Just 7% of reported rapes end in conviction in Ireland

Xiney

Don't know if this has been on the news for a few days since I've been abroad, but I have to say that I was shocked and appalled when I heard it.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/alarm-at-rape-conviction-rate-1966140.html

FouxDaFaFa

Good Lord, I knew the figure was low but that's horrific!

panda100

Wow thats a really low figure,no wonder people dont bother reporting rape to gardai

The_Minister

I'd say most of the problem is lack of evidence - a he said/she said trial is a dodgy thing, both in terms of the hope of conviction, and morally.
Quite often there just won't be any evidence.

WindSock

That's shockingly low. Hopefully this report won't make rapists feel 'safe' though.

The_Minister

WindSock wrote: »

That's shockingly low. Hopefully this report won't make rapists feel 'safe' though.

Thats a real concern. One of the biggest disincentives to committing a crime is not the sentence you get, but your percieved chances of getting caught.

Fighting Irish

I'd like to know what percentage of rape cases turn out to be false?

Nevyn

A lot of people have a very narrow defination of what is rape and that then reflects in how jurys return verdicts.

'Classic' rape is seen a being done by a stranger in a dark alley, were it's more likely to be a person known to the vitcim and to happen in the victim's home.

Nevyn

Fighting Irish wrote: »

I'd like to know what percentage of rape cases turn out to be false?

Y'know what one of these days we will have a discussion on rape with out this crap automatically coming up.

I woudl say given the amount of discovery and that the dept of public prosecution will only take cases where they think will be a conviction to court
I would say very few false accusations get to court.

Just because there wasn't a conviction due to legal technicalities and we are rather backwards in how we think about rape in this country that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen just it can't be prosecuted.

seahorse

I'm not in the least bit surprised about these figures. Disgusted, but not surprised.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that only a minority of rapes get reported in the first place, so the stats for men who walk free after doing this are actually far lower than 7%. Women are not prepared to put themselves through the hell of a rape trial when they know they have such a pathetically low chance of seeing justice, and even if a conviction is secured, it’ll usually be only a couple of years with a large chunk of the ‘sentence’ suspended. Then of course the evil bastard will get out early for ‘good behaviour’. I’ve known several women who haven’t even bothered reporting serious sexual assaults for exactly these reasons.

Nevyn

And the very long wait for a trial to even get underway, it can be as much as two years from when the file goes to the dept of public prosecutions.

Boston

Given that say 1 in 5 (extremely optimistic stat) rapes get reported, thats means that 1.4% of all rapes end in a conviction.

I recall reading somewhere that theres a serious lack of medical professionals trained in the usage of rape kits. I'd hasard a guess that thats where the problem is.

myflipflops

Mr Justice Paul Carney said he did not believe anyone would be in favour of 'American-style sentences of hundreds of years' being imposed.

Quoted from the rte.ie piece on the same topic.

Am i the only one who would be hugely in favour of these length of sentences?

Chinafoot

myflipflops wrote: »

Quoted from the rte.ie piece on the same topic.

Am i the only one who would be hugely in favour of these length of sentences?

I'm all for mandatory minimum sentences for things like murder, rape, child abuse. Far better than the bullshít that gets handed out here.

Nevyn

Reported to whom?

On average out of those who do ( 1 in 5) go to the Rape crises center and those who do attend the Sexual Assault and Treatment Unit only 10% will go to the garda.

Of those who do go to the garda only 5% of the cases reported to the garda are taken by the DPP to court.

and only 7% result in a conviction, the system is very wrong.

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhcwkfidojmh/

Aquafresh

Thaedydal wrote: »

I woudl say given the amount of discovery and that the dept of public prosecution will only take cases where they think will be a conviction to court
I would say very few false accusations get to court.

Just because there wasn't a conviction due to legal technicalities and we are rather backwards in how we think about rape in this country that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen just it can't be prosecuted.

This is ridiculous. If 7% of people charged with rape are convicted then the other 93% should be considered innocent. Saying that they got off on 'technicalities' (parts of the law to prevent innocent people being convicted) and assuming they are guilty is a crap way of thinking about it. Assuming that someone accused of rape is automatically guilty leads to a society where accusing someone of rape is enough to blacken his/her name.

I much rather the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', or something similar.

An Cat Dubh

Having been a victim of rape myself, I'm not surprised at this figure. And believe me, it is much to the frustration of the gardai who spend their time trying to establish a comprehensive case to bring to court. It then takes the DPP a long time (over 2 years for mine) to come back with a response. However, even though only a small amount of rapes are actually reported, this is still unfortunately a substantial number. And the DPP have to make their decisions based on whether they think there will be a successful conviction or not.

It's understandable that my case was rejected based on the fact that it was "my word or theirs" and the fact that I was 15 at the time. It is, however, an awful shame and really disencourages women to speak out about rape, upon fear of not being believed.

