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

[Tigers!]

From the Guardian 24/09/2018
http://www.guardian.com/society/2018/sep/23/revealed-less-than-a-third-of-young-men-prosecuted-for-are-convicted

I read this article and 2 thoughts came to mind.
1. I am glad that it is necessary to ensure that the innocent are not caught up in a frenzy
2. Where is the justice fro so many women and their families?

Rape is hard enough to get reported to the authorities in the first instance but such low conviction rates will make many victims wonder if it is worth the effort.
I do not understand why juries do still not take rale seriously.

I suspect the figures would be similar in Australia.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not to sound insensitive, but is that actually a problem?

I assume that in a large number of rape cases, the evidence comes down to a he said/she said scenario. If that’s the case then I would expect that it’s difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is required in criminal trials.

 

[Toni]

Yeah, Tom, it's a problem. I find it difficult to believe that England and Wales are much different than the US with regards to how rape is reported and prosecuted--or not prosecuted. In the US, it's hard to get an allegation of rape taken to court in the first place, even when it seems pretty clear that the rape was at a minimum statutory rather than forcible. A friend sent me the following link:

http://www.startribune.com/minnesot...d-justice-special-report-part-five/497700641/

In 2016, 481 people were convicted of felony-level sex assaults in Minnesota, the lowest total since 1983, according to data from the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Only 1 in 4 sexual assault cases in Minnesota is ever referred to a county attorney, according to a Star Tribune analysis of more than 1,300 sexual assault cases filed in 2015 and 2016.

Prosecutors reject half the cases police send them.

They reject cases that include DNA evidence, witnesses, and sometimes even confessions, records show. They rarely ask police to conduct additional investigations, case files show, and in interviews, victims say they are often never told why their assailant won’t be charged with a crime.

That doesn't even say anything about the number of cases police do not bring to prosecutors. Or the number of girls and women who don't file charges because it hardly seems worth the trouble. If you don't tell anyone, then it's not public and you don't have to deal with the public fall out of a rape accusation.

You, along with at least half the male posters here seem to believe that most rapes are simply a case of he said/she said or regrets after bad sex. While it is pretty clear that a lot of (mostly) younger men seem to be confused about consent and the differences between what they want and what she's actually agreeing to or even the necessity of her agreeing to anything--: One cannot assume that consent is given just because you want it and you're too drunk to notice or care that she's trying to get away. Or is passed out. Or simply said no. Or quit fighting because she thought it was useless or that she would be hurt more if she fought.

Drunk guys are not good judges of whether or not a woman is interested in having sex with them. The cost of not having sex with the woman who is stumbling around or passed out is: one missed fuck. The penis will not fall off. The balls will not turn blue and fall off. The entire situation can be resolved with the guy's own hand.

The cost to the woman of not being able to fend off some guy is that she is raped and must deal with the physical and psychological and social damage---for years. There are costs to her physical and emotional well being, to her relationships, present and future, to her career, present and future. Those costs can be tremendous. Her chances of not being able to fend off an attack go up significantly if she's been drinking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You said nothing that I disagree with.

That doesn't change the fact that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high standard of evidence. If one person claims rape and the other person claims consensual sex in regards to a private encounter between them, you're probably going to end up with a not guilty verdict.

For cases where there is additional evidence, this would not apply, of course, but are you claiming that in the 2/3rds of cases in the OP where the case made it to trial and there was not a conviction, the jury was ignoring this additional evidence? When the prosecutors reject half of the cases which the police refer them, are you claiming that they're deliberately protecting rapists as opposed to concluding that there's not sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

They reject cases that include DNA evidence, witnesses, and sometimes even confessions, records show. They rarely ask police to conduct additional investigations, case files show, and in interviews, victims say they are often never told why their assailant won’t be charged with a crime.

If this is true, then more resources, transparency and accountability should be provided applied to the prosecutors. Prosecutors should not have to triage to this level, to the point of not proceeding with cases with strong evidence, and if they do have such resources, should be held accountable if they ignore a good case.

