• Due to ongoing issues caused by Search, it has been temporarily disabled
  • Please excuse the mess, we're moving the furniture and restructuring the forum categories

Why are rape & sexual offence conviction rates so low?

Nessie

Penultimate Amazing
Nessie
Joined
Jun 16, 2012
Messages
16,017
The conviction rates (as in getting a guilty verdict at court, which is different from the detection rate, which is how many crimes are reported by the police for prosecution) for rape and sexual offences is traditionally very low and the government is determined to drive them up.

https://www.city.ac.uk/news-and-eve...why-englands-justice-system-continues-to-fail

"In England and Wales, more than 99% of rapes reported to police do not end in a conviction. This is the result of a criminal justice system that makes prosecuting rape extremely rare, lengthy and difficult.
At present, charge rates for rape vary wildly between regions, from 1.3% in Surrey to 8.2% in Durham."

An ONS survey has revealed a reason for that, which is rarely discussed;

https://twitter.com/DannyShawNews/status/1618546056614285314

"A sample of sexual offences recorded by police show that 22% and 31% of rapes took place over a year before the incident was recorded."

There is no other crime, where the victim so often waits so long to report what happened. In between time, evidence is lost, memories fade and get distorted and then this;

"Cases take, on average, 817 days to reach court, and 63% of cases are closed because the victim has given up on the process and withdrawn from it."

How many of that 63% had already waited over a year to report the crime?
 
One big issue will be money - like all other public services over the last 12 years the justice system, from police up to the highest courts has not been funded to the level required to deliver better results. That is a political decision. So it is quite proper to say that it is a direct result of Tory policies. Until the funding is provided it will always be a matter of rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic as it sinks.

Of course there are other factors, one being how we haven't as a society treated rape and sexual assault as being a major problem in our society that we need to focus on and do something about.

Add into what has only recently come to public attention (the extent) and that is the gatekeepers of the justice system i.e. the police are riddled with officers who obviously do not consider rape and sexual assault as serious issues/crimes. We had the article shared recently that showed even those police in specialist teams (that are meant to be setup to deal with rape and sexual assault reports) all buy into the old "rape myths". I suspect we will find the entire justice system is riddled with similar attitudes all the way up to the judges and juries.
 
A prime cause of the low conviction rates for sexual offences, is the lack of evidence. On many occasions it is down to he said/she said. That does not happen with other crimes. The car is no longer on the drive. The person is in hospital with a broken jaw. The bank account has been drained of thousands.

That there are rape myths and other issues that cause the conviction rate to be low, is made significantly worse by the actual lack of evidence, which is made worse by it being the crime where there are the most delays in reporting.
 
In addition to that report Darat mentions (linked to in one of my posts in the "Bad Behaviour..." thread) we have things like this recent piece from the Graun - https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ice-officer-alleged-rape-victim-david-carrick

IME, from having been a prosecution witness in what ended up as a rape trial (it was sexual abuse of a teenagfe girl by her father), even with a slight amount of physical evidence, which was of course disputed, it rapidly descends into "She said, he said" (as you already know) and that then relies on juries to pick the bones out of it. And off we go into societal rape myths.

Having worked with and around a number of sexually abused/raped/however you want to term it young people, it is shocking how many of them had internalised a load of the myths about how abuse or rape victims are supposed to behave or who victims even are.

A couple of colleagues who worked with perpetrators would describe how some of them would seek to play down their crimes and to argue about what rape actually was or dispute how consent could be given.

It is also frequently reported that female politicians, celebrites, or someone just in some slight position of authority, regularly receive rape threats, indicating that there are enough people out there who seem to think that is OK to be alarming.

The problems are a lot wider than just the legal system, problematic though that is.
 
Nessie said:
.......
"Cases take, on average, 817 days to reach court, and 63% of cases are closed because the victim has given up on the process and withdrawn from it."

How many of that 63% had already waited over a year to report the crime?
Click to expand...

What percentage of reported cases actually go to trial? And of those, what percentage result in convictions? I could imagine jurors saying "This happened over two years ago, there's not much concrete evidence, the victim seems okay, how can we be sure of anything?"
 
In most cases it basically just two people's testimony, and at least in the US the benefit fo the doubt is supposed to got to the accused. Absent any other bias, that would still result in fewer convictions. Not that other biases are absent. Until very recently, wide spread and accepted mysogyny was a large factor too. Still a factor I'm sure, just not as bad.
 
Last edited:
Yes because what evidence is there supposed to be when the entire determining element of whether a crime was committed is that consent?
 
theprestige said:
Don't be fooled by empty rhetoric and other distractions. The answer is lack of evidence.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
Yes because what evidence is there supposed to be when the entire determining element of whether a crime was committed is that consent?
Click to expand...

That's the issue isn't it. How many theft convictions would you get if all you add was:
A. He stole it
B. No I didn't, I paid for it.
No camera's, no other witnesses or other witnesses that can say, I saw B go into the store without it and then I saw B come out of the store with it.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yes because what evidence is there supposed to be when the entire determining element of whether a crime was committed is that consent?
Click to expand...

In Scotland, the demeanour and actions of a victim and accused immediately after a rape is part of the evidence. I attended a report of a rape where we found the lady downstairs, very upset and he was found trying to hide under a bed upstairs. He later claimed it was consensual, but was found guilty, the argument being that what we found was not consistent with that. She was believed and he was not.
 
Nessie said:
In Scotland, the demeanour and actions of a victim and accused immediately after a rape is part of the evidence. I attended a report of a rape where we found the lady downstairs, very upset and he was found trying to hide under a bed upstairs. He later claimed it was consensual, but was found guilty, the argument being that what we found was not consistent with that. She was believed and he was not.
Click to expand...

That sets off warning bells to me.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Yeah "Okay but you didn't act like a proper rape victim would act" being the inevitable end to that is just... egggh.
Click to expand...

I mentioned it in my first reply but didn't provide a link:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...land-believe-victim-blaming-myths-study-finds
Police investigating rape claims in England believe victim-blaming myths, study finds

Research reveals attitudes that could be contributing to the 1.6% charge rate in rape cases ...snip...
Click to expand...

It sadly reveals how even those many police officers that turn a blind eye to their colleagues who rape and sexually assault women but aren't rapists or don't sexually abuse women themselves still buy into all the old myths, "asking for it", false allegations and so on.
 
I forgot to ask, how does the 99% non conviction rate compare to other crimes?

If on 2% of all criminal investigations end in a conviction, then rape convictions aren't exactly an outlier and its issue generally with policing rather than specific to rape.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
I forgot to ask, how does the 99% non conviction rate compare to other crimes?

If on 2% of all criminal investigations end in a conviction, then rape convictions aren't exactly an outlier and its issue generally with policing rather than specific to rape.
Click to expand...

In the United States federal court system, the conviction rate rose from approximately 75 percent to approximately 85% between 1972 and 1992.[18] For 2012, the US Department of Justice reported a 93% conviction rate.[19] In 2000, the conviction rate was also high in U.S. state courts. Coughlan, writing in 2000, stated, "In recent years, the conviction rate has averaged approximately 84% in Texas, 82% in California, 72% in New York, 67% in North Carolina, and 59% in Florida."[20]

In 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that among defendants charged with a felony, 68% were convicted (59% of a felony and the remainder of a misdemeanor) with felony conviction rates highest for defendants originally charged with motor vehicle theft (74%), driving-related offenses (73%), murder (70%), burglary (69%), and drug trafficking (67%); and lowest for defendants originally charged with assault (45%).[21]

There are frequent "guilty acceptance" plea deals in the United States. That said, the ostensible "conviction rate" may not be accurate because the charges are dropped.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States
 
Nessie said:
In Scotland, the demeanour and actions of a victim and accused immediately after a rape is part of the evidence. I attended a report of a rape where we found the lady downstairs, very upset and he was found trying to hide under a bed upstairs. He later claimed it was consensual, but was found guilty, the argument being that what we found was not consistent with that. She was believed and he was not.
Click to expand...

Now I'm curious: How should someone accused of rape in Scotland comport themselves, in order for their demeanor and actions to be taken as evidence of innocence?
 
ahhell said:
I forgot to ask, how does the 99% non conviction rate compare to other crimes?

If on 2% of all criminal investigations end in a conviction, then rape convictions aren't exactly an outlier and its issue generally with policing rather than specific to rape.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be an issue with policing? Why couldn't it just be the nature of accusations that the vast majority of them simply don't come with enough evidence to support an investigation or secure a conviction?

Of course, the American proclivity for plea bargains will muddy the statistical waters pretty bad.

Also, I'm rather annoyed at the conflation of alleged crimes and proven crimes in this discussion.
 
theprestige said:
Why does it have to be an issue with policing? Why couldn't it just be the nature of accusations that the vast majority of them simply don't come with enough evidence to support an investigation or secure a conviction?

Of course, the American proclivity for plea bargains will muddy the statistical waters pretty bad.

Also, I'm rather annoyed at the conflation of alleged crimes and proven crimes in this discussion.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. I probably should have chosen my words better. My point is, do we even know if this is unique to rape. It good be lots of sorts of alleged crimes have similar conviction rates and focusing on rape is just sensationalism. I don't, it might be rape does have singularly low conviction rates relative other crimes. I just don't know.

If it doesn't then the question is why? In which case it almost certainly inolves a lack of evidence.
 
theprestige said:
Now I'm curious: How should someone accused of rape in Scotland comport themselves, in order for their demeanor and actions to be taken as evidence of innocence?
Click to expand...

Disregarding any rape complaint if the victim doesn't appear sufficiently traumatized is too regular.

"She didn't look upset enough to me. No black eyes? Did she even fight back?"

This attitude always enrages me: people who arrogantly assume how anyone else should act after being in a highly stressful and traumatic incident.

"I know how I would act! They're faking it!" One, no you ******* don't know how you would act in a situation leagues out of your experience, and two, it doesn't matter anyway. Don't project your assumptions onto someone else's unique experience.
 
theprestige said:
Why does it have to be an issue with policing? Why couldn't it just be the nature of accusations that the vast majority of them simply don't come with enough evidence to support an investigation or secure a conviction?
Click to expand...

This is sort of it. Crimes going unpunished is the price paid for the presumption of innocence and a high burden of proof for conviction.
 
JoeMorgue said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate#United_States
Click to expand...
Might be some apples to oranges there, the number in the OP appears to be the conviction rate per allegation where as the wiki article appears to be conviction ratie per charged crime. There is probably a significant difference.
Darat said:
Looks like we are at the terrible figure of 6% for all crimes, just over a percent for rape. (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/rape-prosecutions-charges-england-wales-b2001818.html)
Click to expand...

It does seem as though rape is especially difficult to get a conviction.
 
TheGoldcountry said:
Disregarding any rape complaint if the victim doesn't appear sufficiently traumatized is too regular.

"She didn't look upset enough to me. No black eyes? Did she even fight back?"

This attitude always enrages me: people who arrogantly assume how anyone else should act after being in a highly stressful and traumatic incident.

"I know how I would act! They're faking it!" One, no you ******* don't know how you would act in a situation leagues out of your experience, and two, it doesn't matter anyway. Don't project your assumptions onto someone else's unique experience.
Click to expand...
No argument from me about any of that. But it doesn't answer my question.

Nessie (also) said that the actions and behavior of the accused is taken into account as evidence - at least in Scotland.

So now I'm wondering what actions and behavior of the accused would the Scottish authorities consider to be evidence of the accused's innocence. In the (admittedly highly unlikely) event that I am ever accused of sexual assault in Scotland, what steps can I take to avoid accidentally giving the Scottish authorities false evidence that I committed such a heinous crime?
 
theprestige said:
No argument from me about any of that. But it doesn't answer my question.

Nessie (also) said that the actions and behavior of the accused is taken into account as evidence - at least in Scotland.

So now I'm wondering what actions and behavior of the accused would the Scottish authorities consider to be evidence of the accused's innocence. In the (admittedly highly unlikely) event that I am ever accused of sexual assault in Scotland, what steps can I take to avoid accidentally giving the Scottish authorities false evidence that I committed such a heinous crime?
Click to expand...

Don’t hide under the bed, hide in the closet.
 
Darat said:
Don't forget we don't have plea bargaining like you do in the USA, we know a lot of "guilty" verdicts are plea deals in the USA.
Click to expand...

You may not call them plea bargains, but surely the prosecutor has discretion about what and how to charge? If someone offers to plead guilty to some charges in exchange for a break, is the prosecutor really going to trial on others and risk losing everything?
 
Bob001 said:
You may not call them plea bargains, but surely the prosecutor has discretion about what and how to charge? If someone offers to plead guilty to some charges in exchange for a break, is the prosecutor really going to trial on others and risk losing everything?
Click to expand...