Herbal Deity

Aquafresh wrote: »

This is ridiculous. If 7% of people charged with rape are convicted then the other 93% should be considered innocent. Saying that they got off on 'technicalities' (parts of the law to prevent innocent people being convicted) and assuming they are guilty is a crap way of thinking about it. Assuming that someone accused of rape is automatically guilty leads to a society where accusing someone of rape is enough to blacken his/her name.

I much rather the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', or something similar.

I tend to agree.

Also, even if in most of these cases rapists are getting off, I wouldn't say it's "shocking", "appalling" or attribute it to backwards attitudes or whatever. The fact is rape is very hard to prove, as in a lot of cases I would imagine it's just on person's word against another's.

Nevyn

An Cat Dubh wrote: »

Having been a victim of rape myself, I'm not surprised at this figure. And believe me, it is much to the frustration of the gardai who spend their time trying to establish a comprehensive case to bring to court. It then takes the DPP a long time (over 2 years for mine) to come back with a response. However, even though only a small amount of rapes are actually reported, this is still unfortunately a substantial number. And the DPP have to make their decisions based on whether they think there will be a successful conviction or not.

It's understandable that my case was rejected based on the fact that it was "my word or theirs" and the fact that I was 15 at the time. It is, however, an awful shame and really disencourages women to speak out about rape, upon fear of not being believed.

I am sorry to hear that this happened to you and find it sickening that there are those who will say that as it never went to court and they were never convicted that they are not a rapist and ergo you were never raped.

Male rape victims come forward even less then female ones, we still have so far to go, funny that we are seeing victims civilly suing their rapists getting further then the criminal law system.

Boston

Aquafresh wrote: »

This is ridiculous. If 7% of people charged with rape are convicted then the other 93% should be considered innocent. Saying that they got off on 'technicalities' (parts of the law to prevent innocent people being convicted) and assuming they are guilty is a crap way of thinking about it. Assuming that someone accused of rape is automatically guilty leads to a society where accusing someone of rape is enough to blacken his/her name.

I much rather the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty', or something similar.

We don't actually live in the land of make believe and blarney. Given the numbers involved and the difficulty victims have getting things as far as prosecution, I'd be very slow to bury my head in the sand. That would require an incredible amount of faith in the system. That said, I do think its right that you need more then one person's word to convict no matter how heart breaking that is.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I tend to agree.

Also, even if in most of these cases rapists are getting off, I wouldn't say it's "shocking", "appalling" or attribute it to backwards attitudes or whatever. The fact is rape is very hard to prove, as in a lot of cases I would imagine it's just on person's word against another's.

I find it shocking and appalling that in this day and age it still so often a case of one person's word against the others. The only excuse for this is the incredible poor forensic abilities of the Gardai.

Thaedydal wrote: »

Male rape victims come forward even less then female ones, we still have so far to go, funny that we are seeing victims civilly suing their rapists getting further then the criminal law system.

I recall reading about a phone survey conducted by one of the Labour LGBT guys maybe 4 -5 years ago. He couldn't find a rape crisis centre outside Dublin which would accept male clients, and most of those that would indicated that preference would be given to female clients. I think the situation has improved somewhat since then.

Nevyn

Boston wrote: »

I find it shocking and appalling that in this day and age it still so often a case of one person's word against the others. The only excuse for this is the incredible poor forensic abilities of the Gardai.

Unfortunately while the forensics may determine that sex took place,
even with out the presence of ejaculate and even if it was rough and caused bruising it still can come down to the matter of consent, which is often she said he said and with a hug big dose of slut shaming and what the victim did, said, wore and previous sexual history.


Even with there being other rape crises centers in the country on any given day the dr qualified to do a rape exam and a rape kit may not be on call and a victim may have to travel and in some cases up or down to dublin all the while ideally from a point of view of forensics in the same clothes and not having washed what so ever as their body becomes part of the chain of evidence.

All of which tends to go against the instincts of a victim who will want to 'get clean' after being raped.

Herbal Deity

Boston wrote: »

I find it shocking and appalling that in this day and age it still so often a case of one person's word against the others. The only excuse for this is the incredible poor forensic abilities of the Gardai.

I would imagine that it's proving lack of consent as opposed to proving that both parties had sex that is the problem and where one person's word against the other's comes into play.

Nevyn

And the matter of sexual consent and withdrawal of that consent is something which is not taught in schools and for a lot of people they do not understand no means no, stop means stop and lack of consent does not equal consent.

The_Minister

Thaedydal wrote: »

Y'know what one of these days we will have a discussion on rape with out this crap automatically coming up.

I woudl say given the amount of discovery and that the dept of public prosecution will only take cases where they think will be a conviction to court
I would say very few false accusations get to court.

Just because there wasn't a conviction due to legal technicalities and we are rather backwards in how we think about rape in this country that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen just it can't be prosecuted.

