Guardian publishes misleading article about rape

[Nyac]

Claims the conviction rate for rape is 58% when in fact only one in ten reported rapes are prosecuted, so the conviction rate for reported rape is 6%.

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

Also called the reactions to the prosecution of a women who withdrew her rape allegation as "hysterical".

Do you have the exact figures for that leftwingharpie?

Right. If the report is reported, and isn't "not recorded/withdrawn/retracted" or "later retracted by victim" we have 65 cases where the victim makes a report and it's recorded, and the victim stands by their report.

26/65 = 0.4, meaning 40% cases where the victims report their rape, and the report is recorded and not later withdrawn, result in a court case. This means

19/0.2923: 29.23% of the aforementioned cases will result in a trial.

12/65 = 0.1846: 18.46% of all these cases end in a conviction, although not all are a rape conviction.

6/65 = 0.923: 9.23% of all these cases end in a conviction for rape.

I think, if we had more victims not feeling pressured into withdrawing their statements, and all reported rapes recorded, we'd see a rise in the conviction rate. But again. It is always the victim's choice. We need to stop dividing rapes into "date rapes" and the stereotyped rape we see in the media and treat all victims with the same manner of support and empathy.

I know when I finally twigged I was raped by DS's father, I knew I couldn't bring myself to report. I'd been in a relationship with him. I didn't want people telling me it couldn't have been rape if I'd stayed with him so long. I didn't want my DS finding out his father is a rapist, nor that he may be the product of a rape. I didn't want that for my son.

I think that women are put off by the idea they will be taken to pieces in court.

Even though the defence people are not supposed to bring up sexual history any more, there was a thing written by a lawyer which said the first thing the defence do in rape cases is apply to the judge that it is "relevant" in the case they are defending.

No criming is a problem as well frothy.

Or is that the "not recorded" thing?

Sorry for multiple posts

I think that women are put off by the court thing as well as other reasons.

The recent reid and warboys cases didn't exactly inspire confidence.

I think that's the "not recorded".

Sorry, I know it's confusing.

I think we really need a crack down on police "no criming" rape reports. Every report deserves an investigation. And I do think that perhaps we need improved support for victims who are reporting. Just that little extra support could make all the difference for someone teetering on the edge of withdrawing their report, and convince them to press ahead with it.

Has anyone read the comments at the end of that straight statistics article? It may not be an MRA site but it reads like a rape apologist's manifesto, implying that women are making it up, exaggerating and that rape victim advocacy groups are artificially inflating figures to suit their own twisted agenda - because wanting to stop people raping women is such a terrible agenda and will lead to the end of civilised society as we know it in which men can get away with rape?

It was always my understanding that the whole reason the rape conviction statistics were calculated in this way is to make the point that, unlike other crimes involving violence, rape claims have often been treated with scepticism and disbelief, and many cases are not pursued in the interests of being able to publish successful rate conviction figures.

But even if we include the 47% figure given from that straight statistics article, it's still way less than conviction rates for other violent crimes of 71%.

Also, has no one stopped to consider that the reason rape as a reported crime has risen so high, so quickly, is not because more women are making it up or even that more rapes are taking place, but simply because more women are reporting it - in which case the notion that the 6% figure is 'putting women off reporting' is clearly wrong.

It rose quite significantly after rape within marriage was made illegal, didn't it?

SURELY the less acceptable rape is in the public eye, and the less rape myths are circulated, alongside the improvement of how victims are treated goes a long way to improving the reporting rate?

No but rather than trawl through it I'm happy to retract and say at least a few, me included. My point was just that it doesn't start and stop with the conviction rate.

That straightstats site is vile to read. The gap between reports and cases going to trial isn't a credibility gap. As outlined above, there's victims who withdraw their reports for various reasons. There's also reports which are "no crimed". And there's also reports where the CPS believes there's a lack of evidence.

We already know the false report rate. It's between 3 and 8%. Not whatever straightstats is pointing to in it's "credibility gap".

Frothy that's exactly it. The number of men forcing women to have sex against their will probably didn't increase as a result of the Rape Within Marriage Act, but the change in the law resulted in an increase in the number of women reporting it.

It's a playground for them, SGM

sunshine..maybe this blog will interest you more than the first site I linked

beneaththewig.com/the-58-campaign

shortsmallsally, See my posts... Clears that myth up. HTH.

I linked to this because it refers to the stern review that Frothydragon was talking about. And I would say it's definitely not MRA friendly.

You seem determined to hang on to the 6% myth. Not quite sure who's interests that is in, but anyway..I give up.

Sorry, misunderstood point you were getting at. I do think, however, it should be considered that it wasn't the sole response. Also, the other responses to the survey seem quite high. Conviction rate is one thing putting women off, but not the sole reason.

Actually, I've put it at 9.23% of reports, where the report is recorded, and not withdrawn, retracted or "no crimed".

Or, of those charged, 23%.

Convicting someone of sexual assault is not convicting someone of rape. And it minimises the victims experience to do so.

short that's a much more convincing argument for why the 58% figure should be adopted, but it's still fails to take into account the reason the 6% figure was used in the first place.

I don't think most rape victims consider their chances of securing a conviction if the case goes to court when they first report their rape. I think their main concern is "will I be believed" and the answer to that question is the reason for the 6% figure.

FWIW, a straw poll I conducted among people I knew revealed that most of them had no idea what the conviction rate for rape was and nearly all put it much higher than either the 6% or the 58% figures mentioned here.

Sadly, the idea that women lie about rape seems to be much more fixed in national consciousness.

I don't get why the 6% figure is being disputed.

It's correct. Out of all the rapes reported, only 6% of victims will see their rapists convicted. Why would anybody argue about that. The legal system is useless at investigating and prosecuting rape. It's not a secret.

Nor do I, it's not a "myth"