Conviction rates have doubled for rape in the last year ....

[Chocladoodle]

New legislation has been in place in Scotland for over a year now and the conviction rate for rapes has doubled. This is got to be a great step in the right direction - but why isn't this information more publically known. Do the offenders/future offenders even know that the boundaries on the classifications of sexual assaults and rapes have moved dramtically. And if they did know, wouldn't this in turn perhaps prevent a number of these incidents from happening in the first place ie in regards to defences over consent and the victim being too drunk to grant it. I think it is great that the law has changed but I also think the public should be made more aware of it. Have the laws changed in other countries in Britain also in line with the Scottish Laws.

Can you explain a bit about the new legislation?

Not sure it is good news - this and this suggest that the rate increases is based on only 13 court cases, less than 15% of the total and overall convictions and prosecutions are down.

With the old Common Law crime of Rape it was very narrow and specifc eg the penetration of the vagina by a penis - it now includes the penetration of the vagina, anus and mouth. It is also not now only female's that can be raped. The crime of rape now exists equally if the victim is male. Previoulsy if penetration of the mouth/anus would constitute a charge of a lesser sexual assault therefore a lower sentence.

But the biggest change which I think would alter the number of victims reporting the crime in the first place is the aspect of consent.
It could previously be argued by the offender that the victim had given their consent prior to act but because they were affected by drink or drugs they were unable to recall. However, now, free consent has to be given and the excuse that the victim is so drunk is no longer accepted. The act of having sex with a person who is so drunk and unable to consent or not is now acknowledged as having NO consent. Therefore commiting the act of rape.

I just think this should be better communicated to the public and would hopefully reduce the number of incidents that occur (ie it is no longer an argument of one person against the other over whether or not consent was given) and encourage more victims to report these incidents.

young mother - your first article is focusing on the Cadder ruling, which had a major impact on all crimes going to Court. Something groundbreaking like that cannot be accounted for. Where once an accused person whilst being interviewed by the police admits to the crime and this could be used in the case against them, thereafter the Cadder ruling comes in and wipes all this evidence out. You can't account for that sort of change in the law. I haven't read your second link yet, but I will. So don't you think broadening the definition is a great thing?

TBE - yes I agree that it is a small sample size in comparison to the 'old' charges. Taking away the need for corroborative evidence will also improve things - looks a postive way forward in my view.

Chola doodle , England and Wales overhauled rape legislation on 2003.

So you're stating that Scot's Law, the Scottish Government and all of it's population are backward?

No, just answering your question about whether other countries in Britain are in line with Scotland.

Scurry - yes I've since Googled the rape legislation for the rest of the uk - thanks

Scurry - xposts the backward comment was in response to small cats post

Ah ok.

Surely here in Scotland we had the most abysmal rape conviction rate in Europe so the increase only closes the gap and isn't something to be particularly proud about.

I see it differently - I think that changing the law to allow for the reporting/conviction of these crimes easier has got to be seen as a step forward. Isn't that what campaigning for women's rights is about. Progress in the right direction.
My point though was why does the general public not know about this. They do campaigns to raise awareness of the regulations on drink driving, why not have something to do with the new laws on rape.

The general public do know or should know its wrong to sexually assault someone. Specific changes in the law is about negating defences.

There are situations when the morning after the night before that some people 'discover' that they have had sex with someone that they have no recollection of either through the effects of drinks/drugs. Prior to the change in law it would have been a battle of one person's word against the other's regarding consent. NOW, with the change of law, it simple states that if a person is so drunk that you've got to assume that consent WOULDN't be given. So previously when this happened a victim would be less inclined to report it as having feelings that she/he had played a part in it and was somehow responsible!! But now, the onus is on the offender to not assume consent when he/she is with a partner who is so drunk that they are incapable of giving proper consent. Surely these scenarios are still occuring but because the victims aren't aware of the change in law they are still unlikely to report it.

Basically, in a very broad general way, shouldn't young men, going on a night out on the town be warned NOT to end up back a women's place. That by having sex with a drunk woman whom they don't know could end them up in court with a rape charge against them. Obviously there are decent men out there who wouldn't take advantage of a woman who'd had too much to drink, but there are plenty others who would.

I'm not sure it is the lack of knowledge about specific offences that hinders reporting. It is the fear of not being believed, being treated poorly by police, the courts and the press that needs addressing.

In what ways do the police and the courts treat them poorly?

Lack of any sensitivity or professionalism when taking an initial account - doubting and challenging the victim when they first report and lack of understanding about trauma.
Victims complain about not being updated about the progress of investigations.
Victim's history is still brought up in court if deemed relevant.
Only last week in my local paper a judge condemned a child victim as "throwing herself " at the offender. He was still convicted but plenty of victim blaming was going on.

IME I don't think this is the case. It may have been 20/30 years ago but not now. I think this is a myth that continues on and can only make victims less likely to report if they are lead to think that the police won't believe them. It is an extremely unhelpful view.

I agree that the media do like to highlight individual cases for sensational purposes that can only damage the numerous other cases that aren't reported in this negative manner. But again, it's across the board of all crimes that the media like to highlight and not just sexual offences.