Tbh, there is a large amount of statistical evidence to show that there are many false claims made (actual percentages range from 7-40% of all rape cases, depending on methodology, location, etc). There have been people who were innocent convicted in Ireland because they were falsely accused of rape.
Very few would get to court, but some do, and those that don't would make the numbers look even worse. There is no harm in acknowledging that.

Chinafoot wrote: »

I'm all for mandatory minimum sentences for things like murder, rape, child abuse. Far better than the bullshít that gets handed out here.

I used to be, but I'm studying law now, and I read a case where a judge gave a suspended sentence for a forceful rape.

I think the judge made the right call in that case, as there were a huge number of background factors that had to be taken into account - a minimum sentence would have been unjust in that case.


And there already is a minimum sentence in Ireland for murder: life.

Boston

The_Minister wrote: »

Tbh, there is a large amount of statistical evidence to show

You shouldn't have much of a problem citing some sources then.

The_Minister

Boston wrote: »

You shouldn't have much of a problem citing some sources then.

No, I won't, but the problem is how much the results vary.
7% is the absolute lowest I've come across.


Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations (40% false)
McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.) (60% false)
Indian report showing false rape complaints at 20%

Other links for your attention
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1719
http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/reporting

Chinafoot

The_Minister wrote: »

I used to be, but I'm studying law now, and I read a case where a judge gave a suspended sentence for a forceful rape.

I think the judge made the right call in that case, as there were a huge number of background factors that had to be taken into account - a minimum sentence would have been unjust in that case.

Please, please elaborate on this because I really don't understand how a suspended sentence for rape can ever be a good decision.

The_Minister wrote: »

And there already is a minimum sentence in Ireland for murder: life.

Well life in this country doesn't seem to mean life from what I can gather. Getting out after a few years isn't justice.

The_Minister

Chinafoot wrote: »

Please, please elaborate on this because I really don't understand how a suspended sentence for rape can ever be a good decision.

I'll have to do this from memory. I can't remember everything but basically:

Boy and girl were dating, girl was older (around 17/18).
Boy and girl went to a old mill where they had a romantic encounter (not sex).
Both were a little drunk.
Boy tried to go further, girl said no, boy went ahead anyway.

Girl then explained to boy what he had done.
Boy was extremely remorseful.
Apologised profusely (and AFAIR according to the victim, genuinely), and brought her home.
Girl's mother saw her, recognised something was wrong, called Gardai.
Boy was arrested, made immediate confession, was very sorry.
Did not even attempt to threaten trial, just owned up immediately.

Had never been in trouble with Gardai before.
None of his family had been in trouble before.
Had excellent character references from his employer, principal (may have been others, cannot recall) - never a hint of trouble.
He was examined and found to be socially stunted (I forget the exact phrasing) and to have a mild mental illness.

There were also other mitigating factors that I don't recall.

Basically, he could have gotten away with it by lying, but he didn't.
Instead he admitted his guilt, didn't force his victim to testify, apologised and was genuinely sorry, had limited social ability, and so didn't fully understand what he had sone until she explained it to him, had no record of anything, was considered a nice guy by everyone who dealt with him etc.

Overall, the judge felt that a suspended sentence was apprpriate, and after reading his judgment I tend to agree with him.

[Disclaimer] All of the above was unaided memory, there are many things I will have missed.[/Disclaimer]

EDIT: Obviously a suspended sentence for rape is highly unusual, but this case was exceptional IMO.

Chinafoot wrote: »

Well life in this country doesn't seem to mean life from what I can gather. Getting out after a few years isn't justice.

Actually life is life in Ireland. You don't spend it in jail, but even after you are released, it still hangs over you, and if you committ even a small infraction you can go to prison for a long time.
Ask in the Legal Discussion forum for more details (I've only started studying criminal law this year), but it does cause you huge difficulties for the rest of your life.

ronbyrne2005

Not to condone any sexual assualts but i feel teenage girls should get more education on putting themselves in risky situations. vast majority of sexual assualts can be avoided by not putting oneself in risky situations. Very few rapes are random on the street type things.

Herbal Deity

Are most rapes not carried out by someone known to the victim in environments one would assume to be "safe"?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Not to condone any sexual assualts but i feel teenage girls should get more education on putting themselves in risky situations. vast majority of sexual assualts can be avoided by not putting oneself in risky situations. Very few rapes are random on the street type things.

Sad but true. Glad someone said it, no one does because they're afraid people think they're blaming the victim. What I would disagree with is your emphasis on teenage girls. Men are at risk too and someone mentioned they are even less likely to report.

The figure doesn't surprise me and I'm not annoyed at the system either.

The rapes that tend to get convictions are when someone is raped randomly by a stranger. Here the victim doesn't have to worry about as many consequences, there will most likely be evidence of physical assault(external as well as vaginal/anal) and establishing lack of consent is far less ambiguous.

