80 new rape courts

[CassieMaddox]

Labour pledging this as part of their manifesto commitment to reduce VAWG.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/08/labour-pledges-80-new-courts-in-bid-to-tackle-backlog-crisis

So pleased to see an actual tangible action targeted at something that will help women. I'm looking forward to seeing what else is in their manifesto now.

Yes, I think this is a good policy if it can be implemented. Lack of skilled staff is a concern, but the way I read it, the intention is to prioritise rape cases over other prosecutions, so that may not be a stumbling block to implementation. That does, though, mean other cases will take longer until there is more money put into the system to increase overall capacity.

And I agree Starmer had a good reputation on the issue as DPP.

But the court system is only a tiny bit of what needs to be done on rape and I think Operation Soteria (which I believe was launched by the Home Office under the Tories) is likely to have more of an impact on convictions providing the momentum it has can be kept up. I’d like to see more from both parties on how they will support and build on that.

Unless you think there are a lot of women making false accusations about rape, how is it unreasonable to say 98% of rapists are walking free when only 2% of rapes get a conviction?

I mean, there will be a few serial rapists who are being double counted but if you ignore that (as almost certainly made up for by the number of rapes that don’t even get reported), if you’ve had a hundred reported rapes and only 2 men in jail for them, the other 98 rapists are walking around.

Ok, so you would be happy to do away with trials and simply convict based on a complaint? If not - why not?

There you are with the hyperbole that you seem so shocked at from others.

Pointing out that 98% of rapists are walking around is not the same as saying “do away with trials”. It’s simply pointing out that our current reality is one in which there are a lot of rapists on our streets who have never served a sentence for their crime.

No, that’s the logical extension of what you said. If every man accused is without doubt a rapist, why do we need trials? Can you actually answer?

For the record I think false or malicious complaints are very rare. However I acknowledge that we can’t call somebody a rapist without a conviction and a conviction is not possible in many cases as the evidence is unfortunately very thin on the ground in many cases. It’s an unsolvable problem. Sometimes things don’t have answers.

"Unless you want a Kangaroo court where a simple accusation means being locked away in prison for years I suggest you stop with this narrative"

this reads as very dismissive towards those accusers. If that wasn't your implication, i retract what i said.

It was dismissive toward the very uninformed responses on this thread.

Like OP, who simply puts up ‘healthy boundaries’ to avoid engaging in debate with anybody better positioned to critique these proposals (or her views).

Their ‘feminism’ comes across as flimsy showboating in an attempt to appear a 5* feminist. If they were truly interested they would listen to those of us with more in depth knowledge and experience.

But 🤷🏼‍♀️ that’s the way of the world now, feelings and sound bites first, and nuance and complexity no longer exists.

there is no such thing as "5* feminism". I don't read OPs comments as coming across as 'showboating', more someone who cares? Not everyone is a subject matter expert, but that doesn't mean they don't get a say?
No-one is saying that a random poster on Mumsnet is the one who should be making the decisions on how this is implemented, that is literally someone's job who is a subject matter expert.

Does it make me a showboating wannabe 5* feminist for saying my #1 priority is the rape crisis we find ourselves in in the UK? Am i too sound-bitey? How dare i like to keep things simple...

You are dismissive as you state you have in depth knowledge and experience. This is an anonymous forum, where countless times a day many people post threads parading their opinions as fact so obviously no-one should be taking another commenters word for anything, only credible sources. I'll listen to someone who can prove their writings with sources happily.

I said for every person who has been raped there is, somewhere, a man who is a rapist. (Do you think that isn’t true? If so, how do you think the rape happens?)

That does not logically lead to the statement that every man accused is, without doubt, a rapist.

It does, however, lead logically to the conclusion that if only 2 in a hundred of those rapists are convicted, 98 (barring serials and a few other anomalies) are not and are “walking around”.

I think trials are important because without them investigations aren’t tested and accusations of crime become a weapon that can be wielded. But our justice system creates far more miscarriages of justice that are false negatives than it does false positives. Acknowledging or even wanting to reduce those false negatives does not mean wanting a system where you can never detect the false positives.

What do you mean ‘become a weapon that can be wielded’?

Of course it’ll create more false negatives, all justice systems do (bar fascist regimes). Because we have high standards for evidence and proof which, even when a crime has been committed, cannot always be met. And the flip side is these high standards mean there are very few false convictions.

The fact is the only way to substantially increase the conviction rate in rape is to, somehow, improve or increase the evidence in the case. For example a victim has the right to visit a sexual assault referral centre and have forensic evidence taken BUT she or he can choose for that evidence to be stored until such a time they wish to make a complaint. Every person needs to know about this but I’m willing to bet few do, and instead assume if they visited the referral centre that would be the start of an investigation which would then be out of their hands.

This would improve the quality of evidence that is needed.

I haven’t RTFT but I’m willing to bet OP and her comrades had no idea about this because they spend all their time on social media and very little time actually reading up on the processes.

I ve carefully read your posts and all they are is a series of negative comments about why things cannot change... assuming you do in fact work in the sector, you re basically a block to improvement.

I've seen this in plenty of organisations that have tried to improve working practices, always a segment of employees who will not even consider any change is required, some actively try to scupper change.

