"DSK Case Exposes Rifts Between Feminists"

[DontCallMeFrothyDragon]

Lucy Wadham claims to be a feminist. So why is she dubbing those of us who believe DSK is guilty of rape as "Man-Haters"?

Any thoughts?

how are the stats arrived at tho - ie the "Given that 96% of them are correctly accused (at least) and that only 6% of them get convicted, that's a minimum of 90% who get off, who haven't been falsely accused, they just haven't been correctly convicted."

I wonder how these are compiled - perhaps stupidly I can't see how you could arrive at such stats - how does anyone know 96% are correctly accused?

I think in those cases where there is no external evidence or witnesses then you can see why the credibilityof each party becomes a factor in any decision to convict or not. In dsk case, I'm not sure, if I was on jury which I'd believe.

If as a feminist adopting approach suggeste here, and you were on a jury deciding on whether to convict someone of rape could you do your jury duty impartially? I'm just asking because it seems that the "women always tells the truth" is being posited as the only feminist approach. I'm not sure it is the only feminist approach but thats another post...

Lies, damned lies, and statistics

II37 - the figures are arrived at via the British Crime Survey and police estimates.

The BCS is carried out by the BMRB, one of the oldest, most established market research companies in the UK.

Neither the BMRB nor the police are known to be radical feminists.

If I were on a jury I'd judge the case on its merits. No one says women never lie, we know that they probably lie at a rate of about 2-4%.

HTH.

To clarify some of the stats:

BCS tells us that there are around 94,000 incidents which occur each year where the victim defines the experience as rape. Given the numbers of women who do not 'name' their experience as rape, the true figure (IMO) is probably higher still. This figure also excludes victims aged under 16 and over 59 and some populations where we know the number of women who have been raped is disproportionately higher (eg the female prison population, homeless women, care homes for vulnerable adults, etc)

This does not equate to 100,000 victims because some are repeat rapes: the number of victims per annum is around 55,000.

Only 11% of victims of a serious sexual assualt reported that assualt to the police, while 40% had never told anyone that they had been assaulted.

Annual number of rapes reported to Police (women 16-59): 8,487
Annual number of rapes reported to Police (women under 16) ? c. 4300

Rapes reported to the police that end up in a criminal conviction: around 6% (it varies by a few decimal places each year)

BUT around half of these convictions are for a lesser charge than rape

If the case gets to court, then the conviction rate (for both rape or other offence) is around 58%.

(All the above data is from the BCS apart from the final three paragraphs where the data originates with the Crown Prosecution Service.)

In other words, the problem in the 'system' is not (at the moment) with juries. Whether this is because of the prosecution 'cherry-picking' winnable cases or the police carrying out ineffective investigations is the subject of much heated debate with every point in the system pointing the finger at someone else - most usually (surprise!) at the victim. My own view is that almost every point in the system bears some responsibility. I also think that others (the media, prevailing social attitudes towards women and their 'proper' role as well as others bear some responsibility too).

I don?t think the problem is with the courts per se. The conviction rate once cases reach the court seems reasonable when compared with other crimes.
The percentage of reported cases that proceed to prosecution does seem particularly low, so I think the question ?what would you do to make things better?? is a valid one.
Personally, I doubt that more than a tiny percentage of rape victims lie; neither do I think that there is a bias against either party by the police or CPS.
The problem seems to lie in collating evidence that will stand up to reasonable scrutiny. That process needs looking at.
As regards DSK, there are only two people who know what actually happened and none of us have seen all the papers. Personally, I think he comes across as a slimeball....

What would happen if a thread was started that argued that most alleged burglaries in inner cities were actually insurance scams? Because there are some insurance scams. A lot of burglaries don't get reported because we all know the burglar won't be caught and you'll never get your stuff back. People often only report to claim insurance - but in a high crime area, you can't afford the insurance. So, ironically, the more likely burglary is, the less likely it is to be reported. Therefore high crime areas appear as lower due to low reporting. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen, just that the criminal justice system can't deal with it. Or does it mean that people in Tower Hamlets cry 'burglary'? Sometimes, people 'known to the police' will be falsely accused. Out of everyone you know in such an area, do you think they are more likely to be burgled or falsely accused of burglary? Just speculating.

I posted this on an other DSK thread but didn't get any responses, but would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others.

I understand why the case was dropped, based on the system of justice it was being tried under and the culture within which the jury would be drawn.

My fundamental problems with trying rape cases in these conditions are twofold. Firstly, the prosecution must prove a negative i.e. that the victim did not consent. Secondly, that mens (ha!) rea means that the rapist must have intent to commit rape (as opposed to have sex), and the "reasonable belief" of consent is stretched almost to impossibility. That case of the woman who was raped (yes, she was) by the guy who thought she was his girlfriend still leaves me with steam blowing out of ears, even though I do understand the strict legal point for the verdict. And I would love to have been in the courtroom for this trial

I am all for civil cases being pursued, with the caveat that they can be more traumatic for the victim because of the different process vis a vis evidence giving.

I'm not sure either I agree with criticism of "cherry picking" - since the CPS has existed they have been required to apply the Code tests

Yes... but at a certain point, professional judgement informs the decision; it isn't just about corroborating evidence. A judgement will be made about how well the victim will perform in court - decisions that are informed (since prosecutors are only human!) by the prevailing assumptions about rape, about women, about women's behaviour and about women's attire. And until recently, CPS areas had to meet national targets and one way to do this is to 'weed out' cases that are boarderline.

The creation of specialist rape prosecutors has generally increased local conviction rates without any changes in the Code test. It isn't unreasonable therefore to query if there is bias within the decision making process.

Police officers are usually all too willing to tell you that this is where the problem lies. Not in any police processes. Oh no. Couldn't possibly be that.

I thought there was some effort being put in to evidence collection by the police. Anyone know?

I thought there was some effort being put in to evidence collection by the police. Anyone know?

There is. It's patchy. Upper echelons of the police are sensitive to criticism on this topic but this hasn't always made its way down to the front line. It's depressing to hear from rape victims over and over about the way they were treated and yes things are getting better but it is oh so slow and inconsistent and it often only takes one insensitive clod to make a woman feel it isn't worth her while.

Besides which, if the defendent admits that intercourse took place, evidence collection doesn't always help to prove anything about consent.

Unbelieveably simplistic article.

Even the title: "rifts between feminists" .....implying that for feminism to be good or worthwhile or relevant, every feminist has to be in complete agreement with every other. No-one expects all Conservatives or all bakers or all fishermen or all fans of Duran Duran be in complete agreement. When feminists disagree, why is that taken as a "failure"?

Because, my dear Greythorne, feminism is in itself a sign of failure (mainly to get a husband). You will notice the joyous celebrations that greet any point of agreement among feminists?

Good posts Grey and Alice. The media (reflecting and perpetuating the dominant social, economic and political status quo, really) love nothing more than bigging up some argument between feminists (or between disability campaigners, or gay rights advocates, etc.) They used to trot out off the wall statements from Camille Paglia - Feminist, when they wanted to achieve this like 10 or 20 years ago.

Anyone can buy a tee shirt that says "I Am A Feminist." That doesn't mean that the wearer is one by anyone's definition but their own. According to Wiki, Lucy Wadham is a writer of mysteries and thrillers. There is nothing to stop her labelling herself as a feminist while spouting views that are abhorrent to most people who refer to themselves as feminists. Of course one might wonder why someone would choose to do such a thing, unless their goal was to provoke, to gain attention, perhaps to propel oneself into a position of notoriety or authority? Has she got a book coming out soon? Just wonderin'.

CRIKRI typically bitter and twisted with envy