This kind of rape only makes up a small proportion of all rape though. One could be forgiven for thinking otherwise because these are the ones that make the newspapers regularly.

When people are raped by aquaintences or "friends" the jury is thrust into an unimaginably difficult decision. If there's no physical evidence its a straight up "his/her word against his/her's". If there is physical evidence of vaginal/anal bruising/tearing the rapist can claim they were having consensual "rough sex" and make up a pack of lies about the victim's motives - the jury are back to square one.

So I'm thinking the unfortunate truth is that people need to be more vigilant. This means being more careful about trusting people. Hoping this won't be too controversial but it also means controlling alcohol intake/drug use. I can't see an alternative, there's always going to be rapists.

It's interesting that male juries are more likely to convict. I'd love to know the reasons for this.

Does anyone have any statistics for reports and convictions for other nations with similar cultures?

Nevyn

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Not to condone any sexual assualts but i feel teenage girls should get more education on putting themselves in risky situations. vast majority of sexual assualts can be avoided by not putting oneself in risky situations. Very few rapes are random on the street type things.

and teenage boys need to learn about consent and what sexual assault and rape are and that they are not fun or funny and should never be condoned.

It is not just a teenage girls "problem" and by saying they should not put themselves in risky situations then you are blaming the ones that do for being sexually assaulted or raped.

People make mistakes, esp young people but that does not mean people should take advantage and matters of consent are for both genders.

Boston

The_Minister wrote: »

Kanin EJ. Arch Sex Behav. 1994 Feb;23(1):81-92 False rape allegations (40% false)

McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11,

No link to these so context cannot be ascertained, I do note that one report is from 1985.

Indian report showing false rape complaints at 20%

A third world country with dubious human rights let alone women's rights.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1719

http://rapesurvivor.pbworks.com/reporting

First off, foxnews, you are having a laugh. These links provide no direct data and merely comment on the data provided in other reports. The second link demonstrates that there isn't a "large amount" of statistical to back up any assertion with regards to the number of false rape accusations. That I would just as easily say the figure is 2% and find a dozen reports to support that. Tbh It seems you merely googled "false rape claims" after I called you up on passing off opinion and heresy as fact. I suggest next time you try to read the citations you provide.


One of the articles had this to say:
the category of 'false accusations' does not distinguish between accusers who lie and those who are honestly mistaken. Nor does it indicate that a rape did not occur, merely that the specific accused is innocent.

Which is an excellent thing to keep in mind.

panda100

I have to admit that I find some of the comments on this thread absolutely abhorrent. Here we have a news items that reveals only 7% of rapes reported end in a criminal conviction and we have a whole litany of posts claiming that the majority of women make false claims and that they should have been more vigilant to prevent the rape!!!! I doubt If it was 7% of murders ending in criminal convictions that people would be saying the victim should have been more vigilant.

I read this article once in RAG magazine on why so few rape cases end in conviction. Its quite interesting.

"There is no evidence of there being more false reports of rape than of any other crime. In fact it is the reverse that is true insofar as study after study has shown that, for a variety of reasons, including the stigma and shame often attached to sexual violence, most people who have been raped are silent about what has happened to them. The SAVI study reports that one of their most striking findings was that sexual violence was a completely private and hidden matter for almost half of those affected. Yet the same report found that four in ten of study participants felt that "accusations of rape are often false". Given such general scepticism about accusations of rape it is hardly surprising that fears of not being believed often act to effectively silence victims of rape.

This prejudice can be seen on an institutional level in the Irish judicial system with the "corroboration warning". This is a warning traditionally given in a rape trial by the judge to the jury that it is dangerous to convict the accused on the victim's evidence alone. The corroboration rule, which only applied to sexual assault trials, specified that the judge had to give the corroboration warning in these cases. Although this warning is no longer mandatory in Ireland and is left up to the judge's discretion, the warning is nevertheless almost always given. This seriously undermines the credibility of the victim.

Until recently and unlike in any other type of trial, evidence of the victim's prior sexual history was admissible without restriction in rape trials. Again the motivation was to discredit the person who was raped. Although it is now harder to introduce such evidence in court it is still common for people in general to see a woman's sexual history as somehow relevant when deciding whether she is telling the truth about a rape. The misogynistic logic behind this line of thought follows the age-old double standard that divides women into virgins and whores, and reserves a sort of respect only for the former. Women who "sleep around" can't really be raped it seems, or if they are, they were "asking for it".

Take for example the Supreme Court decision in Italy in February this year (2007): the five Supreme Court judges ruled that the rape of a minor was a less serious offence if the child involved was no longer a virgin. The case involved the appeal of a 40 year old man who had raped a 14 year old girl. The judges decided that the girl was more "developed" sexually than one would expect of a girl that age and because of this the rape was a more moderate offence than it would otherwise have been. The most "rapeable" group of people are prostitutes. For prostitutes who are raped it is extremely hard to get a conviction. One Australian judge when sentencing said "the likely effect on the victim of the forced oral intercourse and indecent assault is much less a factor in this case [because the victim was a prostitute] and lessens the gravity of the offences".

