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.

does anyone really think that reducing the backlog of rape cases will actually reduce VAWG and the amount of rape occurring? If so, how?

I'm sceptical it would reduce violence; reducing VAW is work that needs to be done at the other end of the process, stopping violence from happening in the first place.
And I just don't see how they can promise to reduce VAW by 50% while also opening up women only spaces to men, which results in an increase in incidents.

I'd be less pissed off about all of this if it wasn't for the fact that Starmer is a lawyer, and supposed to have some understanding of how laws and the criminal justice system work.

How do you calculate the chance a rapist will get caught, Pleasehelpimexhausted?

Thanks for your posts, @Pleasehelpimexhausted.
My opinion: @suggestionsplease1 if your priority is finding "gotchas" in conversation with people who don't share all your political convictions then I think you should steer clear of discussing policies relating to rape. That opinion extends to you, too, @CassieMaddox.

Did you mean to sound like you were saying this board is only for people who share your politics? I hope not.

I think reducing the backlog is vital -

1. at the moment the length time for cases to proceed is a disincentive to victims reporting or supporting a prosecution. You can see that on MN where posters regularly post they wouldn't report a rape and cite the time as a factor
2. Rape victims deserve to get through the trial ASAP - they have been traumatised
3. By making this more efficient so there are fewer drop outs, the conviction rate should increase because these are cases where a man has been charged so the evidence is there for a reasonable prospect of conviction.
4. When the conviction rate goes up, it means more rapists are in prison so not out raping women. It is also more of a deterrent than it is today.

I'm still very hopeful this is part of a package of measures. It's very odd that posters on here are writing it off just because it comes from Labour.

Perhaps they want a new board set up for people who..oh hang on no that was you!

How odd.

You can’t.

If you drag a woman off the street and violently rape her, and she makes a complaint that evening and forensics are performed, your chances of being caught are probably extremely high.

If the reporting party complains about a rape that took place 5 years ago, in the context of a domestically messy relationship, where both have records of abusing the other on some level, and they can’t remember dates or details, the chances of being caught are probably low.

Other cases fall somewhere between the two, parties who might know each other slightly.

We have no way of knowing how many women who are raped make a complaint, and of the woman who don’t complain where the crime lies on the spectrum of likelihood above. Of the women who do make a complaint, we have no way of knowing where the incident lies on the spectrum either. Equally if the case makes it to trial they could be acquitted and this doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t commit the rape but do we count that?

It’s like some people have issues understanding sometimes things are very complex and can’t be fitted into a neat tagline or one number. I would discourage you from approaching the argument that way as it distorts it and helps nobody.

1. Not for a lack of courts but a lack of staff who will be very very hard to recruit
2. Agree, but as routine criminal investigations do take months to come to court. You can’t bring a case to trial in a few weeks
3. Not necessarily. The drop out rate will include cases which won’t make it to trial for other reasons. These aren’t all drop outs in iron clad cases where otherwise a conviction is highly likely. There is no way of knowing this
4. That relies on how many rapists are repeat offenders. Any stats?

I’m voting for Labour but this plan is, frankly, about as much use as a chocolate teapot. There will be no ‘pack of measures’ because the only thing that would make a difference here is:

1. Throwing money at building up criminal justice staff numbers again
2. Informing women of their rights in terms of having forensics taken to improve quality of evidence

You would do well to listen and not just put it down to party politics

Well you would think that, because I don’t think you’ve truly understood a single thing I’ve said.

I’m honestly not being rude but I’m quite concerned that you’re conducting this conversation with so little understanding bar a few things you’ve clearly picked up off Twitter.

It seems whenever things go over your head a little you just accuse people of being ‘anti women’, in the same way Owen Jones simply accuses women of being ‘anti trans’ rather than picking up on their valid and well reasoned concerns. It’s a poor form of debate and I’m glad most of the posters on here seem to have good critical thinking skills rather than blindly supporting a gimmick which is clearly unworkable just because it’s been suggested by a party you approve of

Not for a lack of courts but a lack of staff who will be very very hard to recruit

If the MoJ are currently struggling it is due primarily to inadequate pay, which is remediable. You automatically dismiss this as "throwing money" at the issue but it is clearly what is needed. The people with sight of the books seem confident they can fund tax cuts, how about instead using just a bit of that for funding the justice system adequately?

There's an issue in relation to judges, but bearing in mind that judges are recruited from solicitors and barristers practising in all fields of law again it's not insoluble.