Of course its going to be difficult but we cannot continue to have such huge delays to court proceedings.

The tories current spending and tax plans mean unprotected dept budgets, such as Justice, are in line for £20 billion of spending cuts - how will that help?

So we have a choice, continue as we are, actually getting worse OR at least have an aim to improve things?

I would not trust Starmer and Labour to safeguard women and girls any more than I'd trust the Libdems, Greens and SNP. These parties do not know the difference between men and women, and demonstrate a callous disregard for women's rights, so how can you trust anything they say? Don't fall for it.

I love how much he goes on in this interview about important it is to respect the men with a sexual fetish; I’d prefer he respected women, took us seriously and did proper research into this issue rather than giving us useless soundbites that show he has no understanding of safeguarding or of women’s concerns.

Hasn’t Starmer said previously that legally female is female?

So male proposes to request F on his birth cert at some point and that’s a done deal, becomes Adult Female.

Sorry but I find it deeply confusing and can’t understand a word he’s saying. Because his words don’t have the same meaning as most other people understand those words to mean.

What has that got to do with whether 98% of rapists are walking free? Do you still think this is not a justified statement or is your change of subject an acknowledgment you were unfair to CassieMaddox?

(By a weapon that can be wielded I simply mean that if there is no gatekeeping then individuals and the police could use malicious false accusations to get rid of adversaries, and so it would likely become common place instead of rare).

Being in Opposition, as Labour have been for 14 years, mainly involves shouting "you're shit" at the government and promising free ice cream to everyone. Now it's crunch time, and Labour's statements are going to be rigorously analysed. So, although many posters would prefer it if we all automatically whooped everything Labour come out with, their promises are going to be questioned.

Where I'm at in my thinking is really tangential to this thread, because I'm in Australia - probably I shouldn't have posted because it's live for all of you who are posting and figuring out how you're going to vote in a month's time.
Also, I largely agree with Germaine Greer's On Rape so mine maybe not a helpful perspective for women who want to improve criminal conviction rates.
That said, at the moment I'm in a state where sexually violent male offenders aren't ever housed in the female estate. Ten years ago I was living in a state where this has happened, and it's likely my state is heading in that direction so I'll have to answer your question in time. To me, the use of force by the state is use of force on all our behalves. I can't control what violent men do, but being a citizen in a democracy I have a shared responsibility for what is done on my behalf by police and prisons (and armies, I guess). So when an imprisoned woman is locked in with a man with a history of sexual violence, to me it seems like I'm culpable if I vote for that going ahead.

(It is helpful for me to answer your question to try and get my head around what I think and what the right thing to do will be. But fully aware I'm not engaged with this particular policy proposal as you are so happy if you drop the conversation.)

So if the 2.6 % of reported rape cases which result in a charge are now to be fast tracked through the courts, is it too churlish to ask where this leaves the victims of the 97.4% of reported rapes which are not even brought to court? Because if Keir is serious about reducing cases of VAW, including rape, by half , then surely one way is to stop making rape one of those crimes where the perpetrator is practically guaranteed to get away with it.

And another suggestion, how about raising the minimum prison tariff for a rape conviction to say 15 years, with time added for aggravated assault.

If people are culpable on the basis of whom they vote for the Tory voters over the last 14 years have an immense amount of guilt hanging over their heads right now!

Presumably you have read the 1st hand accounts from women on this thread who have worked directly with Keir Starmer and testify to his efforts in investigating falling rape convictions, consulting widely and implementing a new approach where rape convictions went up under his watch?

Would anyway like to speak for Rishi Sunak and the Tories in the same way?

Anyone, not anyway

Not true. You need to read back and correct yourself. It is misrepresentation. Again.

Edit as I had to have a x-ray and hit post: pointing out limitations and explaining why it's not workable now isn't being negative, it's being realistic. If Labour had actually set out the timings and costings, then maybe they wouldn't look incompetent or dishonest in suggesting this is something which can be done imminently.

I think/hope there will be more on reducing rape in the manifesto tomorrow.

Don't agree on the sentencing - if men know there is a 98% chance they won't get caught, a lot will take the risk whether the sentence is 1 day or 25 years.

If you think the statistics translate to a ‘98% chance they won’t be caught’ you’re really, really not up to this conversation OP, sorry. You seem to have zero understanding of anything and all your numbers are wildly misinterpreted.

OK. Well you are coming across as the kind of person who prioritises the theoretical risk of an innocent man being found guilty over the actual risk of the majority of rapists getting away with it.

While timely application of justice is important, and I think it would be hard to deny that, does anyone really think that reducing the backlog of rape cases will actually reduce VAWG and the amount of rape occurring? If so, how?

If someone is serious about reducing VAWG, in particular sexual assault, surely it starts with public education of both sexes on the concept of enthusiastic consent and making it “sexy” somehow; getting male social influencers to do some positive influencing; reducing access to porn, particularly for young people; addressing misogyny in male dominated areas such as gaming which links sexiness of female characters with violent situations; more campaigning for men’s mental health to deal better with anger, frustration and addiction; improved funding for services like women’s aid, refuges etc, especially in areas where many women may not have English as their first language so that women feel like they have a choice and can leave dangerous situations before they escalate too far into violence.