Preconceptions of what constitutes "real rape" excludes many types of rape which happen more frequently than the classic "real rape".

"When people hear of a specific incident in which a woman says she was raped, they look at the incident, compare it to their idea of a 'real rape' and often decide that the woman was not 'really raped'. The classic 'real rape' for many people is rape by a stranger who uses a weapon, an assault done at night, outside (in a dark alley) with a lot of violence, resistance by the woman (it is always a woman in 'real rape') and, therefore, severe wounds and signs of struggle. In fact, in every respect except one - the time of day - every element of this scenario is missing in most rapes. More that half of all rapes are committed by someone known to the person, the vast majority do not involve a weapon or severe injury, most occur indoors in either the victim's or the offender's home. These are the assaults which are dismissed or minimised."

Again, although it is in fact rare for a woman to sustain physical injuries, the absence of such injuries is often used to discredit her accusation of rape. "

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Not to condone any sexual assualts but i feel teenage girls should get more education on putting themselves in risky situations. vast majority of sexual assualts can be avoided by not putting oneself in risky situations. Very few rapes are random on the street type things.

The evidence is quite clear that most rape perpetrators are known to the victim and it occurs in a safe environment to the victim. As you say yourself very few rapes are random on the street things? So please do tell how women are putting themselves in 'risky situation's? Should we cut ourselves off from male contact?

My best friend was working in Infectious diseases section in The Mater hospital until recently. On her last day a young homeless girl who had been beaten by her dad and ran away from home was brought into the hospital. She had been horrifically raped by a HIV infected drug user earlier that day. My friend couldn't prescribe her the Morning after Pill as the Mater is a Catholic run hospital and no contraceptive is allowed to be prescribed. In this day and age should we not be questioning why a rape victim cannot be prescribed the MAP in Ireland largest hospital rather than the same old tired suuggestions about false rape claims.

Boston

panda100 : There aren't enough plus ones in the world.

ronbyrne2005 wrote: »

Not to condone any sexual assualts but i feel teenage girls should get more education on putting themselves in risky situations. vast majority of sexual assualts can be avoided by not putting oneself in risky situations. Very few rapes are random on the street type things.

You know, I've never seen a young girl out in town without at least one other friend with her. "Safe" situations turn into "Dangerous" situations in a blink of an eye. This is a picture of me. I'm as far from a naive young girl as you can get, I never put myself in dangerous situations. I always watch where I am and the people around me. That didn't stop some drunken thug from attacking me randomly (across from a garda station no less) one Friday night a few months back. Now I wasn't at risk of being raped in that situation since the guy just wanted to beat on someone (It didn't end too well for him). The point is, if a guy like me can end up in a situation were I'm being attacked, no amount of risk awareness is a guarantee.

ronbyrne2005

I mean education of informing of the risk that arises from people known to them and not to assume a friend or person known to them is not a potential threat or risk. Im not saying never be alone with such a person just to be aware of the risk. OR maybe theres little or nothign that can be done about this risk from those who know their victims, is there any society where rape is particularly low?

Herbal Deity

panda100 wrote: »

I have to admit that I find some of the comments on this thread absolutely abhorrent. Here we have a news items that reveals only 7% of rapes reported end in a criminal conviction and we have a whole litany of posts claiming that the majority of women make false claims and that they should have been more vigilant to prevent the rape!!!! I doubt If it was 7% of murders ending in criminal convictions that people would be saying the victim should have been more vigilant.

Murder is easier to prove. There's a body, a murder weapon etc.

Rape is very hard to prove. While you can prove sex took place, consent is immaterial and generally is one person's word against the other's. You can't just start giving women the benefit of the doubt as that would undermine the whole justice system.

Therefore, until consent or lack thereof can be proven much more easily, it makes sense that there be education aimed at young people with the aim of harm reduction.

Encouraging vigilance is NOT victim blaming. Similarly, if two friends are out and one of them happens to have an accident and requires CPR, but the other doesn't know first aid and their friend dies, it's not their fault they died even if they might have saved their life. To say that the first friend wouldn't have died if the second knew CPR is NOT blaming the second for their death.

I do get the feeling from you and other posters that you feel encouraging vigilance won't do anything to stop rape. Personally, having not researched the area much, I can't say. However, I wouldn't necessarily see it as an invalid point of view that vigilance should be taught to young people, as well as proper education on what consent consists of.

Why must you jump to the conclusion that when someone says that young people should be taught to be more vigilant, that said person is blaming the victim and is misogynistic as opposed to having genuine concern for future victims and believing that this might help stop horrific crimes taking place?

WindSock

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Are most rapes not carried out by someone known to the victim in environments one would assume to be "safe"?