Tom also raises a good point. If they don't try so many good cases, then the cases they do try should be especially good, shouldn't they? Or is it a random selection of cases taken forward, or perhaps cases where funding is adequate, which would show more of a financial distribution issue than one of bias.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

They reject cases that include DNA evidence, witnesses, and sometimes even confessions, records show. They rarely ask police to conduct additional investigations, case files show, and in interviews, victims say they are often never told why their assailant won’t be charged with a crime.

If this is true, then more resources should be provided. Prosecutors should not have to triage to this level, to the point of not proceeding with cases with strong evidence.

Tom also raises a good point. If they don't try so many good cases, then the cases they do try should be especially good, shouldn't they? Or is it a random selection of cases taken forward, or perhaps cases where funding is adequate, which would show more of a financial distribution issue than one of bias.

Ya, if that's the issue then what is needed is higher taxes in order to afford to put more bodies onto these crimes. People shouldn't be going free due to a lack of follow up by the authorities.

 

[Patooka]

From the Guardian 24/09/2018
http://www.guardian.com/society/2018/sep/23/revealed-less-than-a-third-of-young-men-prosecuted-for-are-convicted

I read this article and 2 thoughts came to mind.
1. I am glad that it is necessary to ensure that the innocent are not caught up in a frenzy
2. Where is the justice fro so many women and their families?

Rape is hard enough to get reported to the authorities in the first instance but such low conviction rates will make many victims wonder if it is worth the effort.
I do not understand why juries do still not take rale seriously.

I suspect the figures would be similar in Australia.

You're wrong. It gets worse the more north you go, sorry to say.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If the article Toni posted is accurate it is probably an indicator of a much more widespread funding problem with the police there as well, including other crimes in addition to rape.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the article Toni posted is accurate it is probably an indicator of a much more widespread funding problem with the police there as well, including other crimes in addition to rape.

Ya, the funding for courts should increase to the level which is required by the society. Prosecutors and police shouldn't have an "I'm too busy" excuse for not pursuing cases since that just means that you haven't hired enough people or that you have some lame-assed "war on drugs" unnecessarily clogging up the system or something like that.

The cases in that article seem to be more indicative of prosecutorial misconduct than people with a lack of resources, though.

 

[Patooka]

Any one else getting 404'ed by this bullshit guardian story?

Tigers, let me be clear:

It's obvious that only a quarter of women that you know have been sexually assaulted. So was it your mother, your daughter, your sister or your wife who was abused. If your answer is none of the above, good luck to you mate. Hate to break it to you, but you're part of the problem. You sure as fuck aren't part of the solution. That's a guarantee.

Figure it out.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Any one else getting 404'ed by this bullshit guardian story?

I am too. Why is it a bullshit story? Maybe they are having server issues.

And how in the world are you getting from this:

Rape is hard enough to get reported to the authorities in the first instance but such low conviction rates will make many victims wonder if it is worth the effort.
I do not understand why juries do still not take rale seriously.

to this:

It's obvious that only a quarter of women that you know have been sexually assaulted. So was it your mother, your daughter, your sister or your wife who was abused. If your answer is none of the above, good luck to you mate. Hate to break it to you, but you're part of the problem. You sure as fuck aren't part of the solution. That's a guarantee.

 

[Toni]

They reject cases that include DNA evidence, witnesses, and sometimes even confessions, records show. They rarely ask police to conduct additional investigations, case files show, and in interviews, victims say they are often never told why their assailant won’t be charged with a crime.

If this is true, then more resources should be provided. Prosecutors should not have to triage to this level, to the point of not proceeding with cases with strong evidence.

Tom also raises a good point. If they don't try so many good cases, then the cases they do try should be especially good, shouldn't they? Or is it a random selection of cases taken forward, or perhaps cases where funding is adequate, which would show more of a financial distribution issue than one of bias.

Ya, if that's the issue then what is needed is higher taxes in order to afford to put more bodies onto these crimes. People shouldn't be going free due to a lack of follow up by the authorities.

I don't disagree that more resources for prosecution and for public defenders, btw, as well as more police resources are needed. But in the article I posted: evidence was there. The article was not about lack of police resources to collect and document evidence: it was about PROSECUTORS declining to charge suspects, even when there were eye witnesses, and DNA evidence--and even when there were CONFESSIONS.

This seems more to be about lack of prosecutorial will and a concern for being able to tout a high rate of convictions than it is about seeking justice.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't disagree that more resources for prosecution and for public defenders, btw, as well as more police resources are needed. But in the article I posted: evidence was there. The article was not about lack of police resources to collect and document evidence: it was about PROSECUTORS declining to charge suspects, even when there were eye witnesses, and DNA evidence--and even when there were CONFESSIONS.

This seems more to be about lack of prosecutorial will and a concern for being able to tout a high rate of convictions than it is about seeking justice.

I think that does still tie into resourcing, though. There are only so many judges, so many prosecutors and so many hours in a day. If the justice system is overworked, it means that prosecutors are going to need to pick and choose which cases they're going to pursue. Low conviction rates for rape cases creates a vicious spiral in those situations. If you know that you're going to get fewer convictions for those cases, you're going to be setting a higher bar for which of those cases you prosecute, which means more decent cases are going to get passed over and more good cases are going to be mistakenly categorized as decent cases and passed over.

While it would be nice to have prosecutors spend their time on longer shots in order to help correct a severe societal problem, that means that they're then not spending this time on other types of cases where they have a higher probability of getting criminals off the streets and those criminals are going free instead because the prosecutors didn't have time in the day to take on those cases.

That being said, the examples in your article did seem like pretty straightforward cases of prosecutorial misconduct.

 

[Toni]

I don't disagree that more resources for prosecution and for public defenders, btw, as well as more police resources are needed. But in the article I posted: evidence was there. The article was not about lack of police resources to collect and document evidence: it was about PROSECUTORS declining to charge suspects, even when there were eye witnesses, and DNA evidence--and even when there were CONFESSIONS.

This seems more to be about lack of prosecutorial will and a concern for being able to tout a high rate of convictions than it is about seeking justice.

I think that does still tie into resourcing, though. There are only so many judges, so many prosecutors and so many hours in a day. If the justice system is overworked, it means that prosecutors are going to need to pick and choose which cases they're going to pursue. Low conviction rates for rape cases creates a vicious spiral in those situations. If you know that you're going to get fewer convictions for those cases, you're going to be setting a higher bar for which of those cases you prosecute, which means more decent cases are going to get passed over and more good cases are going to be mistakenly categorized as decent cases and passed over.

While it would be nice to have prosecutors spend their time on longer shots in order to help correct a severe societal problem, that means that they're then not spending this time on other types of cases where they have a higher probability of getting criminals off the streets and those criminals are going free instead because the prosecutors didn't have time in the day to take on those cases.

That being said, the examples in your article did seem like pretty straightforward cases of prosecutorial misconduct.

I don't disagree that more resources are needed. Public defenders generally carry a caseload of upwards of 50 active cases. Prosecutors are better funded and better resourced. Both need increases in funding.

I don't understand the mindset of 'winning' as though it were a game. Cases need to be brought to trial. Where appropriate, they can and should be plead out--most drug and alcohol cases would fall in this category. In my area, it is pretty common--and quite disgusting--that cases of child rape are rarely brought to trial but usually plead out. I understand sparing the victim but the rapist is often left free to continue to abuse children. Recently, there was a case publicized of a woman suing the man who raped her for child support. She had the child when she was 13. He had begun abusing her when she was 11. When she was 12, he was caught in a motel with her--he was in his late 20's at the time, so it's not a case of an immature teenager being besot by a precocious pre-teen. The judge let him off on charges of raping a child and contributing to the delinquency of a minor because he had had a hard life. Where was the compassion for HER life? What kind of life puts a 12 year old in the motel room of a full grown adult to whom she/he is not related???????

I remember being shocked and outraged at the case at the time. I've participated on this forum long enough that I am no longer surprised. Too many men have zero empathy for girls and women. Outrage is nearly universal for the male victims of priests.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't understand the mindset of 'winning' as though it were a game.

That is mostly a matter of how whatever your word for the crown is organized and how promotions are decided. Prosecutors want high conviction rates because it promotes their careers. Defence is different. Most defence work is about pleading down to a lesser charge. Sometimes even that gets wrecked by overzealous prosecutors as the innocent plea down but admit guilt even though they didn't do the crime at all, because it gets expensive to defend or a public defender won't take the case or isn't available or deadlines are met because they are overworked. You are right when you wrote that public defenders need much more funding.

In my area, it is pretty common--and quite disgusting--that cases of child rape are rarely brought to trial but usually plead out.

That's often not a bad thing.The prosecutor's job is to make a charge stick, and pleading down to a lesser charge is one way to do that. In many cases if the prosecutor doesn't plead down, there is a high chance that a guilty accused gets away with no punishment at all. Settlement makes sense in many cases in both criminal and civil cases because trial is an all or nothing gamble.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don't disagree that more resources are needed. Public defenders generally carry a caseload of upwards of 50 active cases. Prosecutors are better funded and better resourced. Both need increases in funding.

I don't understand the mindset of 'winning' as though it were a game. Cases need to be brought to trial.

But winning is important. Not in the sense that it's a game, but in the sense that it's the best use of limited prosecutorial resources. If, in the 100 hours that a prosecutor works during the week, he can get 10 criminals off the street or he can get 4 off the street, he's better off focusing his time and energy on the 10. Now, if the office staff is doubled they can also focus on the more marginal cases and get all 14 while eating the additional losses, but otherwise they need to pick and choose.

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.

 

[Toni]

I don't disagree that more resources are needed. Public defenders generally carry a caseload of upwards of 50 active cases. Prosecutors are better funded and better resourced. Both need increases in funding.

I don't understand the mindset of 'winning' as though it were a game. Cases need to be brought to trial.

But winning is important. Not in the sense that it's a game, but in the sense that it's the best use of limited prosecutorial resources. If, in the 100 hours that a prosecutor works during the week, he can get 10 criminals off the street or he can get 4 off the street, he's better off focusing his time and energy on the 10. Now, if the office staff is doubled they can also focus on the more marginal cases and get all 14 while eating the additional losses, but otherwise they need to pick and choose.

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.

I get what you are saying. Honestly, I do.

To the victims, not taking a case to trial—in some cases, not even bothering to conduct interviews or collect evidence—or TEST A RAPE KIT does make it seem very much as though rape is not considered to be a serious crime. It is really difficult to come forward with rape charges. Knowing how unlikely it is that your case will even be investigated, much less brought to trial—that discourages rape victims from reporting and causes untold harm. It also leaves the rapist free to believe he did nothing wrong and to move on to his next victim. It DOES help victims to be treated as though a real crime worth investigating is being taken seriously. Otherwise it’s like: no big deal. Don’t go out at night. Don’t wear that outfit. Don’t drink that drink. Never mind how many rapes are not committed at frat parties or in bar parking lots bit in your own home by someone who is supposed to care about you. Just don’t continue to exist. Why mess up some guy’s reputation so some DA’s conviction record. It’s just a little sex with morning after regrets.

- - - Updated - - -

How many young women accused of making false rape allegations are prosecuted and convicted?

Start a thread about this since it seems to concern you so much.

 

[Lion IRC]

Not to sound insensitive, but is that actually a problem?

I assume that in a large number of rape cases, the evidence comes down to a he said/she said scenario. If that’s the case then I would expect that it’s difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is required in criminal trials.

She said - "I was too drunk to give consent"
He said - "I was too drunk to know that she was as drunk as me"

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Not to sound insensitive, but is that actually a problem?

I assume that in a large number of rape cases, the evidence comes down to a he said/she said scenario. If that’s the case then I would expect that it’s difficult to meet the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard which is required in criminal trials.

She said - "I was too drunk to give consent"
He said - "I was too drunk to know that she was as drunk as me"

It seems consent is invalidated by being too drunk (regardless of how they became that way) but guilt for crimes (rape, driving drunk, etc) stick regardless of being too drunk to know what they are doing, IF they got themselves in that condition.

So what is the analysis if the woman drugs the man and gets him drunk without his consent and he then rapes her? Is he criminally responsible for the rape and should he be jailed for it?

 

[bilby]

Perhaps the courts should take the lead of the Scottish system, and allow a verdict of 'Not proven' - This has similar consequences for the accused to a 'Not guilty' verdict, but with a strong undertone of "We cannot prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but we think he probably did it".

No penalty is imposed by the law on a person found 'Not proven', but the message that verdict sends to the community is rather different from that sent by a 'Not guilty' verdict.