some not so.

Glad to hear things are changing though.

[ISNT]

Just seen this on the news. If things like this didn't happen, and the shambles with warboys and reid, and all of the cases that you hear about police mishandling. I think that would go a long way towards women feeling more confident about reporting rape.

[nancydrewrocked]

Following on from barristermum's comments I think the reality of the role of a juror is far more complex than simply weighing up guilt/innocence.

I have certainly prosecuted (and in fact defended) many cases (of all variety) where the evidence is overwhelming but for various reasons there is clear sympathy for either the defendant and/or regarding the crime charged. These cases nearly always result in acquitals, not because the evidence does not exist but because the jury has apparently adopted something of a pragmatic approach.

smallwhitecat just to note CC Judges are not drawn exclusively (by any means) from the Criminal Bar. It is entirely possible to appear in a serious criminal case before a Judge who has never practised criminal law in his life.

My twopennath is it is not the Court system/defence lawyers and judiciary that are the problem. It is a misogynistic police force who make inappropriate decisions as to guilt at an early stage and investigate (or not) accordingly (see Gail Sherwood) and a woefully inadequate CPS, staffed by lawyers who are at best overworked and at worst incompetent.

[ISNT]

The conviction rate is comparable with other crimes, isn't it. Although I dread to think how much the CPS are "cherry picking" IYKWIM.

I agree with you nancydrew that the attitude of the police and the initial evidence gathering are the first hurdle. If women knew that they would be treated with respect and belief, and offered counselling, and the crime would be treated seriously, that would be a start.

I mean with warboys women were going into the sapphire unit and saying they had been raped, and were being laughed at and disbelieved. It's all wrong.

I suppose the problem is that it's a difficult crime and the public and political will just aren't there to do any better

[nancydrewrocked]

Yes the conviction rate is comparable.

What is not comparable is the reporting to charge rate and charge to prosecution rate.

One would expect the CPS to "cherry pick" - that is one of their primary functions and on a positive note at least they carry out an audited process within a strict legal framework.

What concerns me is the number of cases that don't get off the ground at even the investigation stage. Or perhaps even more seriously those that are purportedly investigated but with the outcome already decided.