No wonder so many people don't report rape/sexual assault.

Morag

I have known for the years the stats are bad and that even if you do report it to the garda that then there is a good chance that even with your attacker being brought to the garda station for statements and then send the file to the Department of Public prosecution they may choose not to take the case but I didn't know it was as high as 70%.


http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/dpp-rejects-70-of-sex-crime-referrals-172463.html

DPP rejects 70% of sex crime referrals

By Jennifer Hough

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

AT least 70% of suspects in sex offence cases are not being prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, figures obtained by the Irish Examiner have revealed.

Statistics provided by the DPP also reveal that, since 2008, there have been just 24 convictions in cases relating to people aged under 18. They were secured from 531 files submitted to the office by gardaí.

So far this year, a high of 179 cases concerning under 18-year-olds, in which there were 201 suspects, were sent to the DPP.

An analysis of the figures from 2008 to October 2011 shows:

* In 2010, 1,254 files with 1,407 suspects were sent to the DPP. No prosecution was directed in 1,002 (70%) of those;

* In 2009, 1,043 files with 1,204 suspects were sent. No prosecution was taken against 883 (73%) suspects;

* In 2008, 962 files with 1,055 suspects were sent. No prosecution was directed in 784 (74%) cases.

To October 2011, gardaí sent 1,083 files concerning 1,213 suspects to the DPP. There was no prosecution taken in relation to 736 suspects. A further 270 are pending.

The figures reveal that conviction rates for serious sex offences in the higher courts are not going up — despite a steady rise in the number of files submitted to the DPP in recent years.

Since 2008, there have been 233 convictions in the Central Criminal Court and Circuit Court. In 443 cases over the same timeframe, "no final outcome" was recorded. There can be several reasons for this, for example, if the gardaí cannot locate the accused, if a case is still pending or if a case is awaiting a re-trial where the jury could not reach a verdict during an earlier trial.

The Rape Crisis Network of Ireland called on the DPP to give victims reasons for not prosecuting a case.

"Very many survivors of sexual violence who take the decision to report the crime to the guards will not have their case prosecuted," said a network spokesperson.

"For survivors, this can be very difficult to understand and accept.

"We would like to see the DPP extend a pilot project to start giving people reasons for non-prosecution in relation to unlawful killing to include sexual offences."

The figures show that, in 2010, just 10 convictions were secured in the Central Criminal Court, where 67 people were initially prosecuted. Of the 145 offences tried in the Circuit Court concerning 154 suspects, there were 32 convictions.

Also last year, of 203 suspects in 173 alleged crimes against under 18-year-olds, the DPP did not prosecute 163 (80%) of the suspects.

There was one conviction in the Central Criminal Court, and five in the Circuit Court. One case is still pending direction.

According to the DPP’s office, it receives a file in all detected cases of a sexual nature. Gardaí do not filter "unprosecutable" cases.

For this reason, the office receives a large number of files, some of which are seriously lacking in evidence.

Read more: http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/dpp-rejects-70-of-sex-crime-referrals-172463.html#ixzz1cYuw2eNB

This means they will only bother with cases which they can get a jury to prosecute and given the horrible attitudes to wards sex and women in this country, as over 1/3 of people think the victim is at fault. It means that you have to be a ‘good girl’ and have very little of a sexual history for to have them think it’s not your ‘fault’.

Given that even if the DPP takes your case it can take up to 118 weeks, that’s over two years before it sees the inside of a court room and you have to live with that hanging over you and that’s even harder if the attacker is someone you know which statically is likely.

The system is beyond deeply flawed and needs to change

Zulu

As a matter of interest, how would you propose/suggest to change it?

Morag

Night court to start with, there should not be such long waiting times and such a backlog of cases.

Educate the public better on consent, no means no and lack of consent equals no.

MrStuffins

Sharrow wrote: »

Educate the public better on consent, no means no and lack of consent equals no.

You think rapists would change their minds if there was a "No means No" campaign?

Believe it or not....... but some sex offenders are quite aware that their victims are not giving consent!

Morag

If the general public is better educated on consent and no meaning no then more juries will convict instead of weighing up rubbish like what she was wearing and how many previous sexual partners she's had.

jaffacakesyum

MrStuffins wrote: »

You think rapists would change their minds if there was a "No means No" campaign?

Believe it or not....... but some sex offenders are quite aware that their victims are not giving consent!

:rolleyes: Believe it or not some male rapists seem to think that if a girl dresses 'slutty' she's clearly up for it even if she says no.

Even some people seem to think that if the girl is drunk and flirting to begin with, but says no later, she's clearly just playing hard to get.

dearg lady

MrStuffins wrote: »

You think rapists would change their minds if there was a "No means No" campaign?

Believe it or not....... but some sex offenders are quite aware that their victims are not giving consent!

I think the point was to educate the general public about this, so people are less likely to assume she 'asked for it'

dearg lady

As much as I agree with what you are saying OP, this is the pertinent question...

