Can anyone explain to me how the conviction rate for rape is demonstrably wrong? What would be the correct rate, and why? The real scandal is that there are so few prosecutions for what is clearly very widespread perjury, attempting to pervert the course of justice, and making false statements to the Police.
Just as there must be no reversal of the burden of proof or of the right to conduct one’s own defence, so there must be no extension of anonymity to defendants. Rather, there should be no anonymity for adult accusers, either. We either have an open system of justice, or we do not.
The fact is that the specific offence of rape only serves to keep on the streets people who should certainly be taken out of circulation. Instead, we need to replace the offences of rape, serious sexual assault and indecent assault with an aggravating circumstance to the ordinary categories of assault, enabling the maximum, and therefore also the minimum, sentences to be doubled, since every offence should carry a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or 15 years for life. That way, those poor women with broken bones and worse, whose assailants were never convicted of anything, really would have received justice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Can anyone explain to me how the conviction rate for rape is demonstrably correct?
ReplyDeleteThat's not where the burden of proof lies, so to speak.
ReplyDeleteWhy not? The question you're raising is whether the conviction rate is correct or incorrect. You imply you think it's correct. On what grounds do you think this?
ReplyDeleteNo, I want to know why so many people are convinced that it isn't. They must have a specific alternative in mind. So, what is it? And why?
ReplyDeleteWhy must they have a specific alternative in mind? They might just think it should be a bit higher, without knowing exactly how high.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, do you think it's right, and if so why?
ReplyDeleteNo, they don't have to have a specific alternative in mind. If you tell me that only 12 people in the UK have ever eaten curry, I don't need to have the exact figure at my fingertips to say that your number is nonsense.
ReplyDeleteBy your own account, the conviction rate for rape should not be materially different from that for common assault. And yet it is. Why do you suppose that is?
How much higher, and why?
ReplyDeleteI know that it is the number of people in fact convicted.
I hope that that made more sense to you than it did to me, horob.
ReplyDeleteYou've done it now David. You've dared suggest that the radical feminists are wrong and all striaght sex is not rape if the woman says it is. Herinoel and horob aren't radical feminists though. They are dromeys. Even worse.
ReplyDeleteDromeys? I like that one.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, David, they are the ones convinced it's too low, so they have to prove why. That's their problem, not yours.
ReplyDelete"I know that it is the number of people in fact convicted."
ReplyDeleteIt always will be, by definition. It still would be if it rose dramatically.
The question is: do you think that any rapists (i.e. people who have actually had penetrative sex by force against the will of the other party) are acquitted? If so, why, and how many?
As I believe you've had occasion to tell others on your blog, David, it's called reading for comprehension. Let me know the bits you struggled with, and I'll try to help you out.
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, you might like to tell us why, assuming that the current conviction rate for rape is right, why it compares so badly to other crimes? Do you really believe 94% of rape allegations are false? Or can you imagine other factors that might play a part?
Do you think "victims" are more likely to lie about having been raped than they are to lie about having been assaulted?
ReplyDeleteWomens Groups report that one in five women will be the subject of sexual abuse (to various degrees) during their lifetime.
ReplyDeleteYou will (on previous form) be skeptical of "womens groups". But Christian and Catholic Groups also report the same figure.
Now let me emphasise that I am NOT saying one in five women has been or will be raped. Merely stating that the figures are indeed high.
Rape is not a WOMANS ISSUE. Womens Groups are WRONG to make it so.
You and I both had or will have mothers......have sisters, wives daughters, cousins, aunts, neices, inlaws, friends, co-workers.
The chances are that you actually know someone who has been sexually harassed and possibly even raped.
This means its not a "Womens Issue" its a mans Issue. its MY issue. Its YOUR issue.
One good reason to doubt that we're getting rape convictions at the right rate is that woman who report rape are frequently advised by the investigating officers not to proceed with their complaint. Another might be that the CPS are reluctant to take cases that aren't supported by mountains of forensic evidence. This is because juries have been shown to be unlikely to convict in cases where the woman had had even one drink, had been seen talking to the accused or had spent any time alone with them. None of these things equate to consent, as I'm sure you realise.
ReplyDeleteAh, but Horob, you're forgetting something: if you don't get convicted of something, it means you didn't do it.
ReplyDeleteThis is why David never, never spreads unsubstantiated rumours about people.
