<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Abstract<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The focus of this paper is to critically examine the statement that \u2018most sexual offences are reported to the police and result in a guilty verdict within the courts.\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018most\u2019 sexual offences result in a guilty verdict.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2013 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 \u201815% of those who experience sexual violence report it to the police\u2019 (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 \u2018sharing their experiences with anybody\u2019 (Myhill & Allen, 2002: 4). Moreover, the prevalence of \u2018rape myths\u2019 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 \u2018essentially on trial as much as the perpetrators\u2019 (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 \u2018stranger-rapes\u2019 than \u2018acquaintance\u2019 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Relationship between victim and suspect and the impact of that relationship in court<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Statistics show that many victims are more likely to be raped\/assaulted by someone they know, stating that \u201coffenders well-known to the victim were involved in 58% of all incidents\u201d (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 \u201c8%\u201d 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201care least likely to proceed to prosecution\u201d. Contrastingly, cases involving stranger-rapes are \u201cmost likely to result in a conviction for rape\u201d. 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In effect, it suggests that for some crimes there is \u201ca relationship between perpetrator and victim\u201d and that the \u201crelationship might be important in understanding those crimes\u201d (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The scrutiny of the victim and its influence in low reporting<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018no other crime is the victim subject to so much scrutiny on trial, where the defence is the victim consented to the crime\u2019 (Kelly, L., et al., 2005). Victims of rape and sexual offences are being judged on their individual case, as well as themselves as individuals \u2013 which, as stated, is a process that occurs in almost no other crime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018role\u2019 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, \u20189% of cases were determined to be false\u2019, but upon closer analysis from the Home Office this figure \u2018reduced to 3%\u2019 (Kelly, L, et al, 2005: 11)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Interestingly, it was found that even the higher figure of 9% was \u2018considerably lower\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Courts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018conviction of some kind\u2019 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 \u2013 which is also the same number of cases initially classed as \u2018no-crime\u2019. 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 \u2018false or malicious\u2019, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019t reach a trial, how can it be assumed that \u2018most\u2019 result in a guilty verdict? According to the study, it is estimated that 79% of rapes remain unreported \u2013 again, undermining the above statement that \u2018most\u2019 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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?<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Jury and their perception of the \u2018ideal victim\u2019<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Studies (Aterton, J, 2008; Grace, S, et al, 1992) have found that no jury is bias-free. Bias, both \u2018conscious and unconscious\u2026 keeps up barriers that must come down, if equal opportunity and non-discrimination\u2019 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 \u2018if violence had been used\u2019 and if the \u2018alleged victim showed signs of injury\u2019 (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 \u2013 unconsciously looking for the \u2018ideal victim\u2019 (Newburn, T, 2017: 370). Stereotypes as to who constitutes as an \u2018ideal victim\u2019 continue to linger within the jury despite the lack of evidence to support the concept of an \u2018ideal\u2019 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. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Victimisation<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018victim blaming\u2019 which is typical of sexual offences, and unique to other types of crime. This combined with an \u2018over-estimation\u2019 of \u2018false allegations by both police and prosecutors\u2019 feeds into a culture of scepticism\u2019 (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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conviction rates<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018weaker and more challenging\u2019 cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u201cfell to 1,490 in 2020\/21\u201d from a previous \u201c2183 in 2019\/20\u201d (CPS, 2021). Conclusively, this shows not only a low conviction rate, but a continuously decreasing conviction rate. However, CPS have since acknowledged \u2018the impact of COVID-19\u2019 in relation to these figures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The media<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2018pervasiveness\u2019 (Benedict, 1992: 3) within society and can heavily influence public perception of rape.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During 1982, the BBC (British Broadcasting Company) created a \u2018fly on the wall\u2019 documentary in which featured an episode called \u2018a complaint of rape\u2019. 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n 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 \u2013 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n References:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Aterton, B, J. (2008). \u2018Unconscious bias and the impartial jury\u2019<\/em>. Connecticut Law Review,<\/em> Vol. 40. Issue N.4. 1028-1029.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Benedict, H (1992). \u2018Virgin or Vamp? How the press covers sex crimes\u2019<\/em>. Oxford: Oxford University Press.<\/p>\n\n\n\n BBC (2018). Stanford sex attack: Brock Turner loses assault appeal:<\/em> 9th<\/sup> August 2018. Date accessed: 19\/11\/21. https:\/\/www.bbc.co.uk\/news\/world-us-canada-45124290<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018A complaint about rape\u2019. (1982). Fly-On-The-Wall documentary.<\/em> UK: BBC.<\/p>\n\n\n\n CPS (2021). CPS Data Summary Quarter 3.<\/em> Publication: Sexual Offences. Date accessed: 21\/11\/21. https:\/\/www.cps.gov.uk\/publication\/cps-data-summary-quarter-3-2020-2021<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ellison, L. & Munro, V. (2009) \u2018Reacting to rape: Exploring mock jurors\u2019<\/em> assessments of complainant credibility\u2019, British Journal of Criminology, 49(2), 202-219<\/p>\n\n\n\n