< 1/3 of young men prosecuted for rape are convicted in England and Wales

[laughing dog]

Technically speaking, it would more likely mean that criminal gets a walk and the rapist gets a walk.

First, that assumes the prosecutors accurately know the probability of success. Second, IMO, that may be a gamble worth taking if it ends up lowering the higher impact crime frequency.

If it didn’t mean that, then the low conviction rate in rape cases wouldn’t be a factor in the first place and the question would be moot.

Not true, if prosecutors are evaluated by the conviction rates.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Technically speaking, it would more likely mean that criminal gets a walk and the rapist gets a walk.

That assumes the prosecutors accurately know the probability of success.

But they kind of do. That's the entire point.

 

[laughing dog]

Technically speaking, it would more likely mean that criminal gets a walk and the rapist gets a walk.

That assumes the prosecutors accurately know the probability of success.

But they kind of do. That's the entire point.

Actually, they kind of don't because their evaluation of success is not based on actual experience but on projection of what might happen. Given the subtle differences in these cases, their evaluations of success may be best guesses but that is what they are. And if they have a downward bias (due to conviction rate standards), then they really kind of don't.

Toni alluded to a recent article in the newspaper. The DA in question was basically acting like a defense attorney and giving reasons why the case did not go to trial even when there was incontrovertible DNA and age evidence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

But they kind of do. That's the entire point.

Actually, they kind of don't because their evaluation of success is not based on actual experience but on projection of what might happen. Given the subtle differences in these cases, their evaluations of success may be best guesses but that is what they are. And if they have a downward bias (due to conviction rate standards), then they really kind of don't.

They kind of seem to be based on actual experience. That's what it means when they say that only one in three prosecutions result in a conviction - for every three rape cases where the prosecutor feels that there's sufficient evidence to warrant taking it to trial, on average, only one of them will actually result in a guilty verdict. The actual experience is that it's very difficult to get a guilty verdict in these types of cases.

Do you have a different definition of what "only one in three men prosecuted for rape are convicted" means? Because that seems like a fairly straightforward definition of it to me.

 

[Toni]

It’s interesting that the ‘rational’ response to a low conviction rate for a certain type of case is to.....prosecute fewer of those types of cases.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It’s interesting that the ‘rational’ response to a low conviction rate for a certain type of case is to.....prosecute fewer of those types of cases.

If you lack unlimited prosecutorial resources, then yes, that is what it means. It means that you need to set a higher bar for which of these types of cases to bring to trial, so that their time is spent putting criminals in prison as opposed to spending their time losing cases and letting criminals go free.

It's not a good solution, it's just better than the alternative solutions.

 

[laughing dog]

But they kind of do. That's the entire point.

Actually, they kind of don't because their evaluation of success is not based on actual experience but on projection of what might happen. Given the subtle differences in these cases, their evaluations of success may be best guesses but that is what they are. And if they have a downward bias (due to conviction rate standards), then they really kind of don't.

They kind of seem to be based on actual experience. That's what it means when they say that only one in three prosecutions result in a conviction - for every three rape cases where the prosecutor feels that there's sufficient evidence to warrant taking it to trial, on average, only one of them will actually result in a guilty verdict. The actual experience is that it's very difficult to get a guilty verdict in these types of cases.

Do you have a different definition of what "only one in three men prosecuted for rape are convicted" means? Because that seems like a fairly straightforward definition of it to me.

That ratio is determined by number of men charged, tried and convicted of rape/ number of men charged and tried for rape. Both the numerator and the denominator depend on the number of men charged which is a choice made by the prosecutor. If a prosecutor chooses (for whatever reason) to not try a winnable case, that 1 out of 3 ratio misrepresents the true value. So, that estimate kind of uses experience, but kind of doesn't as well. The point is that is a guess.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It had nothing to do with the number charged. It’s the number who are actually prosecuted, which means those who moved past the stage of just being charged and are now being prosecuted.

The number of people who are charged with rape compared to the number of people found guilty is much lower. In Canada, that ratio is about one in ten.

 

[Toni]

It had nothing to do with the number charged. It’s the number who are actually prosecuted, which means those who moved past the stage of just being charged and are now being prosecuted.

The number of people who are charged with rape compared to the number of people found guilty is much lower. In Canada, that ratio is about one in ten.

So why would a victim bother going to the police?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It had nothing to do with the number charged. It’s the number who are actually prosecuted, which means those who moved past the stage of just being charged and are now being prosecuted.

The number of people who are charged with rape compared to the number of people found guilty is much lower. In Canada, that ratio is about one in ten.

So why would a victim bother going to the police?

Most don’t. That’s the problem.

It’s not a prosecutor’s problem, though. Their job is to maximize the use of their limited resources to be as effective as possible with their limited time. Cases of types which have a lower chance of conviction need to meet a higher bar before moving forward or they’re just wasting their time and letting criminals go free.

 

[laughing dog]

It’s the number who are actually prosecuted, which means those who moved past the stage of just being charged and are now being prosecuted.

You realize you are tacitly agreeing with my argument.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It’s interesting that the ‘rational’ response to a low conviction rate for a certain type of case is to.....prosecute fewer of those types of cases.

Either they are spreading themselves too thin or they are prosecuting cases they shouldn't take. If you're going to do something, do it right!

 

[ruby sparks]

It had nothing to do with the number charged. It’s the number who are actually prosecuted, which means those who moved past the stage of just being charged and are now being prosecuted.

The number of people who are charged with rape compared to the number of people found guilty is much lower. In Canada, that ratio is about one in ten.

So why would a victim bother going to the police?

Most don’t. That’s the problem.

It’s not a prosecutor’s problem, though. Their job is to maximize the use of their limited resources to be as effective as possible with their limited time. Cases of types which have a lower chance of conviction need to meet a higher bar before moving forward or they’re just wasting their time and letting criminals go free.

The underlying issue is that it is often very difficult to get a conviction for this offence. It does not help, in fact it hinders, if there are elements of 'rape myths' still lingering in the minds of many policemen. That needs to stop. When it comes to prosecutors, it is often too late. Though I think it's fair to say that even if policemen were rid of those myths and be inclined to take reports as much more likely than not to be true (as it seems they are) it would often still be hard for them to establish the facts needed to secure a conviction.

Prosecutors are under strong pressure from all sides to improve their hit rates. Resources are finite. Here, there have been a few recent cases where it has come to light that they have suppressed evidence that indicated something was not a rape (phone records for instance) in order to get a conviction.

I think I agree that cases need to meet a higher bar before being taken to court. How to get to that higher bar? How to get better evidences? I don't know. In other areas which face similar (but different) problems, police now use bodycams. Planes have black boxes. Surveillance cameras are often used if the incident happens in public. Some people have an app or a device which records their car driving habits (in order to get lower insurance rates). Investigative reporters and people carrying out social experiments often use hidden cameras. Cyclists use head-mounted cameras to defend themselves against bad drivers. If men and women, carried some sort of personal (audio?) recorder, switching it on in certain situations (sexual encounters) that would technically help as regards having tangible evidences, but there is the issue of personal privacy for starters.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Most don’t. That’s the problem.

It’s not a prosecutor’s problem, though. Their job is to maximize the use of their limited resources to be as effective as possible with their limited time. Cases of types which have a lower chance of conviction need to meet a higher bar before moving forward or they’re just wasting their time and letting criminals go free.

The underlying issue is that it is often very difficult to get a conviction for this offence. It does not help, in fact it hinders, if there are elements of 'rape myths' still lingering in the minds of many policemen. That needs to stop. When it comes to prosecutors, it is often too late. Though I think it's fair to say that even if policemen were rid of those myths and be inclined to take reports as much more likely than not to be true (as it seems they are) it would often still be hard for them to establish the facts needed to secure a conviction.

It's not just the police and prosecutors, it's society as a whole. Up here in Canada, a lot of prosecutors actually file charges as regular assault instead of sexual assault and then downplay the sexual aspects during the trial because juries convict on that about twice as often.

 

[ruby sparks]

Up here in Canada, a lot of prosecutors actually file charges as regular assault instead of sexual assault and then downplay the sexual aspects during the trial because juries convict on that about twice as often.

I hadn't heard of that. On the face of it, unless I'm misunderstanding what you say (which is possible) it would seem odd for prosecutors to downplay something which would it seems improve their success rate?

Why do you think that happens?

ETA: or did you mean juries convict on regular assault more often? On reflection, I think you did. That makes more sense. Yes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Up here in Canada, a lot of prosecutors actually file charges as regular assault instead of sexual assault and then downplay the sexual aspects during the trial because juries convict on that about twice as often.

I hadn't heard of that. On the face of it, unless I'm misunderstanding it (which is possible) it would seem odd for prosecutors to downplay something which would it seems improve their hit rate?

Why do you think that happens?

Because it's harder to get convictions for sexual assault than it is for regular assault. Juries are more hesitant to give guilty verdicts in those rape cases and brand someone as a sexual offender as well as the fact that effective counter rape defenses such as "she was asking for it" or "she's actually a slut so it doesn't matter" are less of a viable defense if the rape aspect of the assault is sidelined during the trial.

It's easier to demonize an accuser as a feminazi who's lying about consent than it is to demonize a woman who was beaten on by a man.

 

[ruby sparks]

Up here in Canada, a lot of prosecutors actually file charges as regular assault instead of sexual assault and then downplay the sexual aspects during the trial because juries convict on that about twice as often.

I hadn't heard of that. On the face of it, unless I'm misunderstanding it (which is possible) it would seem odd for prosecutors to downplay something which would it seems improve their hit rate?

Why do you think that happens?

Because it's harder to get convictions for sexual assault than it is for regular assault. Juries are more hesitant to give guilty verdicts in those rape cases and brand someone as a sexual offender as well as the fact that effective counter rape defenses such as "she was asking for it" or "she's actually a slut so it doesn't matter" are less of a viable defense if the rape aspect of the assault is sidelined during the trial.

It's easier to demonize an accuser as a feminazi who's lying about consent than it is to demonize a woman who was beaten on by a man.

Yes, I misunderstood what you wrote (and edited my post belatedly). I thought your last 'that' referred to the latter (sexual assault) rather than the former (regular assault). Gotcha now.

 

[ruby sparks]

Cases, like rape, which have a lower conviction rating are a worse use of limited time. That's not because they're less important or anything, but if time constraints mean that you need to drop a very winnable case against a mugger in order to pursue a case against a rapist that you're likely going to lose, you're not helping anyone.

Something that I'm not sure was fully appreciated, including by me, is that the one third of convictions referred to in the article headline was for the 18-24 years old (defendant) category only. At the bottom of the article, it says that according to the CPS the conviction rate for rape for all ages of defendant is apparently 58% (compared to 57% for all reportable crimes generally) and that more than half of reports of rape resulted in someone being charged.

Also:

Myths about rape conviction rates are putting people off going to the police
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

Rape conviction rate figures 'misleading'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Cases, like rape, which have a lower conviction rating are a worse use of limited time. That's not because they're less important or anything, but if time constraints mean that you need to drop a very winnable case against a mugger in order to pursue a case against a rapist that you're likely going to lose, you're not helping anyone.

Something that I'm not sure was fully appreciated, including by me, is that the one third of convictions referred to in the article headline was for the 18-24 years old (defendant) category only. At the bottom of the article, it says that according to the CPS the conviction rate for rape for all ages of defendant is apparently 58% (compared to 57% for all reportable crimes generally) and that more than half of reports of rape resulted in someone being charged.

Also:

Myths about rape conviction rates are putting people off going to the police
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates

Rape conviction rate figures 'misleading'
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

Well, that's not a worry then.

 

[ruby sparks]

Well, that's not a worry then.

That's an odd response. Why would it be not a worry?