Nigel Hawkes: Is our rape conviction rate really so poor?

Saturday 18 September 2010 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The Government's decision to cancel a review of the conviction rate for rape to save money has loosed a chorus of lamentation. The UK, we are told, has the lowest conviction rate for rape in Europe – 6 per cent.

In fact, the UK convicts, proportionately, as many rapists as most comparable European countries. The European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics shows that in 2007 (the most recent year covered) the median conviction rate in Europe for rape was 1.8 per 100,000. In England and Wales that year, the rate was 1.6 per 100,000 – higher than Austria, Germany and the Netherlands, lower than Sweden or France.

So what's the problem? Rape is a terrible crime and those guilty of it should be convicted and jailed. The figures suggest we're doing only marginally worse than average.

What does differ hugely is the level of reported rapes. The UK and Sweden are well ahead of most other countries in the number of rapes reported to the police. In the UK, the number rose by a factor of 10 in the 20 years between 1981 and 2001. It's hard to believe men became 10 times more violent: it's also hard to believe Swedish and British men are 10 to 20 times more likely to commit rape than those in, say, Portugal or Hungary, which is what the figures for reported rape imply.

Countries with high reported rape figures have low conviction rates, measured as the proportion of the reports that end in convictions. Sweden convicts three to four times as many men per head of population as the European average, but still has almost as low a conviction rate as we do when measured as a proportion of rapes reported to the police. So are many of these reports false?

Many rape claims fail at the first hurdle, when women withdraw the charge or refuse to give evidence. Others fail when police are unconvinced, more when the CPS looks at a case. It is almost impossible to calculate the number of false claims, but it is far more than the 2 per cent cited in the CPS's Rape Manual. The source for the figure almost certainly comes from a 1970s book by Susan Brownmiller, Against Our Will. The source of the data is untraceable. The real level of false accusations is higher. Nobody knows and views on the subject are irreconcilable.

Most alleged rapes are by acquaintances. Proving a lack of acquiescence in such cases is extraordinarily difficult. When cases come before a jury, the conviction rate, 55 per cent, is roughly the same as for other serious crimes. That suggests the justice system is getting it about right in the choice of cases it sends to trial.

* The Lancet's Ombudsman, Dr Charles Warlow, has ruled that criticisms made in this column and on the Straight Statistics website of a WHO study of the risks of elective Caesareans raise "considerable concern". The study, carried out in Asia, claimed that women who choose to have a Caesarean without medical reasons are nearly three times as likely to die or suffer complications as those who have a normal vaginal delivery.

The result depends entirely on a statistical correction for "confounding factors" – differing baseline risks of the individual women – since the raw data show elective Caesareans are actually safer.

Nigel Hawkes is Director of Straight Statistics (www.straightstatistics.org)

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in