Lack of convictions for RAPE...I really want to do something about this, if possible

[InmaculadaConcepcion]

Having just read about the DM story concerning the man acquitted of rape because he was "too drunk" and the subsequent horrendous account of a poster's own failed attempt to get justice for her rape on the same thread I am spitting with rage.

I want to do something positive. I have a baby daughter and I don't think I can be comfortable with myself if I don't make some attempt to fight for justice for rape victims and send out a message that RAPE IS A SERIOUS CRIME AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS SUCH.

I have two thoughts so far about this:

1. Set up a campaigning blog reproducing press accounts of rape cases and (where no press reports exist) publishing rape survivors' own accounts.

and

1. Set up a charity specifically to raise funds to assist rape survivors to pursue civil cases against their attackers.

These are just kernels of ideas at the moment, but I would welcome any suggestions about how I could make this work.

In basic terms bad character of the defendant can be used in court if it is relevant. So things like sexual harassment at work allegations or a number of arrests but no convictions of say sexual assaults would be relevant but a previous allegation of theft may not be.

These incidents are covered at the end of the police interview too so can be introduced in court.

Prole, again it is to do with how relevant it may be for the complainant's history to be brought up.

It all changed in the SOA 2003, Mamaz0n. See here

The defendent needs to show how they obtained consent and/or why they believed consent was given. Or at least, that's what the law says. And the jurors need to understand this. Everyone does.

I don't know why bad character was not introduced for that case (defence will fight every time to have it rubbished). It may be that the Police did not cover it properly at the end of the interview (or at all).

The conviction rate for cases that complete a trial isn't bad at all - 58% iirc. The problem lies with the small proprtion of cases that do go to trial. This is mostly due to fear of disbelief, police mishandling of rape complaints and fear of aggressive examination in court.

Perhaps some others have read Abi Grant's "Words Can Describe"? It could be an idea to contact her for her thoughts on what needs to be changed, and any others who have publicly described their experiences.

Yes from what I have read the proportion of convictions on those that go to trial is similar to other crimes. Difficulty is not many get to trial.

Having said that you read about what happened to BG, and that other woman, and things that have happened to people here on MN and it feels that rapists are getting away with it in what sound like open and shut cases pretty frequently.

I think that the civil conviction thing is good - but there is a real danger that if it worked and the criminal prosecution system doesn't for this crime, then it would become the done thing that sexual offences weren't bothered with as criminal at all any more unless they were really ludicrously extreme.

However that is a long way off and not a reason to stop the idea now IYSWIM.

Also a thing I read on here linking to a lawyers blog where it said that although victims sexual history etc starting point is that defence can't bring it up, apparently it's teh first thing the defence approaches the judge about - to say it's relevant etc and we need to include it - and defence knows that as soon as they can bring up victims sexual history it increases their chances of winning loads.

Would the procedures for a civil case be different from a criminal one? Surely the crime would have to be proven in either case?

standard of proof is much lower

The level of proof is different garlicbutter.

For criminal conviction it has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt to a jury.

For civil conviction it is balance of probability and I think it's just a judge (not sure TBH).

So someone could well find that their super-strong case was rejected by a jury (rape myths etc) but that a civil court would find that on balance of probailities yes it probably did happen and find in their favour.

Different standard of proof is due to different level of punishment and criminal record I think.

you can have a civil jury, probably almost never happens now though

Thanks for explaining. Juries do convict rapists, but not enough women get them into court. Are you, then, thinking that more women would pursue their case in a civil court? Why would that be?

Sorry, just trying to understand why it would be better than encouraging more women to press criminal charges.

garlicbutter - I think that the suggestion is to go through a civil court if criminal proceedings have failed. Not instead of criminal proceedings.

garlic look at what happened here

So for women who get a not guilty in criminal court, or for whom the CPS won't press charges, it might be a means to get some recognition of what happened to them.

Would need to go hand in hand with pressing the police and CPS to up their game. If this happened (charity for women to press civil charges or similar) then you'd need to keep a sharp eye that women weren't doing it instead as that would be bad.

Some really helpful responses here, loads of food for thought - thanks.

Apologies for the absence, I've been dancing attendance on DD (and will have to continue to do so, so further posts are likely to be a bit sporadic).

First up, what makes me qualified to try and do something like this?

Well, apart from being an outraged member of the public, I did until fairly recently work in the broadcast news media, and had done for well over a decade before leaving to do some travelling and teaching in another country.

It doesn't make me an expert in any way, but it does mean I have some useful contacts up my sleeve in terms of publicity, politicians, the legal profession and others I encountered in the course of my work. So in theory, the blog side of things should be reasonably well up my alley to handle.

I totally take the point about civil prosecutions not taking the place of criminal prosecutions, but as we don't live in an ideal world, my line of reasoning was that realistically, if we can obtain some reparation for rape survivors through the court in this way, then that's something important.

It would also send out a powerful message that rapists aren't necessarily above the law just because they secured an acquittal after a criminal trial.

I think it's a good idea IC, I really do.

You sound well placed to "do something" as well. Keep posting I'm interested to see where this goes!

The idea of having a campaigning blog was to try and draw attention to the situation, publicise the names of those dubiously acquitted (while we still can) and lobby for further changes in the law.

So, not being as well-versed in the current legal situation as many of you clearly are, that's why advice on what we think we should realistically call for is very helpful.

Meanwhile, I shall certainly do more research into it to get myself properly genned up.

The fund-raising etc. for bringing civil actions is to meanwhile try to secure some sort of justice for those essentially disenfranchised by the criminal law.