This is believed to be the case.
On page 28 of this report however, the majority (48.26%) of relationships are strangers. This may be that people are much less likely to report or seek services if the perpetraitor is know to the victim.

http://www.drcc.ie/report/DRCC07.pdf

Nevyn

Well we live in a country were a lot of people do already blame the victim.

An Irish Examiner/Red C national opinion poll on people’s attitudes to sex crimes found a core section of our society think rape victims are totally or partially responsible for being attacked.

It found:

* More than 30% think a victim is some way responsible if she flirts with a man or fails to say no clearly.

* 10% of people think the victim is entirely at fault if she has had a number of sexual partners.

* 37% think a woman who flirts extensively is at least complicit, if not completely in the wrong, if she is the victim of a sex crime.

* One in three think a woman is either partly or fully to blame if she wears revealing clothes.

* 38% believe a woman must share some of the blame if she walks through a deserted area.

The results also show that defence barristers, looking to swing the deciding three members in every 12-person jury, can exploit misgivings in certain demographics about the perceived responsibility of female victims.

Dramatic differences in empathy towards victims based on age and social class are revealed. Gender, however, had little impact.

In every category, widowed, divorced and separated people took the harshest view on the role of the female victim, compared with married or cohabiting couples.

The results of the poll support the results of the ground-breaking Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland (SAVI) report in 2002, which found 15% of the population believed a raped woman was not an innocent victim.

The SAVI report, which was published in partnership with the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, also found 6% of women were raped at some point as adults.

Only a fraction reported the crime, as they feared they would be blamed or their claims would not be believed.

Chief executive of the DRCC Ellen Malley Dunlop said the findings of the Irish Examiner poll justified victimsreluctance to come forward and further explained why less than 10% of rape allegations lead to a conviction.

We need a proper sex and sexuality program in all secondary schools and for it to cover awareness and consent.

southsiderosie

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Murder is easier to prove. There's a body, a murder weapon etc.

Rape is very hard to prove. While you can prove sex took place, consent is immaterial and generally is one person's word against the other's. You can't just start giving women the benefit of the doubt as that would undermine the whole justice system.

Therefore, until consent or lack thereof can be proven much more easily, it makes sense that there be education aimed at young people with the aim of harm reduction.

Based on what panda100 noted above, the fact that women are not currently given the benefit of the doubt in rape cases undermines the legal system - it creates a situation where a relatively common violent crime goes under-reported because of what of what could be called, at its most extreme, institutionalized "slut-shaming".

Because date rape became horrifyingly common on some US college campuses (a situation often fueled by alcohol), some universities began taking a very hard line on what constituted "consent". Essentially the rules became, if someone is drunk, they cannot legally give consent. This is drummed into the heads of the students from the moment they arrive on campus. It may be extreme, but at least the rules of the game are clear.

Herbal Deity

southsiderosie wrote: »

Based on what panda100 noted above, the fact that women are not currently given the benefit of the doubt in rape cases undermines the legal system - it creates a situation where a relatively common violent crime goes under-reported because of what of what could be called, at its most extreme, institutionalized "slut-shaming".

But you can't just take what the alleged victim says as being somehow more valid than the defendant. That opens the system up to all sorts of abuse. Better 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail.

seahorse

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Better 100 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person go to jail.

Better one hundred rapists walk the streets to rape again than one innocent person go to prison?! Sweet Jesus, that is some very disturbed thinking.

RobbieTheRobber

Thaedydal wrote: »

Y'know what one of these days we will have a discussion on rape with out this crap automatically coming up.

I woudl say given the amount of discovery and that the dept of public prosecution will only take cases where they think will be a conviction to court
I would say very few false accusations get to court.

Just because there wasn't a conviction due to legal technicalities and we are rather backwards in how we think about rape in this country that doesn't mean that the rape didn't happen just it can't be prosecuted.

About the same amount as result in conviction are false in britain
with numbers from 3% to 9%

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7265307.stm

And the stigma of being accussed of rape may never go away

According to Home Office research, between 3% and 9% of all reports of rape are found to be false. Yet the lives of those men accused are often devastated. Some even commit suicide, so terrible is the stigma of being charged with sexual assault - even if subsequently cleared.

i dont want to use this to diminish the pain and suffering victims endure as a result of a rape but to write of the effects that false allegations have is demaning both to real victims and to those men who are innocent of rape.

panda100

Herbal Deity wrote: »

Murder is easier to prove. There's a body, a murder weapon etc.

Rape is very hard to prove. While you can prove sex took place, consent is immaterial and generally is one person's word against the other's. You can't just start giving women the benefit of the doubt as that would undermine the whole justice system.

Therefore, until consent or lack thereof can be proven much more easily, it makes sense that there be education aimed at young people with the aim of harm reduction.

