Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

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

56 replies

Chocladoodle · 19/02/2012 16:08

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.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 20/02/2012 22:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scurryfunge · 20/02/2012 23:02

It's a realistic view. I am a police officer, a sexual offences trained officer and I also train police officers in sexual offences investigation. I am under no illusion about the inadequacies of rape investigation.

Chocladoodle · 21/02/2012 09:26

Ditto scurry - and from my experience of investigating sexual offences, the officers are highly trained, professional, assisted by charities/rape crisis etc to offer the best possible support for the victims under the circumstances. My only suggestion is that this service varies greatly from region to region and perhaps some police forces could learn from others. One cap does not fit all.
SGM - I'm not familiar with the cases that you are highlighting - but I'm also not saying that individual cases do not exist where victims of crime are treated poorly, of course it is wrong - I just don't think that these cases where it's went wrong are restricted to victims of sexual crimes. Again it's down to what the media choose to report.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 21/02/2012 09:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Chocladoodle · 21/02/2012 11:15

No I have never heard of this case before and I don't think it is unusual that I haven't. I did google it and from the Wiki pages it states all this happened in South London. I don't live anywhere near there.

From my very quick look thru the Wiki pages it appears that the argument is all about consent. If you read my previous posts that is the very point that I have been making.
I don't know what the crime rates in South London are for rapes so I cannot comment about whether this is in fact a fair representative of how the police in that area deal with rapists. I suspect it is not however.

This is no doubt a case where it went wrong but is it a random example of the way that rapes are investigated or is in fact one that was plucked from the media and broadcasted.

If women are continually led to believe that they will be treated poorly by police/courts etc that myth in itself will contine to prevent them reporting any crimes against them. How is this going to help anyone?

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 21/02/2012 11:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Chocladoodle · 21/02/2012 11:39

Like I said, I'm not familiar with this case, so am unable to comment fairly on it.

Did all 90 women report the crimes against them? Or did some of them not report it because they had been drunk/drugged at the time and believed it would be an argument of consent? I'm speculating here. If so isn't this what my point of educating the general public as to what the definitions of the crime are, dispelling the myth of the victims word against the offenders. Thereby encouraging victims to come forward early on and providing the best possible evidence (ie DNA) in order to convict the offenders.

OP posts:
StewieGriffinsMom · 21/02/2012 11:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 21/02/2012 15:27

John warboys was one of the most prolific serial rapists in UK history, if not the most. No-one know how many victims there were but it's scores. Women who reported him to the Sapphire Specialist rape unit in London were turned away. They did not believe a cab driver could "do something like that". One woman claims she was laughed at. The case was all over the headlines for ages - OK it wasn't scotland but it was a huge very famous case and so I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

At around the same there were also failures in the investigation into a man called reid.

These 2 cases prompted the government to run a big investigation into sexually motivated crimes and how they are handled in the UK. The police also did internal reviews etc.

It was a huge thing, really.

StewieGriffinsMom · 21/02/2012 15:41

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

STIDW · 21/02/2012 17:19

John Warboys was allegedly one of the most prolific serial rapists in UK, he was convicted of just one rape.

SardineQueen · 21/02/2012 17:42

Oh you are kidding STIDW

SardineQueen · 21/02/2012 17:43

So now we can't even say that someone like john warboys is a bad bad man without someone rushing in to defend their name Angry

SardineQueen · 21/02/2012 17:46

"The serial sex attacker John Worboys was jailed indefinitely by a judge at Croydon crown court today and told he must serve a minimum of eight years after he was found guilty on 19 charges of drugging and sexually assaulting 12 women, in one case raping his victim."

"They said Worboys was the prime suspect in at least 85 attacks in the London and Dorset areas dating as far back as 2002.

Senior officers said they would interview Worboys in prison in an attempt to clear up dozens of unsolved sex crimes.

Police repeatedly failed to respond to the complaints of his victims and now believe that Worboys may have drugged, raped and assaulted more than 100 women over six years."

"Before Worboys was finally arrested and charged in February last year, 14 women had made complaints to police over several years that they had been attacked or had an unsettling experience in a black cab. But officers failed to see a pattern. The complaints began in 2002, and by 2006 Worboys was using an identical method on all his victims."

"The case has raised serious questions over the police response to rape allegations and the Independent Police Complaints Commission launched an inquiry into why the Metropolitan police arrested Worboys and released him without charge in July 2007. He went on to attack 29 more women before he was caught, with a further 71 women subsequently coming forward to say they had also been attacked by him"

Yes GOD FORBID anyone describe him as a serial rapist. He has rights you know.

FFS.

From the first newspaper report that came up on google BTW.

StewieGriffinsMom · 21/02/2012 18:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

STIDW · 22/02/2012 02:08

Good grief, haven't we learned anything about assuming guilt? - the Guilford Four, Birmingham Six etc. No one said John Warboys wan't a bad man, he was found guilty of a rape and several sexual assaults, but there is a difference between the police believing he committed all the other rapes and having enough proof to know he did. Until the evidence is gathered, charges are brought and a court makes a ruling Warboys is a suspect in the other rape cases. "Allegedly" means someone has been accused but charges haven't yet been proved.

StewieGriffinsMom · 22/02/2012 07:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 22/02/2012 08:19

Christ are you really saying that you think warboys was stitched up?

SardineQueen · 22/02/2012 09:08

Or that you think all of the women who reported him for rape but whose cases did not form part of the trial, were lying?

Chocladoodle · 23/02/2012 12:35

I have a question for the regular MNer's - so I apologised if I'm dragging this post back up again. I am a regular lurker but first time poster (thought I was being brave coming on the FWR board first but thought it would be better that AIBU) Anyway, I see that one of my comments have been deleted by MN. I would have thought that I would've got a message from them saying they were deleting it because it was X,Y or Z but I didn't.

I obviously didn't think that I was offending anyone and wouldn't do it intentionally either. A previous poster stated that Scotland was backward, which, personally I think is racist and offensive. I didn't report it as it reflects that posters character. However my rebuttle to the poster to check what she was saying WAS deleted. Is this normal MN etiquette?

OP posts:
TBE · 23/02/2012 12:48

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SardineQueen · 23/02/2012 20:18

Yes contact them and ask them.

Hold on

None of your posts have been deleted
SWC has been deleted for that comment that you mention

SardineQueen · 23/02/2012 20:18

MNHQ may have pressed the wrong button and have now changed it

Chocladoodle · 23/02/2012 20:24

Yes - I checked again and saw that my post had been put back on and the other removed??

I was mostly curious about it being removed without my knowledge. I just assumed the MN would 'warn' the offensive poster at the time of them removing it. I see now that isn't the case. They just wheek it off without explanation. Grin

OP posts:
SardineQueen · 23/02/2012 20:33

I think they do just delete sometimes.

They must get an awful lot of reports every day!