Zulu wrote: »

As a matter of interest, how would you propose/suggest to change it?

It's a very difficult situation. I genuinely can't come up with any solutions, I wish I could.

michael999999

Sharrow wrote: »

Night court to start with, there should not be such long waiting times and such a backlog of cases.

Educate the public better on consent, no means no and lack of consent equals no.

What good would night court do? It takes time to process evidence such as dna!

FreudianSlippers

michael999999 wrote: »

What good would night court do? It takes time to process evidence such as dna!

I think that's the problem and what the article is leaving out for the most part, except this line:

According to the DPP’s office, it receives a file in all detected cases of a sexual nature. Gardaí do not filter "unprosecutable" cases.

This means that AGS are sending every file of sexual cases to the DPP where in the vast majority of them there may be no valid complaint, not enough evidence to prosecute or a lack of will on the part of the victim to cooperate with an investigation.

I'm not suggesting that this is a positive by any means, just that the numbers look shocking, whereas in reality I'm sure that many of the cases which have adequate evidence to proceed do so, and do so quickly.
I'm not a criminal practitioner but was involved in 2 cases last year of a sexual nature and I can tell you that it is taken very seriously by the DPP and matters proceed much faster (where possible) than even other criminal matters.

(People often forget as well that the back-log of civil cases is much longer than criminal which are usually dealt with quite quickly; night court wouldn't really do much to the criminal trials)

amacachi

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I'm not a criminal practitioner but was involved in 2 cases last year of a sexual nature and I can tell you that it is taken very seriously by the DPP and matters proceed much faster (where possible) than even other criminal matters.

I was a "witness" in a case a few years back and despite there being no evidence and a huge gap since the alleged incident occurred the Gardai tracked down about 10 people for statements and put together a case. If I were to make a criticism of the Gardai in that particular case it would be for wasting time and effort, not the opposite.

jaffacakesyum

The Gardaí on the ground certainly do take it extremely seriously and I know first hand how dedicated they are to putting a good case forward.

The DPP is another thing altogether...although I'm not saying it's an easy job. Unfortunately it's just very hard to prove rape

FreudianSlippers

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

The Gardaí on the ground certainly do take it extremely seriously and I know first hand how dedicated they are to putting a good case forward.

The DPP is another thing altogether...although I'm not saying it's an easy job. Unfortunately it's just very hard to prove rape

I think that's due to a lack of education for young women (especially) on the correct procedure...

Without trying to be crude, in many cases often "evidence" is lost because the victim showers (clearly something one would instinctively want to do in these scenarios) or gets rid of clothes or something without first immediately attending a hospital.

I'm certainly not saying that there are no cases that should have been pursued that weren't, but I think the figure quoted is exaggerated when considering all of the factors.

Reku

AT least 70% of suspects in sex offence cases are not being prosecuted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, figures obtained by the Irish Examiner have revealed.

Some factors to keep in mind regarding that report:

http://www.thejournal.ie/dpp-prosecuted-in-more-than-60-per-cent-of-cases-last-year-269130-Nov2011/ wrote:

THE OFFICE OF the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute in 62 per cent of cases sent to them by the Gardaí last year.

So even when not focusing in on a crime which is unfortunately often simply one person's word against another (as to whether it was consentual) the prosecution rate is not great.:(


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1102/1224306912213.html

A MAJOR reason why the Director of Public Prosecutions does not prosecute in alleged rape cases is because the complainant is unable to recall the alleged offence or the details of it as a result of intoxication.

Delay in making a complaint was also a factor, and arose in almost 10 per cent of all decisions not to prosecute. Such delay could mean a lack of medical or forensic evidence due to lapse of time.

Complainants withdrew their complaint in 17 per cent of the cases, usually before the file reached the office of the DPP.

so cases going to court, regardless of nature of the crime x percentage that are not withdrawn
0.62 x 0.83 = 0.51%
Factor in those cases where the traumatised victim washed away the evidence, or where the absence of consent will be difficult to convince a jury of (assuming the victim can even clearly remember whether they gave any consent) and it's not all that surprising that the prosecution rate is so poor for rape.

Also another article from a while back pointing to the problem of just how drunk some victims are:

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/teens-who-claim-sex-assault-too-drunk-to-remember-329685.html wrote:

"Due to the amount they have drunk, they have suffered memory loss and do not know what has happened to them, which is very frightening," she said.

"They either cannot remember the night at all or suffer periods of memory loss, in some cases wakening up in a familiar environment with someone who may be known to them, but are unable to remember what has happened."

While the question arises of whether or not their drink had been spiked, in most cases the level of alcohol consumed is enough to cause the memory loss, Dr Houlihan told the conference.

http://www.independent.ie/health/patients-too-drunk-to-recall-attack-144571.html wrote:

MORE than a third of the people examined at the Sexual Assault Treatment Unit in Dublin's Rotunda Hospital last year had consumed so much alcohol they couldn't remember if they had been attacked or not, it was revealed yesterday.

How can anyone expect a prosecution in such circumstances unless a witness of CCTV camera can provide a credible account of the incident?

When one considers that many victims probably don't report the incidents due to the realisation of how low the rate of prosecution, nevermind successful prosecution, along with these figures it presents a quite worrying prospect as to how many rapists might be walking around, feeling that they got away with it, potentially feeling they could do so again...

jaffacakesyum

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I think that's due to a lack of education for young women (especially) on the correct procedure...

Without trying to be crude, in many cases often "evidence" is lost because the victim showers (clearly something one would instinctively want to do in these scenarios) or gets rid of clothes or something without first immediately attending a hospital.

I'm certainly not saying that there are no cases that should have been pursued that weren't, but I think the figure quoted is exaggerated when considering all of the factors.

I agree to an extent. On the other hand, these things just prove that sex took place, not that it was non-consensual. (Although of course it's important to have evidence that sex took place in the first place before you can try go about proving it was rape!)

I wish there was some defininitive way the courts could prove rape took place (asides from CCTV). I really do. It's scary to think how many rapists get away with it

FreudianSlippers

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

I agree to an extent. On the other hand, these things just prove that sex took place, not that it was non-consensual. (Although of course it's important to have evidence that sex took place in the first place before you can try go about proving it was rape!)

I wish there was some defininitive way the courts could prove rape took place (asides from CCTV). I really do. It's scary to think how many rapists get away with it

Well, immediately going to the hospital with preserved evidence (torn clothes, semen, bruising, whatever) is going to make the initial decision to prosecute much easier.
It would seem that's what the main thrust of the article is about; the percentage of cases the DPP goes ahead with in relation to the number of complaints made to AGS.

Preservation of evidence would raise the percentage, then it's for the courts to determine guilt or innocence based on the evidence before it.

Morag

Not every hospital has drs who are on call who can do a rape kit.

In one case when I was in college I ended up travelling with someone up to Dublin to the rape crises centre after she had been waiting for 7 hours in the garda station while they tried to track down a dr who was qualified and currently certified.

She'd bags on her hands and a coat over her night clothes and it's one of the most traumatic things I ever had to sit with someone through.

FreudianSlippers

Sharrow wrote: »

Not every hospital has drs who are on call who can do a rape kit.

In one case when I was in college I ended up travelling with someone up to Dublin to the rape crises centre after she had been waiting for 7 hours in the garda station while they tried to track down a dr who was qualified and currently certified.

She'd bags on her hands and a coat over her night clothes and it's one of the most traumatic things I ever had to sit with someone through.

Well that's ridiculous; all hospitals should be able to do a rape kit!

Talk about adding insult to injury!

Morag

They should but there is not always someone on call who is currently certified and if a person hasn't been trained correctly or if their certification is out of date, then the procedure for administering the kit is considered flawed and can be questioned in court and the findings found invalid.

FreudianSlippers

Sharrow wrote: »

They should but there is not always someone on call who is currently certified and if a person hasn't been trained correctly or if their certification is out of date, then the procedure for administering the kit is considered flawed and can be questioned in court and the findings found invalid.

I understand that, my point is merely that the correct process is to attend the hospital immediately who should ring the Gardaí to attend the hospital.

The percentage issue that is in the OP is interesting because clearly preservation of evidence is but one factor involved.

Posy

When you hear about the way some women are treated after being raped, it's no wonder many of them go unreported.

In the U.K, a teenage rape victim was made to hold up and display to the court the underwear she had been wearing at the time of her attack. Despite the rapist being found guilty, the ordeal she suffered during the case was too much to bear and the young girl committed suicide a short time later after saying the trial felt like "being raped all over again."

When I was in college, my friend was violently raped after a party. She did the right thing, didn't shower or change clothes and reported it immediately. After being examined, she was in the interview room, shocked and badly bruised, when a male Garda smirked at her and asked "are ya sure you don't just like it rough love?" She eventually ended up not pressing charges because she couldn't face going through it all again in court.

Alopex

Think articles like this are irresponsible in some regards. Tone really suggests an attitude in the Irish DPP that women aren't to be trusted and are making up rapes.

This isn't the case. The problem is rape is very often an extremely un-provable crime. This is a problem worldwide not just with the Irish DPP.

So what I worry about is the DPP's reputation for prosecuting rape is unfairly being discredited. What if this reduction in credibility leads to person with a provable rape case not reporting it? It could even lead to people not reporting other types of crime due to lack of faith in the system.

W77

I have to ask a question.

How is the sexually promiscuity of the woman NOT relevant to the seriousness of the crime?? Surely a man who rapes a woman who had slept with 100 previous partners shouldn't be given the same sentencing as a man who rapes a woman that was saving herself for marriage. We have to take into account the sociological factors that completely change the dynamics of the crime.

W77

MrStuffins

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

:rolleyes: Believe it or not some male rapists seem to think that if a girl dresses 'slutty' she's clearly up for it even if she says no.

Even some people seem to think that if the girl is drunk and flirting to begin with, but says no later, she's clearly just playing hard to get.

And you think that by "educating" these people it would stop them?

You honestly think these people need a government campaign to tell them that if a girl is dressed slutty that she's not asking to be raped?

Jesus wept!

MrStuffins

W77 wrote: »

I have to ask a question.

How is the sexually promiscuity of the woman NOT relevant to the seriousness of the crime?? Surely a man who rapes a woman who had slept with 100 previous partners shouldn't be given the same sentencing as a man who rapes a woman that was saving herself for marriage. We have to take into account the sociological factors that completely change the dynamics of the crime.

W77

Wait........ what? You think if a woman was promiscuous she should have less rights than a virgin? Are you for real?

"Guilty! I sentence you to 20 years for murder"

- "But your honour, the guy I murdered was a bit of a dick! He used to call people names and he kicked a puppy to death once"

"Oh, did I say 20 years? Sorry! I meant 20 minutes. Here, have a lollypop too!"

W77

MrStuffins wrote: »

Wait........ what? You think if a woman was promiscuous she should have less rights than a virgin? Are you for real?

"Guilty! I sentence you to 20 years for murder"

- "But your honour, the guy I murdered was a bit of a dick! He used to call people names and he kicked a puppy to death once"

"Oh, did I say 20 years? Sorry! I meant 20 minutes. Here, have a lollypop too!"

We have to acknowledge the fact that we are now a liberal society that is breaking away from the monogamous structure we had before. Monogamy is what made rape such a serious crime, as it resulted in sex being deemed a sacred act. Now that we are deviating back to a polygamous structure, sex is now being deemed a casual act which means women will not be nearly as badly affected psychologically as before, especially ones who have had much consensual sex with lots of partners (common in Ireland).

Rape is also now much more likely to occur than before as the desire in men for casual sex rises along with their sense of entitlement to it; If a woman gives it casually to one man, the next man will feel entitled to it also (fact of nature, unfortunately).

W77

MrStuffins

W77 wrote: »

We have to acknowledge the fact that we are now a liberal society that is breaking away from the monogamous structure we had before. Monogamy is what made rape such a serious crime, as it resulted in sex being deemed a sacred act. Now that we are deviating back to a polygamous structure, sex is now being deemed a casual act which means women will not be nearly as badly affected psychologically as before, especially ones who have had much consensual sex with lots of partners (common in Ireland).

Oh come off it! You're trying to tell me that it is only now, in the year 2011, that we are becoming polygamous?

Sex IS a casual act. Sex has always been a casual act. Rape is not sex. The psychological effects on the rape victim do not decrease just because they have had consensual sex a lot of times. You are speaking like someone who has a lot of views on moral nature but absolutely no understanding of the act of rape.

Just because a woman has a lot of sexual partners, does not mean I am more inclined to force sex upon her. Just as if I met a professional boxer, I wouldn't feel I should punch him in the face just because he's consented to a load of people doing that to him in the past.

Rape is also now much more likely to occur than before as the desire in men for casual sex rises along with their sense of entitlement to it; If a woman gives it casually to one man, the next man will feel entitled to it also (fact of nature, unfortunately).

W77

What do you mean "desire in men for casual sex rises"? You're saying it's higher now than before? What exactly leads you to this conclusion?

Also, your last sentence stinks! A woman has the choice of who she would like to have sex with and not. EVERY man knows this. EVERY man knows that it is wrong to commit rape.

The "next man" will NEVER feel "entitled" to it and you know it. Even if he did, he knows right from wrong and knows rape is wrong on every level.

Feisar

Eh it's only 8:03 in the morning, my coffee hasn't fully hit the system and it's easy to spot the troll.

rainbow kirby

W77 banned for trolling

LeeHoffmann

You often hear that low conviction rates and lenient sentences lead to under-reporting of rape, which seems like common sense. I don't know if this would be considered off-topic, but I'd be interested to see whether people (male and female) think they would report the crime if they were raped. Perhaps an anonymous poll? For myself, there wouldn't be an ounce of hope in me of getting justice - so if I were to report it, it would be due to a sense of civic duty (the whole - 'think of the next victim' thing) and/or pressure from loved ones to do so. If I would even have the strength to do that. Just wondering what other boardsies think they would do (obviously nobody knows until they're in that situation etc etc)

Feisar

I'm male

If I knew them I'd like to think I wouldn't report it and role them up in a carpet with some petrol and burn them alive. The recording should bring me some solace any time I'd be upset about it.

If I didn't know them I'd like to think I'd report it.

I'd probably just cry and scrub myself with bleach in reality though.