Agree, but as routine criminal investigations do take months to come to court. You can’t bring a case to trial in a few weeks

Obviously. Nevertheless, delays should be limited to that period, and not lengthened by years purely due to court delays as is happening now.

Not necessarily. The drop out rate will include cases which won’t make it to trial for other reasons. These aren’t all drop outs in iron clad cases where otherwise a conviction is highly likely. There is no way of knowing this

Some drop outs happen for this reason. But too many happen because, for various reasons, during the long long wait for trial witnesses get cold feet, feel unable to remember the details adequately, become ill or even die.

That relies on how many rapists are repeat offenders. Any stats?

The proposition was that women would be safer with more rapists locked up. You cannot seriously contend that is untrue unless you contend that there are no repeat rapists in prison. This, for instance indicates that there is quite a high level of repeat offending for sexual offences, and does not take into account people convicted in one trial for a number of rapes. You also ignore the deterrence factor.

Thank you. There’s clearly an element of party politics to this which I find unedifying in the context.

Rude. You have no idea at all about me.

I find it fascinating how many posters write off disagreement as "stupidity". It's quite arrogant really.

Does that mean you trust the Conservatives to safeguard women, despite the clear evidence of the last 14 years including the steps they took to make it easier to get a GRC and the reduction in rape convictions? Why?

Thank you

I posted upthread more than once about one very practical suggestion for freeing up prison space. Remember?

Why does that inevitably mean there can never be staff for the courts? People seem to think we are in some paralysed world where no problem can ever be ameliorated.

Is that the best you can do? Accusations based on zero evidence coupled with a bit of lazy personal abuse?

Because no one is addressing the issue of lack of suitably qualified and experienced staff, from the judge down to the clerk and the building administrators. Throwing more money at it doesn’t magic up qualified people, it just moves them from one court to another, leaving a gap in that area instead.

if the last 14 years have taught us anything, it’s that short term thinking is bad in government and leads to long term problems. We expect better from Labour, the party that completely redefined the social structure of the nation after WW2. We don’t want more gimmicky headlines about pot holes, we want a grown up conversation and leadership.

Well yes I think a lot of us are saying we'd rather the government prioritised capacity on rape trials rather than Rwanda

We expect better from Labour, the party that completely redefined the social structure of the nation after WW2.

Exactly. Its not just a case of focus on this thing rather than that.
To deliver, the infrastructure has to be there. Its the infrastructure that has been under attack, and it needs rebuilding. That needs real government, but the political infrastructure has also been undermined.

It feels like the conditions for 'a strong leader' are being put into place.

It feels like the conditions for 'a strong leader' are being put into place.

One who can at least make the trains run on time @Thelnebriati ? Yes. It’s populism-lite and policy making by focus group at the moment, by all parties.

What makes me so angry is that we nearly had it. Eg, In my lifetime we went from inland rivers and canals being so polluted that nothing lived in them, to cleaning them up and the revitalising of the leisure industry in our lovely waterways. And then we flogged off the water industry and now we’re heading back to not swimming in the sea any more because of the tampons and turds floating past your nose. The free market is not the solution for important infrastructure, we need it owned and managed by the people for the people. It used to be a foundation stone of left wing politics. Why Labour are so scared of going there again I have no idea. The case is easily made to the general public who can see for themselves the consequences of private ownership of energy (out of control price rises, capacity in winter) and water (pollution, leaks) for a starter.

No one is suggesting you can calculate the chances of a particular rapist being caught. The OP’s claim was about the chances on a population level (did you really not understand that?).

Personally I would use CSEW data rather than police reports, despite it not including rapes of children. There’s an argument that since convictions in a particular year don’t relate to that year’s rapes it’s not appropriate to use those conviction numbers to calculate a percentage, so using five or ten year totals (possibly offsetting by 3 years because of average time to trial), rather than annual would probably be more appropriate, though from some quick back of the envelope calculations, does not seem to make much difference and the 98% is conservative.

No, that's not what I meant.
I'm not always eloquent when I post, particularly on topics I feel overwhelming emotions about, but the only person on these boards I've ever had repeated trouble being understood by is you.
I don't know if it's disingenousness on your part or difficultly comprehending my points. Actually, I don't care any more. I've decided not to read or engage with your posts from now on.

I don't understand why you assume that no new staff can be recruited and trained? Certainly it's not all going to be in place on 6th July if Labour win, but it doesn't take a particularly long time to train junior staff. We know, for instance, that the Home Office has been throwing a hell of a lot of money at training staff to deal with removals to Rwanda, which is liable to leave a pool of people with good security training potentially ready to be deployed to something useful.