Why we should not sugar-coat rape conviction rates

Consciously deciding to use more favourable statistics, as Baroness Stern suggests, would mask the p

Baroness Stern's long-awaited review of the way rape cases are handled in England and Wales was published today. It criticises an excessive focus on "misleading" conviction rates, and recommends that victim support should be as much a priority as increasing convictions.

Stern said that what victims "felt was really important was not in the end if they could get a conviction. What they said was, 'We still feel we want to be believed.' "

It is certainly true that a victim should not be abandoned by the authorities because police feel that their case is unlikely to lead to a conviction.

However, Stern's comments about conviction rates and -- particularly -- the statistics, could be rather dangerous. This is shown by the Daily Mail's ranting, skewed coverage of the story today. It opens with this:

Harriet Harman was ordered to stop misleading the public about rape by an official inquiry report yesterday.

The Equalities Minister was accused of pumping out unreliable figures about the low number of rapists brought to justice, thus discouraging victims from reporting attacks.

The review by Baroness Stern appeared to put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform because only 6 per cent of complaints end in a conviction.

While this implies that the real story is Harriet Harman spearheading a plot to mislead the public, it boils down to a dispute about which statistics should be used. The oft-cited figure (supposedly "misleading"), is that just 6 per cent of reported rape cases end with a conviction for rape.

Stern suggests that instead, we should look at the number of reported cases that end in a conviction not just for rape, but for other related crimes, which is 14 per cent. She adds that 58 per cent of those cases that get to court result in a conviction.

 

"Foul play" favours rapists

It is a complex matter. On the one hand, Stern's argument, that quoting the shockingly low 6 per cent conviction rate figure will deter people from reporting the crime, contains an element of sense. On the other hand, is it not more "misleading" to give victims an inaccurate picture of what they will be up against?

Yes, a conviction for a related crime is something, but it is not what many women (or men) are looking for. Moreover, the 58 per cent figure relates only to the small number of cases that actually make it to court.

"What she's proposing is to cover up what's happening in the criminal justice system just at the time when women are finally getting the truth out," Ruth Hall of Women Against Rape told the Guardian. I'm inclined to agree.

The unpleasant language of the Daily Mail article suggests that this report has finally laid to rest the Big Rape Conspiracy, proving once and for all that we don't need to interrogate and improve the way in which the justice system deals with rape.

Just reread that last sentence, which says that the review has "put an end to years of claims by ministers that laws and criminal procedures for dealing with rape need radical reform". This sense of foul play is enforced by a clipping that accompanies the online version of the piece, criticising Harman's "single-minded pursuit of an equality agenda", as though we can safely discredit the argument that there are serious problems with our attitudes to rape.

It has been slow, but there have been improvements in the way that rape is handled. The 6 per cent figure is shocking, but it is shocking because it is true. To sugar-coat it at this juncture would be to risk taking many steps backward.

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The big problem for the NHS? Local government cuts

Even a U-Turn on planned cuts to the service itself will still leave the NHS under heavy pressure. 

38Degrees has uncovered a series of grisly plans for the NHS over the coming years. Among the highlights: severe cuts to frontline services at the Midland Metropolitan Hospital, including but limited to the closure of its Accident and Emergency department. Elsewhere, one of three hospitals in Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland are to be shuttered, while there will be cuts to acute services in Suffolk and North East Essex.

These cuts come despite an additional £8bn annual cash injection into the NHS, characterised as the bare minimum needed by Simon Stevens, the head of NHS England.

The cuts are outlined in draft sustainability and transformation plans (STP) that will be approved in October before kicking off a period of wider consultation.

The problem for the NHS is twofold: although its funding remains ringfenced, healthcare inflation means that in reality, the health service requires above-inflation increases to stand still. But the second, bigger problem aren’t cuts to the NHS but to the rest of government spending, particularly local government cuts.

That has seen more pressure on hospital beds as outpatients who require further non-emergency care have nowhere to go, increasing lifestyle problems as cash-strapped councils either close or increase prices at subsidised local authority gyms, build on green space to make the best out of Britain’s booming property market, and cut other corners to manage the growing backlog of devolved cuts.

All of which means even a bigger supply of cash for the NHS than the £8bn promised at the last election – even the bonanza pledged by Vote Leave in the referendum, in fact – will still find itself disappearing down the cracks left by cuts elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.