Wait a frickin' second:
ReplyDelete"The fact is that the specific offence of rape only serves to keep on the streets people who should certainly be taken out of circulation."
David, the only way this is true is if there are people acquited of rape who are nonetheless guilty. Which would tend to suggest the conviction rate is lower than it should be.
Dala: nailed.
ReplyDeleteNot a bit of it. They were never charged with rape. There is an obsession with bringing a rape charge, so that GBH or whatever is never deemed enough. And if a rape charge cannot be made to stick, then no charge is brought.
ReplyDeleteWhich brings us back to my main point: the problem is the nature of the offences as defined by the law. That is what needs to change.
Herinoel, horob, Oussie, Ced, dala and Dinge are only allowed sex at all if they write this bollocks.
ReplyDeleteNow, now, play nicely.
ReplyDeleteAnd please do not swear on my blog.
She could just have got the law wrong. The abd thing that happened to her was not rape as the law understands it.
ReplyDeleteQuite so, RTY.
ReplyDeleteAnd while we are here, we may as well get the "drunk" thing out of the way. Drunken consent is still consent, or else we can't convict drunk drivers, or people who commit acts of violence or vandalism while drunk.
But this post suggests a way out of the whole mess. The objectors (all men - you can just tell) can't seem to read that far. I am beginning to suspect that that is for the reasons set out by other commenters here.
Maybe they are afraid of being convicted under your system when they would never even be charged under the current one?
ReplyDeleteI am a woman, by the way.
David, not bringing a charge has the same effect on the conviction rate as an acquital. So that point makes no difference - you clearly acknowledge that there are rapists who are not being convicted.
ReplyDeleteUnless you want to argue that women are consenting to sex with men who have just beaten them up.
Upped, of course there must be some, just as there must be some wrongful convictions, same as for anything else. That's entirely beside the present point.
ReplyDeleteRTY, now there's a thought. I think you've busted them all, actually.
Sorry, David, have we now got to the stage where everyone who disagrees with you is a rapist?
ReplyDeleteDo you think this makes you look like the sane rational one in the discussion?
Well, RTY is a woman, so if she says that they are...
ReplyDeleteGet out of that one.
OK - the reasons why your proposals are bad:
ReplyDelete1) Not all rapes involve visible signs of violence - e.g. extensive bruising, broken bones, defensive wounds. Many women who have been raped appear otherwise unharmed. You've just let all these rapists off the hook completely.
2) Just as accused rapists can use the defense of consent, so could a man accused of beating a woman up during sex claim that any bruises etc. were an unfortunate by-product of vigorous sex, not the result of an intent to do harm. As you know, intent is an important factor in defining crime. I don't see any reason why juries already reluctant to convict for rape would be more keen to convict in the teeth of this defense.
3) You really need to show that is rapes that involve serious violence that are the ones not generating convictions, and not the so-called "date" rapes. Most campaigners argue that is precisely these rapes which don't involve serious assault that the police and CPS are afraid of prosecuting. This is, I'm happy to say, an area where the burden of proof lies on you.
So there have it, in your first point: there can be rape (an offence against the person, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment) without even so much as a common assault. How perfectly ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteThat behaviour is reprehensible does not make it a matter for the criminal law, which should instead concentrate most forcefully on those things which are indeed its proper concern.
Unless you can prove an assault then by definition you can't prove a sexual assault and the law should make that clear but now it doesn't.
ReplyDeleteExactly. The assault should then be punished with a severity appropriate to its own seriousness, though always with the sexual dimension as an aggravating circumstance.
ReplyDeleteActually, David, you are ridiculous here.
ReplyDeleteDo you know anyone who was raped? There CAN BE RAPE without visible signs of assault.
You are implying that a woman who does not put up a violent fight to the point of being beaten or knived has somewhat consented.
By basically linking the crime to violence carried out, you are basically negating the crime of rape and leaving intact only the crime of the assault and battery.
About a fifth of women claim to have been raped or sexually assaulted. Even if you want to think most of those are too complicated for prosecution (maybe many involved consensual and unspiked alcohol, etc.), how does it still compare to the conviction rate for rape?
Fin.
As someone once said, they might just be wrong about what the law is.
ReplyDeleteThere cannot be sexual assault without at least common assualt. The law should say that. And then punish sexual assault most forcefully.