Encouraging vigilance is NOT victim blaming. Similarly, if two friends are out and one of them happens to have an accident and requires CPR, but the other doesn't know first aid and their friend dies, it's not their fault they died even if they might have saved their life. To say that the first friend wouldn't have died if the second knew CPR is NOT blaming the second for their death.

I do get the feeling from you and other posters that you feel encouraging vigilance won't do anything to stop rape. Personally, having not researched the area much, I can't say. However, I wouldn't necessarily see it as an invalid point of view that vigilance should be taught to young people, as well as proper education on what consent consists of.

Why must you jump to the conclusion that when someone says that young people should be taught to be more vigilant, that said person is blaming the victim and is misogynistic as opposed to having genuine concern for future victims and believing that this might help stop horrific crimes taking place?

I see where your coming from. I disagree with you that murder is easy to prove.Just like rape,every two cases are completely different and we shouldn't look at these serious crimes in such a black and white terms.

I think I could safely say from comments on this thread and from what I know of rape victims that the gardai do not apply the same professionalism to rape as they do other serious crimes,such as murder or theft. There is often a large degree of scepticism and many gardai don't even bother reporting rape. I would also be surprised If gardai got much specialist training in this area.
Some people may think its due to a lack of evidence. Personally I think its because we live in a society which predominantly adheres to rape myths. By this I mean the 'myths' that women lie about rape and that rapes occur in dark alleyways by tall,bulky strangers.


I don't know much about Law here in Ireland but I know that in England the rape victim is just a 'witness' to the attack. This means that the opposition can discredit her as a witness,use character assassination,bring up sexual history etc, but because the rape victim is just a 'witness' in the trial she is denied the right to refute claims made about her character and credibility. This means the rapist can use character witnesses telling the jury what a great,honest person he is and the rape victim because she is just a witness is denied this right.I know If I was on a jury I'd probably believe the person with the glowing character references.
Would it be the same in Irish courts?

I disagree that the emphasis should be put on educating women to be safe and more vigilant. At the end of the day only rapists can prevent rape. The focus has to be on making men understand what consent is. Its in our culture that men feel they have the right to sex in certain situations. I have been in situations myself when I have been out and men have got very frustrated and called me a "prick tease' just because I wouldn't go home with them at the end of the night.The fact even that women are called 'teases' (unlike men) and that being called a tease is a shameful, embarrassing thing to be called.
I think what should be chalenged is the degradation of women and our bodies in mainstream media along with the myths that men have no other choice but to respond to their sexual urges.

Novella

7%? That is so shocking. It's actually not surprising so many rape cases go undocumented in this country 'cause really, with a figure like that, all reporting it is doing is bringing hassle onto the victim.

It's also kind of scary how many people seem to have the view that the key to preventing rape is to teach young girls about "keeping safe". Rape isn't just committed by "bad" men who lurk down dark alley ways. Sometimes, you can feel as safe as can be with a man and then be sexually assaulted by him out of pretty much nowhere.

Nevyn

panda100 wrote: »

I don't know much about Law here in Ireland but I know that in England the rape victim is just a 'witness' to the attack. This means that the opposition can discredit her as a witness,use character assassination,bring up sexual history etc, but because the rape victim is just a 'witness' in the trial she is denied the right to refute claims made about her character and credibility. This means the rapist can use character witnesses telling the jury what a great,honest person he is and the rape victim because she is just a witness is denied this right.I know If I was on a jury I'd probably believe the person with the glowing character references.
Would it be the same in Irish courts?

It is the exact same here.

Chinafoot

The_Minister wrote: »

Boy and girl were dating, girl was older (around 17/18).
Boy and girl went to a old mill where they had a romantic encounter (not sex).
Both were a little drunk.
Boy tried to go further, girl said no, boy went ahead anyway.

Girl then explained to boy what he had done.
Boy was extremely remorseful.
Apologised profusely (and AFAIR according to the victim, genuinely), and brought her home.
Girl's mother saw her, recognised something was wrong, called Gardai.
Boy was arrested, made immediate confession, was very sorry.
Did not even attempt to threaten trial, just owned up immediately.

Had never been in trouble with Gardai before.
None of his family had been in trouble before.
Had excellent character references from his employer, principal (may have been others, cannot recall) - never a hint of trouble.
He was examined and found to be socially stunted (I forget the exact phrasing) and to have a mild mental illness.

There were also other mitigating factors that I don't recall.

Basically, he could have gotten away with it by lying, but he didn't.
Instead he admitted his guilt, didn't force his victim to testify, apologised and was genuinely sorry, had limited social ability, and so didn't fully understand what he had sone until she explained it to him, had no record of anything, was considered a nice guy by everyone who dealt with him etc.

Overall, the judge felt that a suspended sentence was apprpriate, and after reading his judgment I tend to agree with him.