LegacyUser

W77 wrote: »

We have to acknowledge the fact that we are now a liberal society that is breaking away from the monogamous structure we had before. Monogamy is what made rape such a serious crime, as it resulted in sex being deemed a sacred act. Now that we are deviating back to a polygamous structure, sex is now being deemed a casual act which means women will not be nearly as badly affected psychologically as before, especially ones who have had much consensual sex with lots of partners (common in Ireland).

Rape is also now much more likely to occur than before as the desire in men for casual sex rises along with their sense of entitlement to it; If a woman gives it casually to one man, the next man will feel entitled to it also (fact of nature, unfortunately).

W77

I know you've been banned, but god I hope you see this because you need to understand how wrong you are. I need you to understand how wrong you are.

There are NO sociological factors that can decrease the psychological effects of sexual assault. There is NO excuse, and there never ever will be.

It destroys your life, it takes away who you are, and it never goes away. You may never see the person again, but you have to live with them inside of your head for the rest of your life.

When you fall in love, and want to give them your all - you can't, because a little piece of you is gone forever. When you go to bed with them and want to stay there in that moment with them you can't, because when you close your eyes it all comes back in an instant.

How DARE you say that in any circumstance that it's ok? How dare you suggest that the pain is lessened in any way? How DARE you try to even contemplate the sheer and utter torment of this feeling of emptiness and loss.

No wonder more women don't report it. Do you realise how hard it is to stand up and speak out when your own head is plagued by fear and doubt? How hard it is to believe in yourself when there are others who don't believe in you either?

How dare you.

Mallei

Sharrow, you must feel like you're fighting a losing battle sometimes. Even here, in the Ladies Lounge, you get shouted down when you try and suggest that there's a problem with rapists being convicted.

I don't understand the need to discredit victims and absolve rapists that some posters have. I won't draw gender lines because I got in trouble for that before (hai three month ban!) and I'm sure ignorance falls on both sides, but it is always the same old posters.

Why is it so hard for some people to see that being raped is the most traumatic experience a woman can go through? I know a woman who was violently raped at the end of a New Years Eve party about ten years ago, and to this day she says that she'd rather her attacker had killed her than raped her. She is unable to have sex anymore, her relationship fell apart in the aftermath of the rape (though, again, that was less to do with her emotional fallout and more to do with the fact that her boyfriend seemed to take on the typical viewpoint that she must have been asking for it somehow through flirting and provocative dress - ie, that she had been "unfaithful" to him through being raped).

Stats like these are disgusting. Rape and sexual assault are a terrible problem in Ireland, and worldwide too (I'm not suggesting Ireland is a particular hotbed of rape - if anything the UK is worse when you hear stories and look at their rape conviction statistucs). Society should be doing everything possible to help rape victims come forward and find justice, and convict rapists and see them behind bars.

Instead, we find the majority sweeping the statistics under the carpet, trying to discredit them or simply outright calling the women liars.

In discussions with this topic with men I know, most of them don't believe the statistics simply because "none of the girls they know have been raped or sexually assaulted, so how can the figures be that high?". Newsflash, boys - a lot of the girls you know have been raped or assaulted, they just don't tell you because of the exact attitude you've just displayed.

I've been sexually assaulted in the past (though thankfully on a very, very minor level - I was accosted outside a pub and a man shoved his hand down my jeans to the laughter of his friends) and the Guards wanted nothing to do with it. Two women I know have been raped. Almost all of my friends have been sexually accosted or assaulted in some manner. And one, ONE of those cases has ever reached a courtroom. And you know what? The defendent was found innocent because his lawyers provided excerpts from my friend's Facebook page suggesting that she "liked a good time." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, because my friend had some pictures of herself in nightclubs holding cocktails the rapist was let free. She'd been asking for it. That the rape happened in her own house when she'd not been out on the town and was commited by a friend of a housemate who drugged her is apparently irrelevant.

So, to everyone trying to discredit these stats, this is why they need to be publicised. It is attitude's exactly such as yours that are the problem - as Sharrow says, you won't stop people raping by educating the public that "no means no, and lack of consent is a no", but you might change the opinion of the masses. Rapes will still happen, but at least the courts will put the monsters in prison where they belong, not back out on the streets where they can brag to their mates in the pub after a hurling match.

FreudianSlippers

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

but I'd be interested to see whether people (male and female) think they would report the crime if they were raped.

I get what you're saying, but technically (read: legally) males cannot be raped by women in this jurisdiction.

Morag

They can be by other males or with an object, those are the legal definitions.
and yes men are a lot less likely to report due to the assumptions made and the way people judge them.

Again people in general need to have their attitude towards consent and sexual assault and rape questioned, and to try and debunk a lot of the myths out there and make the subject less taboo so more people will talk about what happened to them.

It's easy to cast judgements on strangers and to make assumptions, less so when it's a family memember or friend who's been a victim.

Stheno

Feisar wrote: »

I'm male

If I knew them I'd like to think I wouldn't report it and role them up in a carpet with some petrol and burn them alive. The recording should bring me some solace any time I'd be upset about it.

If I didn't know them I'd like to think I'd report it.

I'd probably just cry and scrub myself with bleach in reality though.

Please do not post advocating violence in the Ladies Lounge.

FreudianSlippers

Mallei wrote: »

Sharrow, you must feel like you're fighting a losing battle sometimes. Even here, in the Ladies Lounge, you get shouted down when you try and suggest that there's a problem with rapists being convicted.

I don't understand the need to discredit victims and absolve rapists that some posters have. I won't draw gender lines because I got in trouble for that before (hai three month ban!) and I'm sure ignorance falls on both sides, but it is always the same old posters.

I'm not going to bother touching on that for the obvious reasons.

Why is it so hard for some people to see that being raped is the most traumatic experience a woman can go through? I know a woman who was violently raped at the end of a New Years Eve party about ten years ago, and to this day she says that she'd rather her attacker had killed her than raped her. She is unable to have sex anymore, her relationship fell apart in the aftermath of the rape (though, again, that was less to do with her emotional fallout and more to do with the fact that her boyfriend seemed to take on the typical viewpoint that she must have been asking for it somehow through flirting and provocative dress - ie, that she had been "unfaithful" to him through being raped).

Quite simply, I don't think (or see) anyone disagreeing with you. Rape is the most serious crime in this jurisdiction even beyond murder for that very reason.

Stats like these are disgusting. Rape and sexual assault are a terrible problem in Ireland, and worldwide too (I'm not suggesting Ireland is a particular hotbed of rape - if anything the UK is worse when you hear stories and look at their rape conviction statistucs). Society should be doing everything possible to help rape victims come forward and find justice, and convict rapists and see them behind bars.

Instead, we find the majority sweeping the statistics under the carpet, trying to discredit them or simply outright calling the women liars.

I think that's the problem. I understand the emotive nature of this topic, but quite simply the statistics are flawed. Nobody is saying that the level of prosecuted sexual assault cases are perfect and nobody is saying that of those that are prosecuted all the guilty are convicted and the innocent acquitted. Anyone who said that would be a fool IMO.

My point (not as a male but as a lawyer) is that on simple reading of the OP it would seem that an almost criminal level of sexual assault cases are not prosecuted by the DPP. This takes at least 4 categories of flawed reasoning into account:

1) That all reported cases to AGS are true.
2) That all reported cases to AGS are capable of prosecution.
3) That AGS has the ability or choice of deciding which files to give to the DPP for prosecution after a preliminary investigation.
4) That of the true cases which are sent to the DPP; enough adequate evidence is preserved to actually prosecute the alleged attacker.


As has been previously stated, rape especially is a very difficult thing to prove due to its (usually) private nature. Fortunately, our legislation regarding rape (and to a lesser extent sexual assault and aggravated sexual assault) are very "pro-victim".
Remember, all the prosecution has to prove is that at the time of intercourse the woman did not consent or had withdrawn consent and that the male knew, ought to have known or was reckless as to whether the woman did not consent.

It's a matter of evidence after that. It may seem difficult (as I'm sure it is) to have to give evidence of the crime, but when you are the only witness as a victim of rape usually is; it's a necessity.
Also, evidence of the actions of the victim following the event will substantially come into play. A victim that immediately attends hospital and reports the crime will be more likely to be (for lack of a better word) believed by a jury.

I won't bore you any more, because there are more issues in relation to evidence and rules about corroboration being waived in the circumstances... but you get the jist.

In discussions with this topic with men I know, most of them don't believe the statistics simply because "none of the girls they know have been raped or sexually assaulted, so how can the figures be that high?". Newsflash, boys - a lot of the girls you know have been raped or assaulted, they just don't tell you because of the exact attitude you've just displayed.

There is a huge difference between rape and sexual assault in this jurisdiction:

Section 2 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act, 1981 defines "rape"

(1) A man commits rape if—

(a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it, and

(b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it,

and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly.

(2) It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.

Sexual Assault and Aggravated Sexual Assault are (respectively) Sections 2 and 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act, 1990

(1) The offence of indecent assault upon any male person and the offence of indecent assault upon any female person shall be known as sexual assault.

(2) A person guilty of sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years.

(3) Sexual assault shall be a felony.

(1) In this Act “aggravated sexual assault” means a sexual assault that involves serious violence or the threat of serious violence or is such as to cause injury, humiliation or degradation of a grave nature to the person assaulted.

(2) A person guilty of aggravated sexual assault shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Aggravated sexual assault shall be a felony.

For those purposes I think it's obvious why the percentages in the OP are skewed from the start.

I have no doubt that a large number of sexual assaults (both aggravated and non) as well as rapes are committed in this country.
One just has to account for how many are reported as well as the 4 factors I listed above.

I've been sexually assaulted in the past (though thankfully on a very, very minor level - I was accosted outside a pub and a man shoved his hand down my jeans to the laughter of his friends) and the Guards wanted nothing to do with it.

That's not their decision, it's yours. You would have been perfectly within your rights to request that the Gardaí present took a statement from you that evening and/or given a statement yourself at the station that evening or the next day.

Two women I know have been raped. Almost all of my friends have been sexually accosted or assaulted in some manner. And one, ONE of those cases has ever reached a courtroom. And you know what? The defendent was found innocent because his lawyers provided excerpts from my friend's Facebook page suggesting that she "liked a good time." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, because my friend had some pictures of herself in nightclubs holding cocktails the rapist was let free. She'd been asking for it. That the rape happened in her own house when she'd not been out on the town and was commited by a friend of a housemate who drugged her is apparently irrelevant.

No offence, but there has to be more to this story than that. You hear these things all the time but there are always more complex answers than that.

So, to everyone trying to discredit these stats, this is why they need to be publicised. It is attitude's exactly such as yours that are the problem - as Sharrow says, you won't stop people raping by educating the public that "no means no, and lack of consent is a no", but you might change the opinion of the masses. Rapes will still happen, but at least the courts will put the monsters in prison where they belong, not back out on the streets where they can brag to their mates in the pub after a hurling match.

Actually, I remember statistics from the USA a while back that stated that the levels of sexual assault and rape amongst teenagers (high school age) declined quite dramatically once the "no means no" campaign started.
Education is never going to stop all rapes, obviously, but creating a culture where the victim is not made to feel like the bad-guy is a massive start on the steps to prosecuting sexual assault.

I'm not going to say there are not a lot of sexual assaults and rapes in this country. The statistic quotes the percentage of those that are prosecuted by the DPP after being forwarded on by AGS; those numbers are flawed for the reasons aforementioned.

FreudianSlippers

Sharrow wrote: »

They can be by other males or with an object, those are the legal definitions.
and yes men are a lot less likely to report due to the assumptions made and the way people judge them.

Yeah, I meant by women. Edited accordingly.

Interestingly males cannot rape other males with an object, which I find odd.

Again people in general need to have their attitude towards consent and sexual assault and rape questioned, and to try and debunk a lot of the myths out there and make the subject less taboo so more people will talk about what happened to them.

I think that's the key point about the education argument.

It's easy to cast judgements on strangers and to make assumptions, less so when it's a family memember or friend who's been a victim.

Personally, I would be slightly weary of anyone who cast judgements on an alleged rape victim. I know there are some instances of people who "cry rape" but I would imagine that these numbers are very low indeed.

It's just my view, but anyone (male or female) that would cast judgements on a rape victim has serious psychological issues.

Handsome Bob

Sharrow wrote: »

I have known for the years the stats are bad and that even if you do report it to the garda that then there is a good chance that even with your attacker being brought to the garda station for statements and then send the file to the Department of Public prosecution they may choose not to take the case but I didn't know it was as high as 70%.


http://examiner.ie/ireland/crime/dpp-rejects-70-of-sex-crime-referrals-172463.html



This means they will only bother with cases which they can get a jury to prosecute and given the horrible attitudes to wards sex and women in this country, as over 1/3 of people think the victim is at fault. It means that you have to be a ‘good girl’ and have very little of a sexual history for to have them think it’s not your ‘fault’.

Given that even if the DPP takes your case it can take up to 118 weeks, that’s over two years before it sees the inside of a court room and you have to live with that hanging over you and that’s even harder if the attacker is someone you know which statically is likely.

The system is beyond deeply flawed and needs to change

Excuse my ignorance on this Sharrow, stats and I are not friends, but I'm unsure about what the stats actually mean.

The number of suspects is higher than the number of files sent, so this would suggest cases have multiple suspects yeah?

So would it not be the nature of the process to eliminate as many suspects as possible? That's why so many aren't prosecuted as there's either a lack of evidence or they have been deemed innocent.

I've no idea anyway, as I said I don't know how to read stats (that's why I work within the social sector :pac:), maybe FreudianSlippers could shed some light on this for me in layman terms?

Malari

They discussed this in detail on Talking Point this morning on Newstalk (available in archive). Very interesting.

The_Minister

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Personally, I would be slightly weary of anyone who cast judgements on an alleged rape victim. I know there are some instances of people who "cry rape" but I would imagine that these numbers are very low indeed.

Actually, there have been studies showing that there are quite a lot of false reports of rape but the area is so divisive that the results have ranged from 2%-90% of claims being false (for instance, if the Gardaí are certain that a woman is lying and the man is innocent, but the woman never admits the lie, should it be counted? Is it false if it is merely mistaken? etc).

I've seen figures all over the shop, and there has never been a universally accepted study, but several seem to hit near the 10% mark (that's my own brief browse). That isn't insignicant.

Spokes of Glory

Mallei wrote: »

And one, ONE of those cases has ever reached a courtroom. And you know what? The defendent was found innocent because his lawyers provided excerpts from my friend's Facebook page suggesting that she "liked a good time." Yes, ladies and gentlemen, because my friend had some pictures of herself in nightclubs holding cocktails the rapist was let free. She'd been asking for it. That the rape happened in her own house when she'd not been out on the town and was commited by a friend of a housemate who drugged her is apparently irrelevant.

But in this case you mention, it DID go to court, and the defendant was found "not guilty". Presumably by a jury who evaluated the evidence put before them and decided it couldn't be proved beyond reasonable doubt. And therein lies the rub with a lot of rape cases. So without lowering the standard of proof, how would you propose such cases be decided in court ?

As a general point (not specific to this case), alcohol is frequently a huge factor in a significant number of cases as others have pointed out, and renders many unprosecutable. I know that if I was accused of "rape" after an alcohol fueled consensual act, I'd want my lawyer to bring every piece of admissable evidence he could get his hands on into the court, and I wouldn't be too bothered about the other party's feelings. You could argue that the issue of consent is questionable when one or both parties are drunk, but that's a side-effect of getting off your head unfortunately.

Spokes

fits

I must admit, if I suffered an assault by someone I knew, I would find it extremely difficult to prosecute particularly because of the attitudes such as those on show in this thread. I know there are exceptions but very very few women would like it to be known they had been assaulted without good reason.

I just dont know how one could go in to the gardai and make a statement on something like this. It must be horrendous.

TCDStudent1

Sharrow wrote: »

They should but there is not always someone on call who is currently certified and if a person hasn't been trained correctly or if their certification is out of date, then the procedure for administering the kit is considered flawed and can be questioned in court and the findings found invalid.

Why would they have to be certified to do this? Surely any doctor should be capable enough to do it?

Morag

The kit has to be administered in a very specific way, according to procedure, which includes signing sections as it's used and failure to do so makes the whole lot in admissible in court as evidence.

TCDStudent1

The kit has to be administered in a very specific way, according to procedure, which includes signing sections as it's used and failure to do so makes the whole lot in admissible in court as evidence.

hmm, and could the kit be made easier to use? Do other countries have the same kit and face the same issue?

Paudyyy

Pepper spray for all me thinks!

Tigger99

Paudyyy wrote: »

Pepper spray for all me thinks!

I don't know if you are trying to help or taking the piss but pepper spray would help very little.

Firstly the possession of this spray by persons other than Gardaí is an offence under the Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act

Secondly the vast majority of rapes are not carried out in some dark alley, but are down by someone the victim knows and quite possibly trusts. Even if they are carried out by a stranger the liklihood is that the woman wouldn't have enough time to get the spray out.

Maple

Paudyyy wrote: »

Pepper spray for all me thinks!

Unsure if you're taking the piss or if this is your genuine thoughts on the subject, but please keep your comments constructive and on-topic going forward.

Maple

Paudyyy

Apologies if you thought I was taking the piss. On an issue like this? Not my style! I'm being serious! @Tigger99 Statistics show that a high percentage of sexual assaults (Including rape) occur after nights out, and in secluded areas(Quiet walks home from work etc) I believe that our state has become a nanny state with regards to laws concerning 'Firearms' I don't see what the problem may be with regards to licensing simple cans of pepperspray? (License required for spray etc) We are protecting the criminals instead of protecting the victim? Won't have enough time to take the spray? More cases than not the victim spots the offender before they strike!

Giselle

Paudyyy wrote: »

Apologies if you thought I was taking the piss. On an issue like this? Not my style! I'm being serious! @Tigger99 Statistics show that a high percentage of sexual assaults (Including rape) occur after nights out, and in secluded areas(Quiet walks home from work etc) I believe that our state has become a nanny state with regards to laws concerning 'Firearms' I don't see what the problem may be with regards to licensing simple cans of pepperspray? (License required for spray etc) We are protecting the criminals instead of protecting the victim? Won't have enough time to take the spray? More cases than not the victim spots the offender before they strike!

Any stats to back up the assertions re 'high percentages', and the average time between the victim spotting the offender and being attacked?

Its been widely known for some time that the bulk of rapes and sexual assaults are carried out by a known attacker, not some stranger hiding in the shadows as a girl walks home. This US analysis backs that up http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32306

I can't help feeling that the assumption that rapes are mostly carried out by strangers in dark alleys have the effect of making the real majority of rapes, like date rapes, seem 'not so bad' by comparison. A kind of lesser rape, maybe. Which is of course rubbish.

And I wonder if this has any bearing on the conviction rate? In the minds of some people, are 'real' rapes only carried out in alleyways, or by intruders in the home? Is it not really rape unless its by a menacing stranger?

And if pepper spray becomes available, what would stop a potential attacker using it on a victim? Or the victim having the spray taken off her before she gets it out of her pocket/bag, and it being used against her?