Home and Justice Secretaries 'deeply ashamed' of rape conviction rates.

_118968650_2019_sankey-nc.png


So 66% of people carged with rape are convicted?

But it's reported as 2% because the vast majority don't ever get charged?


Is this how other crime stats are reported? I understand its a bit different as in other crimes the police can proceed even if the victim withdraws their allegation
 
Each year there are about 128,000 victims of rape and attempted rape but fewer than 20% of them report the crime to the police, according to the report.
So 80% of (alleged) rapes or attempted rapes (sexual assault) are never even reported!

As to the 57% of complainants who DO report a rape and subsequently withdraw their complaint, perhaps they should not be treated as the criminal?
 
A 66% conviction rate is quite high.

If you want a higher proportion of allegations resulting in a conviction, you have two choices:

1) Greatly reduce the standard of evidence required for a conviction.
2) Put great pressure on people to not make an allegation.

Both are bad. The first will result in large numbers of innocent people being convicted and the latter will result in large numbers of victims at best getting no help.
 
So 80% of (alleged) rapes or attempted rapes (sexual assault) are never even reported!

As to the 57% of complainants who DO report a rape and subsequently withdraw their complaint, perhaps they should not be treated as the criminal?

57% of complainants are arrested and charged with...what, exactly? That's not true, is it?
 
So much for the rise in "Woke" culture

This is the problem with these kind of movements and tarring everyone with the same brush of being part of the problem unless they are jumping through hoops to prove they aren't part of "the problem".

The vast majority of those who you are trying to make jump through silly hoops aren't going to rape you anyway, those that are going to rape you anyway aren't going to jump through your hoops anyway...

This then deflects from understanding and dealing with the actual problem...

ergo this actually helping not hindering the rapists.
 
It would be interesting to record why 57% are withdrawing the allegation:
  • Fear/Anxiety (for various reasons)?
  • Feeling they are not being believed and not feeling supported?
  • Don't want the "hassle" i.e. Just want to move on with their life ?
  • Possibly false allegation?
If they didn't withdraw, this would potentially increase the number of convictions which, in turn, would increase the overall conviction rate.

Before I get called out for victim blaming, the conviction rate is being slaughtered as being unacceptably low but when over half withdraw, this has a major impact on this rate which is not really ever mentioned - just the conviction rate is.
 
Relevant story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-57088395

"Can you imagine what it's like going to bed not knowing if you're going to wake up and still have two daughters?"

Jane Cannon spoke these "horribly prophetic" words in a meeting with a council less than 48 hours before her daughter Sam Gould killed herself. Tragically, Sam's twin sister Chris would also take her life just a few months later.

As reviews take place to examine what happened, Jane and her husband Ian Gould are left questioning what more could have been done to save their daughters. Sam Gould died in September 2018 and her twin sister Chris died a few months later

Growing up in Sawbridgeworth, Hertfordshire, they were "normal, healthy, happy children", Jane says. However, Ian and Jane say there were early signs in their childhood that things "weren't right". This included Sam pulling out her eyelashes, eyebrows and hair. The girls received the lowest scores their school had ever seen in psychometric testing. At the age of 14, in May 2016, Chris made an attempt to take her own life.

The following month, Chris disclosed she and Sam had been sexually abused from the age of five into their teenage years, and named their alleged abuser.

Jane says the revelation left them in "total shock". "I don't want you to misconstrue the word misbelieve, because at no point did we ever not believe them, but that's what your brain tells you - 'this can't be true'. "We've tried our hardest to protect our girls; how can this have been happening and us not know about it?"

In one sense, this moment provided them with an opportunity. "We thought 'that's it, that's the answer we've been searching for', why two girls who had everything going for them are falling apart."

Hampshire Police investigated the case but, at a time when the girls were struggling with their mental health, they did not wish to give video evidence, which Ian says was the only option offered to them.

Officers closed the case in late 2016, having never interviewed the alleged abuser.


In his 62-page findings, Coroner Nicholas Moss said Chris's suicide did not mean she was failed by the professionals or her "devoted parents".

"Rather, it demonstrates the pervasive and traumatic harm caused by the alleged abuse, horribly amplified, in Chris's case, by the suicide of her sister," he said.

His words are echoed by Ian and Jane. "Every single professional that dealt with the girls said the same - their death was caused by their illness and their illness was caused by the sexual abuse," says Jane.