In Brazil, that kind of bargaining for a lesser charge is not something the courts tolerate, in the way it's tolerated in the US. Rather, the Brazilian convention is one of "rewarded testimony". The accused may bargain down to a lesser sentence (not a lesser crime), in exchange for admission of guilt and cooperation with the court.

I'd ask for some particulars about where the UK lands on this issue, but it would probably just lead to misunderstanding and endless semantic confusion.
 
Rape has a statute of limitations in US, unlike murder. There's a new thing with some jurisdictions where you can actually charge the DNA without it running out. Novel concept with which I agree.

Then there's a lot of backlog of cold cases where there may be still some DNA if the evidence was stored correctly and somebody wants to advocate for retesting. Also, I watch too many true crime shows.
 
PitPat said:
Rape has a statute of limitations in US, unlike murder. There's a new thing with some jurisdictions where you can actually charge the DNA without it running out. Novel concept with which I agree.

Then there's a lot of backlog of cold cases where there may be still some DNA if the evidence was stored correctly and somebody wants to advocate for retesting. Also, I watch too many true crime shows.
Click to expand...

How does that work? Can half the rapist's brother go to prison? Or a quarter of their grand-child?
 
sphenisc said:
How does that work? Can half the rapist's brother go to prison? Or a quarter of their grand-child?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure and I don't think it has been challenged at a high level of scrutiny in the courts, kind of new.

I'd think it would have to be a direct match if not in CODIS. Forensic genealogy (that new toy for everything now). But seems to be effective in my opinion. Time will tell.
 
PitPat said:
Rape has a statute of limitations in US, unlike murder. There's a new thing with some jurisdictions where you can actually charge the DNA without it running out. Novel concept with which I agree.

Then there's a lot of backlog of cold cases where there may be still some DNA if the evidence was stored correctly and somebody wants to advocate for retesting. Also, I watch too many true crime shows.
Click to expand...

UK does not have a statute of limitation for crimes.

(For civil matters there are time limits as to when you would need to initiate action.)
 
theprestige said:
Heh. Going from some parts being virtually identical to "nothing at all like" is exactly the English characteristics I had in mind.
Click to expand...

"Don't forget we don't have plea bargaining like you do in the USA, we know a lot of "guilty" verdicts are plea deals in the USA."
 
Darat said:
"Don't forget we don't have plea bargaining like you do in the USA, we know a lot of "guilty" verdicts are plea deals in the USA."
Click to expand...
From your source:

"Plea bargaining in magistrates' court trials is permitted only to the extent that the prosecutors and the defence can agree that the defendant will plead guilty to some charges and the prosecutor will drop the remainder."

You do indeed have plea bargaining much like what the US has. It's incorrect to say it's nothing like US plea bargaining, when some of it is very much like US plea bargaining.
 
Rather not get too embroiled in it, but plea bargaining has been around for long time -- all over the world. It's less hassle and possibly not exposing surviving victims and family of going through the gruesome details in the courtroom if they're cool with the arrangement.

So yeah I guess they won't get the maximum. Where is the balance? I don't see how any legal system would work without it (and I don't think anybody's actually arguing against).
 
PitPat said:
Rather not get too embroiled in it, but plea bargaining has been around for long time -- all over the world. It's less hassle and possibly not exposing surviving victims and family of going through the gruesome details in the courtroom if they're cool with the arrangement.

So yeah I guess they won't get the maximum. Where is the balance? I don't see how any legal system would work without it (and I don't think anybody's actually arguing against).
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue against it in principle, but it does seem like the way it's used, and the extent to which it's used, in many US jurisdictions, tends to be regressive and to short-circuit due process.

---

Anyway, back to the topic. Let me offer a counterpoint from the null hypothesis: Rape and sexual conviction rates are right where they should be. Why do other crimes have such surprisingly high conviction rates by comparison?
 
theprestige said:
<snip>
Anyway, back to the topic. Let me offer a counterpoint from the null hypothesis: Rape and sexual conviction rates are right where they should be. Why do other crimes have such surprisingly high conviction rates by comparison?
Click to expand...

I asked my friend chatGPT for its opinion on the topic.

Crimes that typically have high conviction rates include those that are well-documented and have strong physical evidence, such as murders and sexual assaults. Additionally, crimes that have multiple witnesses and/or a clear motive also tend to have high conviction rates. On the other hand, crimes that rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, such as white-collar crimes, may have lower conviction rates.
Click to expand...

I think it strange that it thinks sexual assaults have high conviction rates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom