Rape myths not to blame for low conviction rates

[JacqueslePeacock]

at least according to an article in the Guardian- anyone seen it? It seems very much at odds with a lot of the anecdotal evidence about this and the experiences of many women I've spoken to who've reported rapes.

Link here

Strangely I can't seem to find the actual academic article it's based on anywhere in the Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Spring 2013 edition but the main message seems to be fairly clear from the article.

I found this bit especially shocking:

"Reece said: "Most participants [in surveys on attitudes to rape] probably mean that an invitation for coffee is by convention a signal of consent and/or that women tend to signal consent in this way. Interestingly, rather than providing evidence of the prevalence of rape myths, those who agree with this statement are providing evidence of its truth ? the best evidence we have of how women show consent to sex is how people say women show consent to sex.""

Wow there is so much wrong with that.

The coffee thing is nuts.

"One of the most frequently discussed is the "coffee myth", in which people are said to wrongly believe that if a woman invites a man home for coffee after a night out, it generally means an invitation to have sex with her.

Reece said: "Most participants [in surveys on attitudes to rape] probably mean that an invitation for coffee is by convention a signal of consent and/or that women tend to signal consent in this way. "Interestingly, rather than providing evidence of the prevalence of rape myths, those who agree with this statement are providing evidence of its truth ? the best evidence we have of how women show consent to sex is how people say women show consent to sex.""

So she seems to be saying that because a lot of people think that saying yes to a cup of coffee is a way that women convey consent to sex, that what happens afterwards eg the woman saying no to sex when he makes a move, is negated?

That's just bizarre. No-one believes that if a woman agrees to a cup of coffee it means that they are consenting at that moment to all and any sexual things that many follow even if they don't want them / refuse them / try to leave / etc?

Has this woman ever actually been in a potential sexual encounter with a man? Things go how they go. Just because some people may "think" that saying yes to a cup of coffee is a way a woman might indicate her interest in sex does not mean in reality that is a fact that consent has been given in all such situations. Really baffling.

Also what does this mean "Most rape researchers prefer to talk in terms of women 'enhancing their vulnerability' to rape, rather than in terms of any causal connection."" I have read loads of studies and reports on rape and not a single one has talked about women "enhancing their vulnerability" which sounds like a mealy-mouthed way of saying "asking for it" IMO.

How can this woman look at all the stuff with warboys, reid, teh sapphire unit in general, that policeman going to prison and say that there is no problem.

Bonkers.

That old chestnut, ramios?

Now there's a surprise ramios.

Yes....interestingly, that's not remotely what the story says. But thanks anyway, ramios!

Jacques is the article likely to give me the rage? I have been putting off reading it all day because today I am in a good mood . Tomorrow, however, I will be at work and no doubt my mood will change!

Er, not necessarily the Rage, no, but it did give me a lot of confusion as I am just a bit stunned that Reece would be saying some of the things as the story reports them. Particularly that bit in my second post above which I find a little mind boggling.

I would really like to get hold of the academic article from the journal itself, to see what she actually said, but it's not listed in the contents of the current edition at all, so i'm even more

She gives absolutely no evidence for her assertions.

That's all this article is isn't it - reporting her assertions.

Her unevidenced assertions.

Seems like this woman has rather, um , interesting views

Right.

So now we see where she's coming from.

Incredible.

OMG Just looked at FrimFrim's link. Quite shocked!

quote from the Guardian article : "The low conviction rate ? around 7% of reported rapes resulted in convictions during 2011/12 ? is not significantly out of line with other common crimes such as burglary... rape is an offence for which there are usually no independent witnesses ... Reece told the Guardian: "I don't think most people are subject to rape myths. I'm not saying that no one [is influenced by] them but the vast majority of jurors, police, prosecutors and judges have decent attitudes."

I suggest that the quote attributed to Helen Reece : "I don't think most people are subject to rape myths. I'm not saying that no one [is influenced by] them but the vast majority of jurors, police, prosecutors and judges have decent attitudes." is itself a rape myth.

Burglary and rape may well have similar reported rate to conviction rate ratios, but for cases that go to court for trial, I think the burglary conviction rate is about 85%, compared to about 60% for rape.

Burglary is theft from a building. How many witnesses are there to the average burglary? I suspect most burglaries occur when the building is empty and there are no witnesses or very few witnesses. Burglars steal objects, many of which are traced back to their owners. A witness is often not needed or used in that situation. I think burglary is often likely to have fewer witnesses than rape, but court convictions for burglary are about 40% higher than for rape (by 25 percentage points). To me, that doesn't seem like a witness shortage problem. It points to juries believing property owners who tell the court that they are the rightful owner and that burglars took objects without consent. It points to juries not believing rape victims because of rape myths.

Ironically, in a rape trial, the rape victim is officially a witness for the prosecution. The raped victim is often treated by defence lawyers, the accused and their supporters more like the accuser (which is actually The Crown) than a witness or victim.

For starters, I want much more debunking of rape myths. Then we can study if that improves the rape conviction rate, to at least match other crimes like burglary that are witnessed by few, if any, third parties.

I was also under the impression that it is a myth that most rape cases that get reported / go to court are "his word against hers" with victims being well aware of what the rape myths are and therefore self-selecting in whether they report or not.

ie most women in "his word against hers" cases don't report as they suspect / know / think it won't go anywhere.

And we KNOW that the police at least in London in recent years have been operating under a toxic combination of rape myths (a black cab driver wouldn't do that), incompetence and deliberate wrongdoing (Sapphire unit I am looking at YOU).

The variation in "no criming" rape cases across the country would further indicate that some forces mysteriously "lose" more complainants than others. Unless of course you believe that women in some parts of the country are super-likely to make it all up compared to others. Prob the woman in the article would be able to work out a more likely explanation than the police forces in different areas having different attitudes...

FrimFrim those are certainly some rather startling views she appears to hold!

If you google her name she has a spot on LSE and her own website. i didn't look further than front pages but most of her stuff seems to be about how feminists have got it all wrong.

interestingly another result that came up for something called meta pedia which seems to be a strange and nasty place to be, thinks she is a leading radical feminist

Totally nuts.