More than one “woman” a week prosecuted for rape?!?!

[Cwenthryth]

I just saw this on Twitter

twitter.com/profalices/status/1442415750497509380?s=21

Between 2012 and 2018, 436 individuals prosecuted for rape in England and Wales were recorded as women.
www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/committees/current-and-previous-committees/session-6-citizen-participation-and-public-petitions-committee/correspondence/2021/pe1876_h-professor-alice-sullivan-submission-of-27-august-2021

I’m shocked at this statistic. Yes, a small proportion of these may be women charged with rape by joint enterprise. Prof Sullivan posted on Twitter she has requested to separate out those cases. But, as under the law in England and Wales, rape is a crime committed with a penis….. so these (alleged) rapists are “bodies with penises” being recorded as women in crime stats. So transwomen, right? So what does this mean….436 (alleged) transwomen rapists in 6 years? That is more than one a week. In England & Wales.

Have I misunderstood that? I’m really shocked.

Women absolutely can be convicted of rape, no penis required. Look at the laws around joint enterprise. Every person on this list could be a biological woman.

But, that's irrelevant because this is almost unquestionably a data error issue. You really think the CPS record gender accurately in every instance? Or the offence correctly in every case? These 436 cases represent 3% of rape prosecutions or 60-odd cases a year out of 1.5k. This is some admin fat-fingering the gender field or the offence field. And its almost impossible to fix without reviewing all the original data.

But, even without that, I can't understand the reaction here at all. "Disgusting", "not our crimes" and "I feel sick" and so on.

Why? What exactly did you imagine was happening here? What do you feel sick about? A secret transgender agenda to manipulate crime stats to do....what, exactly?

Personally, I'd be more bothered by the fact that the CPS only prosecute 1 in 50 recorded rapes. You know, actual problems? With real impacts on women?

But then I guess some people are just really really desperate to find a stick to beat someone with.

@robinr66 , Personally, I'd be more bothered by the fact that the CPS only prosecute 1 in 50 recorded rapes. You know, actual problems? With real impacts on women?

It certainly impacts women who are being locked up with male abusers and rapists. Or males incarcerated for other types of crimes. Does that have to happen and be ignored in order for the rape prosecutions to improve? Will incarcerated women then be locked up with the increased number of these male rapists?

Are women now not to get little more than a pyrrhic justice for women in general?

Remove rapists from general population of women and place them among incarcerated women who cannot escape.

Talking about sticks and always giving women the shitty end.

You really think the CPS record gender accurately in every instance?
@robinr66 we don't care about gender, we want them to record sex accurately. Because sex matters.

@robinr66, you may be right that data input errors account for many of the rape convictions attributed to female offenders, but why didn't that happen in previous years at the same rate? Are these data input errors consistent across all crimes? Why has nobody picked up on this and put it straight? Decades ago any instance of a rape being attributed to a female would have caused raised eyebrows. Now the waters have been well and truly muddied and nobody bothers to check and if necessary correct stats.

Surely there are some academics in the UK researching into crime statistics? They must be approved by the CPS/Ministry of Justice/courts/police to have access to the full records, so could check these cases.

Also, what about the UK Statistics Authority? This oversees the ONS and is responsible for ensuring UK government statistics are accurate. Do they look at crime statistics?

If it turned out that there are dozens of cases a year where a male offender is recorded by self-defined gender identity rather than sex, there are two possible reasons for that. One is that the offender does identify as a transwoman. The other is that the offender sees a chance to get into a women's prison but even if that isn't successful it's an unmissable opportunity to game the system. Most things an offender says which are manifest nonsense can be challenged by interviewing police officers. This one can't. Irresistible for a manipulative criminal.

Aaww! We have the scale argument right here on the thread discussing stats about female crime!!!

What does it matter if female sex offences have gone up x00%. It must be clerical error or sumthink.

Why should women care that their sexual category seems to be having a crime spree and that future safeguarding principals should be reconsidered and tweaked to reflect this change in female crime?

Your intention here is clear. Minimise, minimise, minimise.

It doesn’t happen.
If it did it only happened once.
Oh.. it happened 5 times?… look over there a squirrel! Pay attention to the squirrel.
Oh it is a grey squirrel and there was only a few of them escaped at one time and no one noticed the affect on the red squirrel? Ummmm.. look up there is a giant bat coming….

Prof Alice Sullivan is the woman to work all this out after her work on the census. She has given us the figures now they need to be unpacked and explained. When spikes or anomalies appear in data, statisticians and other researchers take a long hard look

Absolutely helleofabore

Its tiresome

And a bit worrying that some people can only manage to be concerned about one thing at a time

If you want to see the rapes that women commit you need to look up sexual assault by penetration or anything else. There are a lot of them but they rarely get to the prosecution stage unless they were particularly violent or involved multiple victims. I have friends who work in prisons and according to them women do get away with this. One friend works with underaged victims of lesbian assaults and said the numbers of attacks seem to be rising.

Ozanj

Then clarity in numbers are vital. And research can be properly directed to understand why.

It wouldn’t surprise me since porn would have a influence on women and girls too.

It is the integrity of the sex categorised data that needs to be preserved just for this purpose.

@robinr66

Women absolutely can be convicted of rape, no penis required. Look at the laws around joint enterprise. Every person on this list could be a biological woman.

But, that's irrelevant because this is almost unquestionably a data error issue. You really think the CPS record gender accurately in every instance? Or the offence correctly in every case? These 436 cases represent 3% of rape prosecutions or 60-odd cases a year out of 1.5k. This is some admin fat-fingering the gender field or the offence field. And its almost impossible to fix without reviewing all the original data.

But, even without that, I can't understand the reaction here at all. "Disgusting", "not our crimes" and "I feel sick" and so on.

Why? What exactly did you imagine was happening here? What do you feel sick about? A secret transgender agenda to manipulate crime stats to do....what, exactly?

Personally, I'd be more bothered by the fact that the CPS only prosecute 1 in 50 recorded rapes. You know, actual problems? With real impacts on women?

But then I guess some people are just really really desperate to find a stick to beat someone with.

I like the smell of DARVO in the morning. Sets me up for the rest of the day, it does.

But then I guess some people are just really really desperate to find a stick to beat someone with.

Look in the mirror, @robinr66

admin fat-fingering the gender field

This is a first though… never come across this as an excuse for the increase in numbers.

Or you know… it could be that males who identify as women have been included in the crime stats.

Not just in the UK either. It was very noticeable in Norway when they started including males in the female numbers as well.

But yeah… fat finger and all.

But, that's irrelevant because this is almost unquestionably a data error issue. You really think the CPS record gender accurately in every instance? Or the offence correctly in every case? These 436 cases represent 3% of rape prosecutions or 60-odd cases a year out of 1.5k. This is some admin fat-fingering the gender field or the offence field. And its almost impossible to fix without reviewing all the original data.

Have you got any evidence for this, or is it something you just made up?

Oh come on, @InspiralCoalescenceRingdown. This cannot possibly be what it appears to be, because what it appears to be is unconscionable.

Its just been explained on another thread that suspects are DNA tested on arrest. So the system knows the sex of every single person who has been arrested.
www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights/giving-fingerprints-photographs-and-samples

You really think the CPS record gender accurately in every instance?

Unfortunately we know they're not recording sex accurately.
In the case of rape, they should be able to record that accurately 100% of the time. That's the big problem here.

If there were data entry mistakes in recording the 'gender' of rapists on a significantly large scale as the PP suggests, it seems extraordinarily unlikely that it would be systematically in the direction of F rather than M being entered.

Good to see this thread being kept bumped - thank you robinr66 for your interesting "thoughts" about fat fingers.

Whatever the reason for these numbers is, surely it's essential to drill down and see what's going on? Isn't that useful for crime prevention?

Of course they should do - but people are human. Entering something correctly 97 times out of 100 is actually a really really high rate of accuracy. 436 errors in ten thousand cases is good, not bad.

In terms of the direction of the error, as the vastly overwhelming majority of rapes are committed by men, the error will always be from male > female.

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Good to see this thread being kept bumped - thank you robinr66 for your interesting "thoughts" about fat fingers.

This has put the notion in my mind that some people are maintaining that the forms must be completely hit and miss because of the 'fat fingers' syndrome.

There could be loads of British people listed as Bulgarians instead of British as they would be nearby on any list. Mind you, the Bulgarians could be listed as British.

What else, Londoners down as Lutonians and vice versa?

How many British males resident in London are listed as Bulgarian females residing in Luton? Very easy mistake due to 'fat fingers'.

Goodness, the details form must be pot luck from beginning to end.

And these so called errors are never picked up during the process of investigation to the point of prosecution?

Please tell us what direct experience do you have in this instance robin.

Because it sounds to me like further minimising of the effect that male crimes are deliberately recorded as female as per the policy of the organisation doing that collation.

I agree that its an interesting question but I don't see that it has any crime prevention value - why do think it does?

I'd prefer the CPS spent the time prosecuting rapists than chasing down tiny data errors.

So why didn't we see these data entry errors before? Why hasn't anybody senior reviewing them said go back and check, rape can only be committed by a bio male, these stats don't seem right?

You misunderstand. Assuming I'm right (and I'm confident I am, based on my experience of large databases) this isn't a question of men being prosecuted as women. It's simply the wrong box being ticked on CPS systems. The only effect it will have is to make the data wrong. Names and titles will be entered separately so it will be obvious what the person's gender is supposed to be and that will be used for the prosecution. But there'll be a tiny box on gender that has the wrong option ticked. And that box is what's reported on in their MI.