After the girls died, and following further police work, the alleged abuser was sent a letter alerting him to the fact an accusation had been made. The Crown Prosecution Service said there was insufficient evidence to charge. The coroner raised concerns that there had been "no follow-up" to Sam and Chris while they were still alive, to keep open the option of providing an account at a later stage, to be used as evidence.
 
The whole process is just additional trauma, with a small possibility of a conviction at the end (which in itself probably only helps a bit with the trauma)

A 66% conviction rate is a "small possibility" now is it?

It's no wonder so many women drop their allegations when people (Cheesyboy for example) deliberately lie to them about the chances of conviction.
 
This is a difficult problem to tackle. The crime is often one which is between two people in private so independent evidence is very hard to obtain. It will sometimes be one persons word against another about what happened and whether consent was given. Every sane person would want an allegation investigated and given the best chance of being prosecuted. I have a daughter and if this happened to her I would be screaming from the roof tops to hang the offender. But I also have a son and it worries me that a knee-jerk reaction could result in a weakening of the standard of evidence needed for a conviction. We know that some rape allegations have been false and so we have to be very careful to protect possibly innocent people as well. So I fully support looking at this to see what can be done to increase conviction rates. But I can't support a weakening of the standard of evidence which could risk innocent people being sent to prison and their lives ruined. That doesn't help anyone. It simply adds a second victim to the crime.
 
I have a daughter and if this happened to her I would be screaming from the roof tops to hang the offender. But I also have a son and it worries me that a knee-jerk reaction could result in a weakening of the standard of evidence needed for a conviction.

And that's a difficulty here quite nicely summed up by yourself.

If it happened to a daughter, the family will believe the rape definitely happened whereas, with a son, the family will most likely believe it to be a mistake. It can't be both though.

The problem that we have now is that the Home and Justice Secretaries have effectively apologised and are "ashamed" off the low conviction rate which infers they believe that many men are "getting off" with Rape.

Given the current way that society deals with things (cancel culture, #metoo, #believe etc), I fear this may result in some kind of knee jerk reaction which may reduce the level of proof required to the point that the victims word is taken as stronger evidence than the accused.

Rather than that, perhaps they should properly investigate why the majority of all victims (bearing in mind men can be victims too) withdraw their allegations. If they can reduce this then, if everthing else remains the same, the conviction rate compared to reports will increase dramatically.


Please critique my maths here as I may be wrong but - Even halving the withdrawals would increase convictions from 3% (3 out of 100 reports) to 21% (21 out of 100), a seven-fold increase!
 
And that's a difficulty here quite nicely summed up by yourself.

If it happened to a daughter, the family will believe the rape definitely happened whereas, with a son, the family will most likely believe it to be a mistake. It can't be both though.

The problem that we have now is that the Home and Justice Secretaries have effectively apologised and are "ashamed" off the low conviction rate which infers they believe that many men are "getting off" with Rape.

Given the current way that society deals with things (cancel culture, #metoo, #believe etc), I fear this may result in some kind of knee jerk reaction which may reduce the level of proof required to the point that the victims word is taken as stronger evidence than the accused.

Rather than that, perhaps they should properly investigate why the majority of all victims (bearing in mind men can be victims too) withdraw their allegations. If they can reduce this then, if everthing else remains the same, the conviction rate compared to reports will increase dramatically.


Please critique my maths here as I may be wrong but - Even halving the withdrawals would increase convictions from 3% (3 out of 100 reports) to 21% (21 out of 100), a seven-fold increase!

Pretty much what I was thinking the government are pretty much saying people have gotten off rather than a lot have been false claims. I am not saying it is the latter but the assumption it is the former is just as bad.
 
I think there should be a way that when reporting crimes of a sensitive nature it should be done in a more relaxed setting. Maybe it could be a special branch of the police that only focus on these type of crimes.

I suspect one of the big scary parts of reporting a crime to the police is the sense that you are talking to the 'authorities'. Which I can easily imagine it would make anyone nervous, especially if talking about crimes like this.

I would imagine in crimes like this it isn't the sexual act that provides most of the evidence. Because its very difficult to prove who is telling the truth of if having sex was consensual or not, its a he said she said situation. So I think the case focus would be about the surrounding information, gathering as much evidence as possible so that this act was beyond reasonable doubt. I think even in the best case it would be very difficult to prove. From what I've seen on these real life documentary programmes the ones who tend to be convicted are those who claim they never had sex with the person yet dna says they did.
 
Pretty much what I was thinking the government are pretty much saying people have gotten off rather than a lot have been false claims. I am not saying it is the latter but the assumption it is the former is just as bad.

Well exactly this is a political statement designed to appeal to certain voter demographic rather than a policing one and doesn't take into account the details, compulsory investigation of the 57% could increase the conviction rate for rape but it could just as well increase the conviction rate for wasting police time when it turns out to be revenge against someone they've fallen out out with or have a grudge against. I mean since males are overwhelmingly those reported against just put all males on a curfew and don't allow them out after dark. Right? Its gesture politics.
 
A 66% conviction rate is a "small possibility" now is it?

It's no wonder so many women drop their allegations when people (Cheesyboy for example) deliberately lie to them about the chances of conviction.
No, 66% of 3%. Outside of the 57% where the victim withdraws (and some of those will be because of being aware of the unlikelyhood of conviction or even trial), there are plenty of other failure points.
 
No, 66% of 3%. Outside of the 57% where the victim withdraws (and some of those will be because of being aware of the unlikelyhood of conviction or even trial), there are plenty of other failure points.

What you call "failure" points, implying these are negatives, are the legal safeguards which prevent the false imprisonment of an innocent party, either due to a lack of evidence, a lack of a suspect or by the victim withdrawing the allegation.

Yet in cases where there IS evidence, and where there IS a suspect and where the victim DOESN'T withdraw, there's a 66% conviction rate and thats a good figure to tell a victim, maybe helping to reduce the numbers of those who withdraw by giving them the confidence they need to proceed. However if you tell women "it's just 66% of 2%", which makes it seem almost impossible to get justice, it makes me wonder why you would want so many women to drop their rape cases because I can't think of a single reason anyone would want to dissuade a genuine rape victim from getting justice and yet apparently you do. Most odd.
 
What you call "failure" points, implying these are negatives, are the legal safeguards which prevent the false imprisonment of an innocent party, either due to a lack of evidence, a lack of a suspect or by the victim withdrawing the allegation.

Yet in cases where there IS evidence, and where there IS a suspect and where the victim DOESN'T withdraw, there's a 66% conviction rate and thats a good figure to tell a victim, maybe helping to reduce the numbers of those who withdraw by giving them the confidence they need to proceed. However if you tell women "it's just 66% of 2%", which makes it seem almost impossible to get justice, it makes me wonder why you would want so many women to drop their rape cases because I can't think of a single reason anyone would want to dissuade a genuine rape victim from getting justice and yet apparently you do. Most odd.
So what was your argument In the first place about a small possibility of conviction, when you've just detailed out why there is a small possibility conviction?

Just incoherent arguing.
 
So what was your argument In the first place about a small possibility of conviction, when you've just detailed out why there is a small possibility conviction?

Just incoherent arguing.

My "argument", as you put it, was to correct your statement "The whole process is just additional trauma, with a small possibility of a conviction at the end" when, at the end there's a 66% chance of conviction should it go to court. Thats a positive which should be told to every rape victim, yet instead you seem absolutely determined to scare women away from going through with their accusation with your constant "small possibility of conviction" statement over and over and I can't understand why anyone would deliberately try to dissuade women from seeking justice and potentially preventing a rapist from walking free.

I mean I know if I'm ever in the situation where a rape victim asks me whether it's worth taking their allegation to court I certainly won't be saying "The whole process is just additional trauma, with a small possibility of a conviction at the end" so why would YOU do that to a rape victim cheesyboy, why? Why do you want rapists to walk free, why do you want to scare rape victims into withdrawing their allegations with statement like that, why?

It's not "incoherent arguing" I just don't understand.
 
I think there should be a way that when reporting crimes of a sensitive nature it should be done in a more relaxed setting. Maybe it could be a special branch of the police that only focus on these type of crimes.

I suspect one of the big scary parts of reporting a crime to the police is the sense that you are talking to the 'authorities'. Which I can easily imagine it would make anyone nervous, especially if talking about crimes like this.
Did you not know that this already happens to some extent? There is a special branch that deals with these types of cases.
 
Back
Top Bottom