The part in bold is all that matters as far as I'm concerned. If the boys mental illness is going to be used as an excuse then surely he should have been given a custodial sentence in a psychiatric hospital that could cater for him? Being sorry after the fact really, really isn't good enough. I'm so sick of hearing about these character references people use to get off. Politicians writing about how "sure he's a great man your honour, good family man, good business man." He RAPED someone. She said no and he did it anyway. I don't really care if you see this as a simplistic view after your semster of criminal law. Come back to me when you ahve first hand experience of the devastation this causes. The courts in this country are far too lenient with this stuff.

The_Minister wrote: »

Actually life is life in Ireland. You don't spend it in jail, but even after you are released, it still hangs over you, and if you committ even a small infraction you can go to prison for a long time.
Ask in the Legal Discussion forum for more details (I've only started studying criminal law this year), but it does cause you huge difficulties for the rest of your life.

I'm referring to life as in a jail term. Again, I'm not buying into this craic of "Well life is very difficult when you get out." The fact is the person is out, living their life. The person they murdered doens't have that luxury. A minimum sentence of 25 to life should be enforeced here. This bullshít of getting out after 7 years is a complete joke, no matter how tough life will be for them. :rolleyes:

Buceph

And sure, aren't they all inside with their plasma TVs and XBox, with their Michelin starred chef provide room service.

Most people in Ireland haven't a clue what spending 7 days in jail is like much yet a huge amount of time like 7 years.

Chinafoot

Buceph wrote: »

And sure, aren't they all inside with their plasma TVs and XBox, with their Michelin starred chef provide room service.

Most people in Ireland haven't a clue what spending 7 days in jail is like much yet a huge amount of time like 7 years.

I'm not suggesting that prison is easy. Feel free to point out where I said that, I imagine you'll have some difficulty. We were discussing murder...you know, ending the life of someone else. You think 7 years is justice then good for you. The system appears to be in your favour.

This is all off the topic anyway.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Thaedydal wrote: »

and teenage boys need to learn about consent and what sexual assault and rape are and that they are not fun or funny and should never be condoned.

I do think the vast vast vast majority of rapists know rape is wrong and know what consent is. They just don't care. Though I agree with your suggestion, perhaps might help prevent them from being able to justify sexual assault to themselves in later life

It is not just a teenage girls "problem" and by saying they should not put themselves in risky situations then you are blaming the ones that do for being sexually assaulted or raped.

That's a really immature response and a horrible thing to say about the poster you're quoting. We are not blaming the victims, we're acknowledging rapists exist and will continue to exist. Therefore the most logical way to protect people is to promote vigilance.

panda wrote:

I doubt If it was 7% of murders ending in criminal convictions that people would be saying the victim should have been more vigilant.

There's certain places in Northern Ireland that if someone from a particular background hung about and was murdered a lot of people would be saying "he shouldn't have put himself in that position" Now no-one's actually *blaming* this guy for being murdered but they believe he should have been more vigilant about where he chose to drink whilst wearing a celtic jersey.

The evidence is quite clear that most rape perpetrators are known to the victim and it occurs in a safe environment to the victim. As you say yourself very few rapes are random on the street things? So please do tell how women are putting themselves in 'risky situation's? Should we cut ourselves off from male contact?

Not cut off, but certainly don't get drunk alone with a guy alone/stay in his house alone unless you know him really really really well.

Why do you think when people meet others from dating sites its recommended you do it in a public place?

I disagree that the emphasis should be put on educating women to be safe and more vigilant. At the end of the day only rapists can prevent rape. The focus has to be on making men understand what consent is. Its in our culture that men feel they have the right to sex in certain situations.

No, it really isn't. Rapists know exactly what consent it, they just don't care. It almost sounds like you're making the rapists out to be victims of the system now.

I have been in situations myself when I have been out and men have got very frustrated and called me a "prick tease' just because I wouldn't go home with them at the end of the night.

Right and what percentage of "our culture" would agree that guy had a right to rape you?

The fact even that women are called 'teases' (unlike men) and that being called a tease is a shameful, embarrassing thing to be called.

Some people deserve the term. Not just women neither. I've been called it and I'm a guy. It doesn't happen as much to men because a fairly large proportion of them won't even speak to women unless they want to hit on them and because women don't approach men as much as vice versa.

Boston wrote:

The point is, if a guy like me can end up in a situation were I'm being attacked, no amount of risk awareness is a guarantee.

Of course not, what are you suggesting would be a guarantee?

I find it shocking and appalling that in this day and age it still so often a case of one person's word against the others. The only excuse for this is the incredible poor forensic abilities of the Gardai.

No it isn't. Forensics have a limit. In the cases where the perpetrator is claiming there was consent and the victim says it was rape there's not much forensics can do. There might be some internal bruising but that can happen in sex with consent also.

panda100

Thaedydal wrote: »

It is the exact same here.

Woah thats awful,was hoping it was just an English thing. Well no wonder theres such few rape convictions,the judicial system seems to be in favour of protecting the perpetrator than the victim.