• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Can't we all just get along?

Another source for the 80% figure - but this time it seems to be specific to one particular specialist prosecutor:

In the United States, prosecutions for rape are far more successful than in the UK, says Bindel, who has worked with one of the US's special rape prosecutors. 'This prosecutor has achieved an 80 per cent conviction rate, simply because she's had proper training,' says Bindel. 'She knows everything: the difference between the physical trauma received by an 11-year-old rape victim and a 14-year-old one, how to interpret any psychiatric evidence, where a victim's statement is weak and likely to be attacked by a defence lawyer.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/31/ukcrime.immigrationpolicy

I think the title of the article gives a bit of perspective: "50,000 rapes each year but only 600 rapists sent to jail".
 
Finally found some US figures.

Less than half of those arrested for rape are convicted, 54% of all rape prosecutions end in either dismissal or acquittal. The conviction rate for those arrested for murder is 69% and all other felons is 54%. (The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice) 21% of convicted rapists are never sentenced to jail or prison time, and 24% receive time in local jail which means that they spend an average of less than 11 months behind bars. (The Response to Rape: Detours on the Road to Equal Justice)

http://sa.rochester.edu/masa/stats.php
 
Last edited:
Are you sure about this, Ivor? In this country no case is brought unless the prosecuting authority believes there is a 50% chance of a conviction; or the case is deemed to be in the public interest. That is already in place for all crime. Are you saying that it should be different for rape? For it seems to me that if there are any cases where it truly one person's word against another then they are 50:50 in those terms.

One person's word against another is a 0% chance of conviction based on a system which presumes innocence.

Once the case is brought the defendant in a rape case is subject to presumption of innocence just like every other defendant. And again, many cases of all types do hang on the credibility of the witnesses as determined by the jury. Why do you think rape should be different?

So I'm wrongly accused of rape. I admit I had sex with the complainant but claim it was consensual. I get up to give evidence and under pressure start sweating and stuttering. I'm not particularly attractive either. Guess I can expect a guilty verdict if the woman is petite, looks pretty, starts crying while giving her evidence and needs to step down part-way through because she is traumatised.

It is certainly true that there are wrongful convictions in all kinds of cases for all kinds of reasons: but the approach is generally that the procedure brings the best safeguards we can and they are designed with the protection of the innocent in mind at all stages.

There are no safeguards when you are willing to convict based solely on one person's word against another. What can an innocent person do? Take acting lessons while in prison to become a "better" witness?

In this country some of those procedures, which have been worked out over many, many years, and for good reasons, are now under threat: the right to silence has been undermined, for example. I am wholly opposed to those changes, for the most part, because the protection of the innocent is hugely important.

But what you seem to be asking for is a return to a situation, only recently altered in most places, where those safeguards were bolstered by other hurdles against the complainant in the case of rape and rape only. I am very glad there have been some changes to those; and Francesca has listed some of the important ones. What we have seen is a big increase in conviction rates where that has been done.

I agree that some of the nonsense judges were/are coming out with was/is awful, as is the treatment rape victims often receive from the police and CPS.

Since they are mostly quite recent there is not much call to review this legislation at present from those of us who are concerned to rebalance this a little: I want to emphasise we do not want false convictions any more than you do and we are just as alive to the dangers of that, I think. As Prof Yaffle has shown, much of the call for change now is about putting procedures in place which combat the effects of mythology on the way cases actually go forward (or mostly don't). We have made progress. Many police officers and legal officials are better trained now than in the past: there is more understanding of the meaning of certain reactions than there used to: but it is not very wide or very deep as yet. The very different conviction rates within countries shows that quite clearly: it may be that in particular communities rates of rape are different for other reasons: but it is not a very plausible assumption without good evidence of what those reasons might be.

You have noted that the best we have seen so far is 14% conviction, but it is also as low as 2%. I do not think that difference is serving justice, and it is obvious that there is something wrong here. Since 14% can be achieved we need to look at what the differences underlying this disparity are: I assume you would accept that in those jurisdictions which have very low rates there is a major problem which is discriminating against many victims?

Yes.

<snip>

And if so then can you also accept that there are changes which need to be made, and we know what they are This is not impossible, Ivor; it should not even be that hard.

Yes, I've already said I think the suggestions made in the articles Prof. Yaffle linked to were mostly good ideas.

It may be that you think a rate or 14% is too high and represents a lot of wrongful conviction but if that is your position can you let me see what you base it on? For I have not seen any evidence to that effect

No, I don't. Personally I'd imagine well above 50% of the people accused of rape which is reported to the police are guilty, and a much higher proportion than that if it gets to court.
 
No, I don't. Personally I'd imagine well above 50% of the people accused of rape which is reported to the police are guilty, and a much higher proportion than that if it gets to court.

Well above 50%? Every source I have read puts it at 2-3% false allegations.
 
One person's word against another is a 0% chance of conviction based on a system which presumes innocence.

No it isn't. There are background circumstances to take into account and inconsistencies in evidence etc. The "performance on the stand" is not the only piece of evidence, even in cases with no witnesses or physical evidence. Otherwise these would be extremely short trials.
 
Well above 50%? Every source I have read puts it at 2-3% false allegations.

I agree that the evidence is with you Professor Yaffle. But at present this hardly matters in any practical terms. We are looking at conviction rates in the uk of under 6%. The best practice we see at present is getting 14%. While that is still shockingly low, it would represent real progress if we could get to 14% everywhere; and it appears that we can get some kind of consensus that we should at least consolidate that best practice.

I am not saying we should not look for other ways to better the outcomes, but I think we all recognise this crime is very difficult to prove.

What I do think this discussion has achieved is to show that the incidence of false allegation is not the big problem which many here have suggested: and I am optimistic enough to hope that that in itself has led some to change their views about this problem: and that the mythology which is propagated on the back of that myth will not be strong enough to lead people to repeal the reforms we have so recently won. That is the danger I see now: that the backlash will lose us what we have got. And that is why these figures and the kind of research you are presenting is so important. I thank everyone on this thread and elsewhere who has taken the trouble to go looking for evidence and to consider the evidence which has been put forward.
 
No it isn't. There are background circumstances to take into account and inconsistencies in evidence etc. The "performance on the stand" is not the only piece of evidence, even in cases with no witnesses or physical evidence. Otherwise these would be extremely short trials.

Which would be a case with unusual circumstances.
 
No Ivor: that would be the norm, I think. Very little is as black and white as you are suggesting: and with proper investigation by people who are specially trained it would be rare indeed
 
Which would be a case with unusual circumstances.

How many rape trials have you been to - you seem to be vey certain about what a "usual" and an "unusual" circumstance might be? Background circumstances for example could include whether or not the woman has any motive for making a false allegation.
 
One person's word against another is a 0% chance of conviction based on a system which presumes innocence.
This is nonsense. A jury is required to decide which testimony it believes beyond reasonable doubt. If the burden was "with 100% certainty" your argument would be correct, but it is not and you are incorrect.

So I'm wrongly accused of rape. I admit I had sex with the complainant but claim it was consensual. I get up to give evidence and under pressure start sweating and stuttering. I'm not particularly attractive either. Guess I can expect a guilty verdict if the woman is petite, looks pretty, starts crying while giving her evidence and needs to step down part-way through because she is traumatised.
Your description is so far from what is documented in countless rape trials that it must suggest you have no knowledge of the way they generally work. Firstly a defendant is not required to prove innocence. Secondly and very importantly, the idea that attitudes in all stages of the legal system are benevolent to women victims and harsh on male defendants is totally unfounded, (unless you are about to provide support for it). A much more representative norm in a rape case is that the complainant has to meet many impossible characteristics of "ideal". If a woman is young and behaves in a "ladette" way she is thought likely to have few qualms about uncommitted sex with others. If she is middle-aged or perhaps separated/divorced, then loneliness and frustration can be presented as motives for her to consent to sex with an unlikely partner. If she has been intimate with the assailant before then doubt can be wheeled out as to whether this is rape or a lovers' falling out. Or incredulity is often expressed about why she was out alone, in the pub/nightclub, consuming alcohol, not wearing a bra and so on. Or (related to previous posts) why she did not scream, put up a fight, wake the neighbours and so on.

You really are not describing reality, but a fiction you are perhaps fearful of where false convictions are rife and people make up rape allegations for alterior motives.

There are no safeguards when you are willing to convict based solely on one person's word against another. What can an innocent person do? Take acting lessons while in prison to become a "better" witness?
Of course there are safeguards. Presumption of innocence, trial by peers, beyond reasonable doubt, evidence admissability rules. It is as if you think that now, today, there are equal numbers of wrongful convictions as rightful ones in criminal trials that lack corroboration of witness testimony. Do you?
 
Wow, the thread has moved along since I last checked.

I'm sure a clever and verbose prosecutor could make the situation appear very complicated. But without physical evidence or unusual circumstances it still comes down to the jury guessing who is telling the truth.

As I said, that's what the initial depositions are for. I'm not talking about savvy lawyer-folk, I'm talking about pretty standard police procedure (in the US). Not to diminish rape, but the initial actions by police are often similar to those taking statements from people involved in auto accidents or if there's a fight in public somewhere. Statements made to police are admissible as evidence under most circumstances, and full depositions are almost always (outside of unusual circumstances) admissible.

Given that it is claimed by some to be known how many rapes are committed each year, why not just toss a coin for a proportion of the cases where there is no supporting evidence other than the testimonies of the victim and defendant? That would increase the number of guilty people convicted.

Because there are better ways to ensure liberties while pursuing justice, as have been pointed out by Prof. Yaffle.

How is the process unfair at the moment?

How should the process be changed?

How would such changes affect the fairness of treatment of the defendant?

I know Prof. Yaffle gave a few good examples, but to be more general about it I would say that the key is specialization and education amongst law enforcement. Specialization is mostly going to be possible where the populations allow for it (in cities and surrounding areas), but the education can be disseminated all over. In many cities (in the US) there are departments that exist specifically to deal with sex-based crimes (specialization), and the better law enforcement is informed about having circumstantial context and using available resources to actually investigate the possibly different accounts from the complaintant and the defendant, the better the chances of a third party (like a jury) will have of making a more fair judgment based on context rather than by chance. That doesn't require undue complexity, it requires due diligence by law enforcement to provide context to the defendant and to the prosecution.

One person's word against another is a 0% chance of conviction based on a system which presumes innocence.

Only if such accusations happened in a vacuum, which they clearly do not. That is what's key in rape convictions: having as clear a picture of what happened based on the accounts of surrounding circumstances given by both sides. Otherwise, whether convicted or not, such a trial would be a television-like caricature of justice.
 
<snip>

Of course there are safeguards. Presumption of innocence, trial by peers, beyond reasonable doubt, evidence admissability rules. It is as if you think that now, today, there are equal numbers of wrongful convictions as rightful ones in criminal trials that lack corroboration of witness testimony. Do you?

No. However you already claim to know that 97-98% of the men accused of rape are guilty before the case has got to court.

I'm going to be criticised for posting this, but I have found a published paper which has some shocking figures for the number of false rape allegations made by women in a small American town over a 9 year period.

http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.pdf

With the cooperation of the police agency of a small metropolitan community, 45 consecutive, disposed, false rape allegations covering a 9 year period were studied. These false rape allegations constitute 41% the total forcible rape cases (n = 109) reported during this period. These false allegations appear to serve three major functions for the complainants: providing an alibi, seeking revenge, and obtaining sympathy and attention. False rape allegations are not the consequence of a gender-linked aberration, as frequently claimed, but reflect impulsive and desperate efforts to cope with personal and social stress situations.

Where does the 97-98% figure come from?
 
Gumboot posted that I think, Ivor. Are you reading the links folk are putting up here and in the other threads?
 
Here's another good review of the numbers of true/false rape allegations:

http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/6/rape.asp

Readers of The Kansas City Star were told last March that, according to police estimates, perhaps 25 percent of all rape reports nationwide are false.

But in Dallas, two months before that, the Morning News reported police findings that 6.2 percent of the 793 rapes in that city in 1995 (the most recent year available) were considered false.

And in Louisville, six months earlier, the author of an op-ed article in The Courier-Journal told readers that the percentage of rape reports that turn out to be false was the same nationally as for other major crimes - around 2 percent.

So how can one presumably simple statistic vary so widely? Because the number depends on whom you ask.
 
Gumboot posted that I think, Ivor. Are you reading the links folk are putting up here and in the other threads?

I'm reading the links in this thread.

ETA: I'm tired. I'll be back tomorrow afternoon. Goodnight.;)
 
Last edited:
Here is a passage from an article I found which mentions the Kanin research Ivor cited:

These stereotypes and myths have led to a society that typically shifts its critical focus from the rapist to the victim. Women who claim rape are viewed with some degree of skepticism. Challenges to rape victims' credibility have been common in the courtroom and community, even though very little empirical evidence suggests that victims frequently make false accusations. One study that did report a high false rape allegation rate was based on a procedure that required each woman to submit to a polygraph test (Kanin, 1994). The literature suggests that polygraph tests are not only inconclusive, especially for rape victims who often experience high levels of fear and anxiety following an assault, but are also mentally distressing and unwarranted (Sloan, 1995). Thus, it is not surprising that 41% of the women in this study recanted their rape allegations upon confrontation with such a test, even though it is unclear whether these women falsely recanted true allegations in an effort to escape a distressing and distrusting situation. Other studies that did not use such methodology have found that only 2–4% of victims falsely allege that rape has occurred, which is the same estimate of false allegations for other crimes (Katz & Mazur, 1979). Courts have also acknowledged that victims rarely file false reports and that there are powerful disincentives to reporting a rape (Fischer, 1989). Indeed, studies show that only 16% of rape victims report to the police (Kilpatrick, Seymour, & Edmonds, 1992), establishing rape as one of the most underreported crimes in the United States (Koss et al., 1994).

This is a link to the abstract:
http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.doiLanding&uid=1998-11556-015
 
Last edited:
I was going to go off on one about the above post, but I have just reported it instead.

ETA: Ignore. The offending post has gone to AAH.
 
Last edited:
I was going to go off on one about the above post, but I have just reported it instead.

What I like about this forum is that there is really freedom of speech here..
You are perfectly free to start a post on any subject you choose. You are not free to derail threads with unrelated topics, as per Rule 11. Accordingly, several off-topic posts have been moved to Abandon All Hope.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky
 
Last edited by a moderator:
We are speaking about if a woman really gives her consent or not to a man who is coming unexpected in her bed, and we seem to forget that, in other parts of the world, thousands of women are getting raped and few seem to care.
I think this is a moral double standard.
Again, I hope this post will not be moved.
Thanks.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom