Why do you think the conviction rate for rape cases is only 4% out of 100%?

Question

It seems if a man says he thought he had consent then nothing can be done, 4% cannot reflect the reality, and 96% of women cannnot be crying wolf and making it up. If a woman cannot resist intercourse becuase she is passed out and too drunk then why is this taken as consent? if she cannot resist then that is not the same as consent and there have been cases where the man has had his wicked way when she has been passed out but this has been taken as consent in court and he walks free. what can be done about this in your opinion? should women to extra careful or is a change of law to redefine "consent" necessary?

Answer 1

The major problem is that the evidence which can be used in the case is usually destroyed by the victim or improper processing of the victim at the hospital. Often the victims first impulse is to try to "get clean" after such an assault. In the process of cleaning themselves up, they destroy the very evidence they need to prosecute. In the cases where the victim is taken to the hospital before getting cleaned up, many times they are initially treated as a simple assault and the nursing staff may inadvertently destroy evidence in the process of treating and cleaning up the injuries of the patient. Also some hospitals do not have anyone sufficently trained on how to collect evidence and as the result evidence is again destroyed or contaminated. This brings it down to a he said she said situation. In such a situation the burden of proof is on the victim and the prosecutor. With no colaborative evidence the assailant will generally go free. Fortunately, there is hope for this situation. The field of forensic nursing has recently came into being. These are specialized nurses who are able to collect, preserve, and interpret evidence in a medical setting. With the increasing number of these specialty nurses you will see an increase in sucesssful prosecutions. As far as being passed out, persons in this state are held to be incapable of giving consent. Therefore having sex with them cannot be consensual. At least that is how it is viewed under US law.

Answer 2

It is perfectly true to say how few men who are charged with rape are then convicted. It is obvious that 96% of women are not liars. Under the Sexual Offences Act a man is guilty of rape if he has sexual intercourse with another woman and is aware at the time of so doing she does not consent or is "reckless" as to whether she consents.*

The main problem with the current law is one of evidence. When rape occurs it usually does so between 2 people in secrecy. When 2 people are alone if matters go to trail it is usually "her word against his" making a conviction extremely difficult. Even where the prosecution have sufficient forensic evidence such as semen samples, skin samples, hair etc. this does not mean a great deal because such samples are found during normal consensual sex between parties.

The fact a woman may be under the influence of drink does not negate a woman's right not to consent. It is true that if a woman drinks too mch she may be acting negligently or irresponsibly but that does not give a person a right to be raped. However, it is true to say that defence barrister's do use this as a tactic in trials. If a woman is strongly under the influence of alcohol and unable to recall certain details then why should the jury accept her version of facts in the first place? After all it is reckless behaviour to be drunk!

Should the law be changed? Many laws need looking at by the legislative bodies and there is always room for improvement. When laws are changed it is hoped for the better. The public are always very quick to request "immediate action". Here is the problem:

If you change the legal definition of "consent" under the Sexual Offences Act how would it be reworded? The law must strike a balance between the competing interests of the defendant and the victim. If you lower the evidential burden currently required before a person is convicted this means the balance is moving more towards the victim. It is well known in the past that despite the current law many men have been wrongly convicted of rape by evil, jealous and vindictive women. This figure will undoubtedly rise and do you think it is fair for the innocent men who will be sent away for as much as 15 years for a crime they never committed? The famillies of that innocent person will suffer just as much as the woman who has suffered the crime of rape.

Yes, rape is a hideous crime and everyone seeks a the perfect solution to the problem. The sad truth is that there isn't one. The present legislation we have is probably the best we can get towards this.

Answer 3

The law has already been changed in this area to say if a woman is unable to give consent due to intoxication then he can still be prosecuted for rape.
As for the statistics of 4% I read that it was higher than that but still very low (below 20%) but there have been some high profile cases recently where woman have been charged after falsley accusing men of rape, with one man being freed from prison.
There may also be cases where charges are dropped by the complainant part way through (far a lot of reasons) and cases where the police obtain a conviction for something else.
Especially where a suspected rape has been followed by a murder. It may be impossible to 'prove' the rape for technical reasons but a solid conviction for murder would be a success.

There could be a lot of other reasons for example. Domestic violence may preceed a sexual act, sexual depravity, prostitution etc. All these and others will make a case confusing and perhaps difficult to be sure who is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Juries convict on evidence, therefore what can be done is more and better evidence.
If you are suggesting it should be easier to obtain a conviction simply against a claim I feel we would have to be very careful here. Two wrongs do not make a right.

One area that could be acted upon is ensuring that women make sure they do not travel alone where ever possible especially late at night after going to clubs/parties and that others look out for those who are tempted to walk home alone and insist they come along or lend them money for a taxi.
That does not mean that a lot of violent sexual acts aren't going unpunished, nor am I a supporter of 'it's the womans fault for wearing provocative clothing' but I suspect alcohol and drugs play a large part in men losing control of their inhibitions. Not meant as an excuse but I suspect a sad fact.
So perhaps removing 24hr drinking and more action on recreational drugs might reduce the number of offences which would be better than simply improving the conviction rate.

Answer 4

There are many factors for this lack of criminal justice. First of all, it seems as though criminals have more rights than their victim(s). When it comes to Rape, unfortunately, there are no other witnesses that can collaborate the incident. Women who are a victim of Rape can be afraid to notify the police or do not seek medical help after wards.Then, some women may blame themselves ( even though it is NOT their fault). These women are terrified and then to have to go to court, causes them to re-live the horror. Their abuse is talked about in front of strangers and, of course, the lawyer defending the Rapist, will mention that she wore seductive clothing, teased him, etc. ( These are just examples). The woman is all ready traumatized and because of this, she may become confused with all the legal mumbo jumbo. How can she be calm and relaxed, be able to answers questions, when her head is in such turmoil. Of course, innocent to proven guilty allows for a jury to have to prove " beyond a reasonable doubt". I remember a movie that I saw years ago. A female Doctor was raped. She then formed a group with other victims of rape. The group would keep tabs on offenders( one woman in the group had worked in the police dept. and had access to offeneders).The women in the group would lure rapists, drug them and bring them to the Doctor's home, where she would perform castration on the rapist's. The man would then be dropped somewhere, having no recall of what has happened until he goes into the bathroom. The word consent is used loosely when it comes to Rape. No is No and, Rape is Rape.

Answer 5

The law requires that conviction be beyond reasonable doubt. An alleged rape generally only has two witnesses, the accuser and the accused. It is almost impossible to convict an alleged rapist on the basis of one person's word against another. Particularly when conviction will result in a long prison sentence.

Incapacity through choosing to drink to excess also muddies the water when consent is contested.

It's very difficult to see how the law could change to convict more guilty rapists without also convicting more who are not guilty. Is that a price worth paying? Not if you're one of the wrongly convicted.

Answer 6

It's difficult because normally there are no other witnesses. It comes down to the woman's story vs. the man's story. You can't convict on just the woman's story. There needs to be either a witness or physical evidence that shows forced intercourse. It is very hard to prove consent to non-consent.

Answer 7

Rape cases usually become a "he said, she said" type of thing, and because of the consequences of being deemed a sexual predator, the juries often "err on the side of the defendant" especially if they aren't sure the evidence proves anything beyond a reasonable doubt.
I LOVE how even in today's society, lawyers can talk about how short the victim's skirt was, or how she had on lots of makeup and a tight shirt ... so she asked for it right? Um, WHAT???

Here's a better question, why do men who rape and are convicted get an average of 2 years in prison, when women who rape are generally sentenced to 10 years in prison (and for that matter, how the heck does a woman rape a man? it doesn't work that way??)

Answer 8

thats bull crap. My mother always said that guys that rape people should be neutured lol (or spayed, not sure which one it was.) but serously, i think it is also unfair that jack @$$ men get away with $#*! all the time, i mean really! And what the #&!! is so importent about it anyway, why do they seem to need it! I think that the law of consent should be redefined!

Answer 9

the definition and more so its interpretation is all skewed up. the precedents have been set by males in yester years and even lady judges are following the same path, a pity in today's world. what is required is a complete redefinition of consent and gentler questioning obligations on the lawyers while examining the victims of such heinous deeds. may the change come at the earliest ??? Amen!!!!!!!!!!!

Answer 10

Rape is hard to prove. Back in the days of common law, a woman had to prove that she resisted to the best of her abilities. Nowadays, if a girl goes to the hospital, she can be checked out and they can get dna samples from her. It's still their word against hers, so it's hard. Some girls don't want to be in the courtroom with the guy who did this to them, so cahrges usually aren't filed or are dropped.