‘Most sexual offences are reported to the police, resulting in a guilty verdict in the courts.’ Saffron Baker -2nd Year Criminology
Abstract
The focus of this paper is to critically examine the statement that ‘most sexual offences are reported to the police and result in a guilty verdict within the courts.’ The paper will draw upon former and recent research in countering this claim and demonstrating the significant lack of reporting concerning rape. It will then further seek to examine the dangerous misconceptions about rape that are perpetuated within the courts and therefore reinforced through the media; more specifically, it will examine the function and impact of rape myths. Consequently, the paper will conclude some of the factors that impact on reporting rape, such as what victims/survivors may fear should they decide to report, or the relationship maintained between the victim and suspect.
Notably, it is important to acknowledge that while a degree of cases of rape result in a guilty verdict, the conviction may not always reflect on the original charge that was reported. An individual who is reported for rape may only be charged for sexual assault, or even acquitted. This often perpetuates the misconception that ‘most’ sexual offences result in a guilty verdict.
Introduction
Contrary to most common forms of crime, sexual offences often are not reported to the police, rather, there is a significant lack of reporting (Ellison & Munro, 2009) concerning sexual offences – particularly regarding rape. A joint statistical bulletin conducted through the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), the Office for National Statistics (ONS) and the Home Office found that an estimated ‘15% of those who experience sexual violence report it to the police’ (Ministry of Justice, 2013). There are several explanations for this trend in low reporting. Rape and sexual assault are extremely personal crimes, and the nature of which is highly sensitive; such feelings of anxiety and vulnerability may discourage the victim in reporting or ‘sharing their experiences with anybody’ (Myhill & Allen, 2002: 4). Moreover, the prevalence of ‘rape myths’ within society help perpetuate misconceptions surrounding sexual violence, with the most consolidated myth suggesting that victims are responsible for their attacks (Ryan, 2019: 151). Rape myths are defined as perceptions of rape that are categorically false yet are otherwise perpetuated through the media and reinforced through policy and legislation (Benedict, 1992). An additional point of contention in reporting rape or sexual assault is the perception of victims through the jury as well as the media. Benedict (1992) further suggests that the scrutiny and invasiveness of the media in such cases of sexual violence may additionally discourage victims to report, with victims ‘essentially on trial as much as the perpetrators’ (Rerick et al, 2019). Questions raised in relation to who constitutes as a deserving or underserving victim are paramount in a successful prosecution (Grace et al, 1992; Benedict, 1993). Details of the victim-and-perpetrator relationship are consistent in influencing the jury in their perception of the victim, with the jury often holding more credibility to ‘stranger-rapes’ than ‘acquaintance’ or partner-rapes, despite consistent evidence reporting partner-rapes being significantly higher than rapes committed by that of a stranger (Myhill & Allen, 2002). Consequently, the study found that 45% of perpetrators identified as current partners, with just 8% of perpetrators identifying as strangers (Myhill & Allen, 2002).
Relationship between victim and suspect and the impact of that relationship in court
Statistics show that many victims are more likely to be raped/assaulted by someone they know, stating that “offenders well-known to the victim were involved in 58% of all incidents” (Percy & Mayhew, 1997:14). Moreover, as over 50% of offenders are known to the victim prior the offence, such as partners, ex-partners, relatives, or friends, it is not unreasonable to assume this is yet another explanation for lack of reporting. Evidence of this has been consistent over time, with recent research suggesting that just “8%” of perpetrators were strangers, while the remaining 92% were known to the victim in some way (categories consisted of current partners, ex-partners, dates, acquaintance, and other intimates), (Myhill & Allen, 2002). Moreover, the much-consolidated belief that stranger rape is significantly more prominent than non-stranger rape highlights the pervasiveness of rape myths within society, as despite there being consistent evidence to counter this claim, this belief is one that is continuously circulated through the media and jury.
Grace et al (1992) suggests there is a social stigma when reporting rape if the victim and suspect know each other, particularly if they are married or otherwise engaged in a romantic/intimate relationship, stating that these types of cases “are least likely to proceed to prosecution”. Contrastingly, cases involving stranger-rapes are “most likely to result in a conviction for rape”. Indeed, the pervasiveness of rape myths within society translate beyond that of the media and have a significant influence in jury perceptions of the victim. This leading to a lack of prosecutions in stranger-rape only justifies feelings of reluctance victims may have in reporting if they have been raped by someone they know.
In effect, it suggests that for some crimes there is “a relationship between perpetrator and victim” and that the “relationship might be important in understanding those crimes” (Newburn, 2017: 370). Both studies highlight the social stigma in reporting rape and other sexual offences when the victim knows the suspect, and in turn, having a direct influence upon the jury and prosecution rates.
The scrutiny of the victim and its influence in low reporting
From a sociological perspective it is of no surprise the reporting of rape and sexual offences is significantly low. Studies have further suggested that in ‘no other crime is the victim subject to so much scrutiny on trial, where the defence is the victim consented to the crime’ (Kelly, L., et al., 2005). Victims of rape and sexual offences are being judged on their individual case, as well as themselves as individuals – which, as stated, is a process that occurs in almost no other crime.
The misconception that most reports of this crime are false stems within the police, the judicial system, and the public eye. Victims are on trial for their character, appearance, and ‘role’ within the crime (relationship to suspect, if they had consumed alcohol, what they were wearing) which in turn, perpetuate rape myths and stereotypes. The same study conducted (Kelly, L., et al 2005) found that out of cases and interviews reviewed, ‘9% of cases were determined to be false’, but upon closer analysis from the Home Office this figure ‘reduced to 3%’ (Kelly, L, et al, 2005: 11)
Interestingly, it was found that even the higher figure of 9% was ‘considerably lower’ than initially estimated by police officers interviewed for the study (Kelly, et al., 2005). Hence, consolidating the perception that there is bias within higher authoritative figures. Effectively, this sets a level of acceptance for the public; resulting in secondary victimisation which also acts as a deterrent to report.
The Courts
A study conducted in 1992 (Grace, S, et al, 1992) collected an estimated three-hundred cases of rape and followed their progress. The data received from this study was unprecedented for its time and helped to establish more about the nature of sexual crime, victimology concerning sex crime and our perceptions of offenders and victims. According to the study, 40% of cases resulted in a ‘conviction of some kind’ in either the Crown Courts or the Magistrates Court. Following on from those cases, only a quarter of those convictions were convictions for rape or attempted rape – which is also the same number of cases initially classed as ‘no-crime’. Of some of those that were recorded, 13% were not proceeded with by the police. The most controversial reasons being police believing the accusation to be ‘false or malicious’, insufficient evidence and the victim and suspect being married. These reasons alone highlight the strongly integrated rape-myths within the CJS that are still seen today.
Additionally, a more recent study (2009) has found that 82% of reported rapes do not come to trial (McCandless, 2009). This figure alone undermines the statement that most sexual offences that are reported result in a guilty verdict through the courts. Considering that 82% of reported rapes don’t reach a trial, how can it be assumed that ‘most’ result in a guilty verdict? According to the study, it is estimated that 79% of rapes remain unreported – again, undermining the above statement that ‘most’ sexual offences are indeed reported to police; and, of those that are reported, an estimated 16,041, only 1,153 results in a conviction of some kind.
In continuation of the studies previously mentioned, it should seem of no surprise that there is a low reporting of rape. The studies combined leads one to believe there is little incentive for victims to report any sexual offence when the likelihood of their case reaching trial is already so slim. Through the significantly low statistics combined with deeply rooted rape myths that scrutinises and questions the credibility of the victim, it suggests that rape is becoming decriminalised, while rape myths are becoming institutionalised. Consider, if rape is assumed to be the worst and most serious form of any sexual offence and it is being scrutinised so severely, how are lesser-serious assaults perceived?
The Jury and their perception of the ‘ideal victim’
Studies (Aterton, J, 2008; Grace, S, et al, 1992) have found that no jury is bias-free. Bias, both ‘conscious and unconscious… keeps up barriers that must come down, if equal opportunity and non-discrimination’ are to be seen in the court of law (Aterton, J., 2008). For example, an additional study found that a jury was more likely to convict the suspect ‘if violence had been used’ and if the ‘alleged victim showed signs of injury’ (Grace, S, et al, 1992). This consolidates the idea that not only are the jury influenced by the relationship between victim and suspect, but by the victim as an individual – unconsciously looking for the ‘ideal victim’ (Newburn, T, 2017: 370). Stereotypes as to who constitutes as an ‘ideal victim’ continue to linger within the jury despite the lack of evidence to support the concept of an ‘ideal’ or deserving victim. Considering both studies, one is inclined to believe that the element of jury-bias represents as a contributing factor into the low-reporting of rape and sexual offences.
Victimisation
There is a wider perception that victims of sexual offences may have encouraged their own victimisation or should accept responsibility for the offence in some way (Newburn, 2017). This should instead be seen as an act of ‘victim blaming’ which is typical of sexual offences, and unique to other types of crime. This combined with an ‘over-estimation’ of ‘false allegations by both police and prosecutors’ feeds into a culture of scepticism’ (Kelly, L, et al, 2005). Consequently, studies have shown that common and frequent reasons for not reporting have been due to embarrassment, humiliation or that the victim thought they would not be believed (Percy & Mayhew, 1997). This not only highlights the issues of victim credibility within the jury, but additionally shows a direct correlation between low trends in reporting and rape myths within the CJS and wider public.
Conviction rates
Moreover, there has been speculation as to the cause of low conviction rates within this category of crime. The speculation suggesting that the CPS target to achieve higher conviction rates specifically for that of rape and serious sexual assault (BBC, 2021). Due to the incentive for a higher conviction rate, police are not proceeding with ‘weaker and more challenging’ cases.
While many continue to counter this claim as media speculation, statistics presented by the CPS show an element of truth in decreasing prosecution rates. According to the CPS, statistics show that the total volume of completed prosecutions “fell to 1,490 in 2020/21” from a previous “2183 in 2019/20” (CPS, 2021). Conclusively, this shows not only a low conviction rate, but a continuously decreasing conviction rate. However, CPS have since acknowledged ‘the impact of COVID-19’ in relation to these figures.
The media
Lastly, research suggests (Benedict, 1992) that the media has a significant influence on the public perception of rape, and as a result, has a direct influence on reporting rape and convicting rape. While the media may reflect legislation and policy within the courts, it does so through an exaggerated and distorted lens; mainstream media reproduces, consolidates and perpetuates rape myths that ultimately aim to cast a distortion of the reality of rape. These myths have a particular ‘pervasiveness’ (Benedict, 1992: 3) within society and can heavily influence public perception of rape.
During 1982, the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) created a ‘fly on the wall’ documentary in which featured an episode called ‘a complaint of rape’. Filmmakers has access to the interviewing process of victims of rape with Thames Valley Police. In the episode, a woman seeks to report that she had been raped by two men. The officers berate her, ask her personal questions, and tell her they are not convinced she was raped. The documentary caused public outcry about the way officers treat a report of rape – and how the victims in turn are treated. The documentary is typical in dominant rape myths and victim-blaming tactics. This case alone demonstrates an understanding of why many victims show reluctance or anxiety to report, as it shows a real-life example of how victims of rape were treated.
Conclusion
To conclude, the statement that most sexual offences are reported and results in a guilty verdict is reaffirmed to be a misconception. There is overwhelming evidence from numerous studies, scholars, and criminologists to suggest not only is there a significant link between the low reporting and low conviction rates – but that the majority of those that are reported (and the low number of cases that make it to trial) do not result in a guilty verdict in court. Upon reflecting of all above sources and studies, the results indicate that there is a significantly low trend in reporting rape as well as a significantly low conviction rate and that there is no singular cause that is determined to be the driving force behind this. Moreover, the evidence discussed suggests that while there is no singular driving factor, there are instead a combination of factors that lead to a lack of reporting and a low conviction rate. These factors may range from several reasons, from the reproduction and consolidation of rape myths, secondary victimisation within the courts and a biased jury.
References:
Aterton, B, J. (2008). ‘Unconscious bias and the impartial jury’. Connecticut Law Review, Vol. 40. Issue N.4. 1028-1029.
Benedict, H (1992). ‘Virgin or Vamp? How the press covers sex crimes’. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
BBC (2018). Stanford sex attack: Brock Turner loses assault appeal: 9th August 2018. Date accessed: 19/11/21. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45124290
‘A complaint about rape’. (1982). Fly-On-The-Wall documentary. UK: BBC.
CPS (2021). CPS Data Summary Quarter 3. Publication: Sexual Offences. Date accessed: 21/11/21. https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-data-summary-quarter-3-2020-2021
Ellison, L. & Munro, V. (2009) ‘Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors’ assessments of complainant credibility’, British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 202-219
Home Office Affairs Committee (2022). Investigation and Prosecution of rape. London: UK Parliament.
Rerick, P., Livingston, T., and Davis, D. (2019) ‘Rape and the Jury’, in Donohue, W and Schewe, P. (eds). Handbook of sexual assault and sexual prevention. Chicago: Springer, 551-573.
Ryan, K (2019) ‘Rape Mythology and Victim Blaming as a social construct’, in Donohue, W., and Schewe, P. (eds). Handbook of sexual assault and sexual prevention. Chicago: Springer, 151-177.
Kelly, L., Lovett, J., & Regan, L. (2005) A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases. Home Office Research Study 293. London: Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate.
Mack, A and McCann, B. (2019) Recalling Persky: White Rage and Intimate Publicity after Brock Turner. Journal of communication inquiry. Vol 43 (4). Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0196859919867265?casa_token=MU8ofX2MmGIAAAAA:_n9E1uYtWbmiClWc_L_Lqm1iQckeuU4-GyWzYRt9_ssayyg7jkQsP0WTBI_e9qr6aqUbYwVdGbucKw
Maguire, M. and Corbett, C. (1987). The Effect of Crime and the work of Victim Support Schemes. Aldershot: Gower.
McCandless, David. (2009). Information is beautiful. Collins, Hardcover. Accessed: 01/12/21.
Ministry of Justice (2013) An overview of sexual offending in England and Wales. Statistical Bulletin London: Ministry of Justice.
Myhill, A. & Allen, J. (2002) Rape and sexual assault of women: the extent and nature of the problem. Home Office Research Study No. 237. London: Home Office.
Percy, A., & Mayhew, P. (1997). Estimating sexual victimisation in a national crime survey: A new approach. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention.
Newburn, Tim. (2017). Criminology, Third edition. New York: Routledge.