Low Conviction rates in the case of rape

As I pointed out this principle has already been established when someone makes an accusation against a celebrity which, on its own, would never go to trial - because there is insufficient evidence to get a conviction. So the police publicise the accusation - a fishing expedition - to see if others have experienced similar treatment. If there are a significant number of people who have also been assaulted then it makes it easier to get a conviction. 

The simple fact is that in this type of crime it's almost always a case of one person's word against another. That's why so few cases go to trial and even fewer end up with a conviction. Some years ago I worked on a police computer system. We took the data that police had accumulated over the years and put it in a database which could be searched (like google). The police knew that most rapists are serial offenders but the sheer extent of it became apparent when they had a searchable database - rather than just a collection of notes made by police over many years. The data showed a pattern of offending where serial rapists were never charged because there was insufficient evidence. 

That was decades ago but it continues to this day. You can look at the police database and see who the rapists are. But each offence is taken on its own and never goes to court. My thoughts back then were that this is bloody stupid, and the police I worked with agreed. But it's still the same to this day. Yet some things have moved on. For example it's now possible for previous convictions to be given to the jury during the trial - and even if they aren't the jury can look them up on the internet, though they're told not to. It's a small step to provide information about previous convictions which the CPS didn't prosecute because, on their own, there would be little chance of conviction. When there's a long list of them where women have independently accused the same person I think that's worth telling the jury.

The point is that something has got to CHANGE. If it doesn't rape will remain a crime that is rarely prosecuted.

 

Hang on a minute

Firstly, i think we have to distinguish between quite different scenarios.

Lets say in the first, two victims of crime come forward within a short time of each other. each accuse separate similar crimes have been committed against them, on different days for the sake of argument.

The Police Arrest and Charge the same person for both crimes

The CPS assess the evidence and feel each has a similar chance of success.

They pick one to take to court snd set the other aside. The court sees a first offender.

In a separate scenario a separate force has similar allegations of a different nature and arrest and charge the same person for both but now the CPS takes both charges against the same msn at the sane time.

Which is fairer and to whom ?

I hear many cases of one accusation, one charge, one trial and in the ensuing quite legal post trial publicity more allegations further inquiry new charges and a new trial for those new charges

I see no trouble with that.

I only see issues where known charges with CPS predictions of succss are set aside

I think most people would say, although it clearly does work somewhat like that for celebrities now, it shouldn't. That a jury theoretically shouldn't count unconfirmed mimetic rumours about a person as any level of evidence. The reason it happens with celebrities is because everyone 'knows' them and many people have various potential interests connected with them and the jury can't realistically be sealed from the conversation. I think celebrity + social media is a real problem for our system of justice. A 3rd of a jury might have some personal interest in the outcome because of the celebrity of the accused. Perhaps it is even arguable that celebrities should not be tried by jury.

Anecdotally i hear that about 50% of rape accusations taken to the police are trivially ascertained as false - that is, it is completely obvious they are false. This doesn't , of course, amount to a claim that 50% of women are liars. The often unconfirmable nature of rape is a double edged sword, it allows rapists to escape justice but it also encourages false accusations. If you come to the police with a false allegation of murder, you would at least need a missing person and a substantial reason to suspect your target, but with rape, it will be expected that you have little but a personal account.

The 2% figure is obviously low, but i don't think you can take the attitude that it needs to be raised by any means necessary without making a mockery of the process

I think my objection stands. Something that is uncertain is not made any more certain (qualified or verified) by simply adding something else that is equally uncertain. I may have used hyperbole - ie "by any means necessary" - but it does seem to me that you are lowering an accepted evidence standard in order to raise the conviction rate regardless / independently of actual guilt.

It might be pretty obvious to many people, but they are making the assumption that the allegations are in good faith and not an attempt game the system (it's a good conclusion if this is the case). However, if the system requires two additional unproven allegations to verify the first unproven allegation, then an interest may arise in providing those additional allegations. The thing about hard evidence is that it hard to produce in the absence of fact. - which is why it is the standard.

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree.