[Feefifofum]

(Original post by evantej)
Drogue highlighted the major issues involved with sexual crimes, and you have essentially fobbed him off.

Underreporting of sexual crime is a massive problem; only something like 10% of serious sexual crimes are reported to the police (yet they make up 82% of all sexual crimes), and the number of sexual crimes reported to the police actually dropped last year. But this applies to both sexes.

Statistically, females are more likely to be the victim of sexual crimes, but males are more likely to be victims of serious sexual crimes, and the number of sexual crimes (assault and serious) against males is actually increasing at a higher rate than against females (7% and 12% compared to 4% and 5%). These statistics might come as a bit of a shock, but I would guess that most sexual crimes against males are against children (and the prison across the road from me is full of sexual offenders to evidence this).

I personally think this topic leads to dishonesty and scaremongering, especially with respect to the scale of the 'problem'. For example, people discuss conviction rates of rape against women as indicative of some form of institutional bias against women. There may be some truth to this, but at the end of the day the police cannot do anything if women do not report the crimes in the first (how many of the women in this thread did anything about their sexual assaults?).

Anecdotally, I had to deal with a case of sexual assault between two men last week and Drogue's comment is basically how it panned out. It was nothing more than an allegation until evidence can be provided. If it cannot then there is nothing we can do other than take preventative measures to help these two prisoners coming in contact with each other.

Under-reporting has another side though. It is widely reported that rape and sexual assault victims are treat abysmally in many cases - with implications that they were asking for it, that they wanted it then later changed their minds, etc. And the conviction rate is shamefully low. If a woman (or, indeed, a man) feels that they are going to be made out to have been at fault, and treated poorly, and for there to be no guarantee even of a trial, let alone a conviction, then what is going to make that person wish to put themselves through that, on top of what they have already suffered?

Surely if the treatment of those reporting rape and sexual assault was different - if the culture of victim-blaming was comprehensively wiped out, for example - then that would encourage far more people to report the crimes that they have been subjected to? If so, then it is up to the authorities to change the way they handle these sorts of cases, and society as a whole (somehow) to change its attitude and accept that these crimes are abhorrent and not to be tolerated in any situation.

/tuppenn'orth.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I can understand the thought process that a police officer might have in this situation, but if the fact a woman exhibits "peacock activity" causes him to treat a rape allegation less seriously then it isn't an appropriate thought process for him to have.

Well the defence lawyer certainly would even if the police officer doesn't. At some stage in the legal proceedings the woman is going to have to defend herself on the basis of what she wore, her actions that evening, whether she had taken drugs and certainly how drunk she was. Perhaps it isn't right that the police offer asks those questions but they'll probably think it. That is, hélas, the state of the legal system these days.

But, if that is unacceptable (and I am entirely certain that it is), whereupon do we, as a society, lay the burden of proof in these cases if not on the victim?

People display themselves in other ways than the sexual, and don't get treated negatively by the law for it. If man wears a flashy and expensive suit in an attempt to impress people, a police officer isn't going to make light of him reporting that he is mugged (going back to the excellent allegory mentioned a little while back). And yet he deliberately set out to attract attention for his wealth. I don't see how this is any different to a woman deliberately setting out to attract sexual attention and then reporting a rape.

Nor do I but I'd certainly not have much sympathy with the man who got mugged if he wanders through a poor neighbourhood with a Rolex watch flashing about.

The drinking can be significant. Everything else is a bias against potential rape victims that is actually very heavily instilled in our society. To be honest, it's something I've had to look at in myself as a result of the discussions here - I'd never suggest any woman "had it coming" but the idea that a woman dressed up provocatively is somehow inviting sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, is so generally accepted that it's something you have to focus very hard to ignore.

I'm certainly not suggesting that any woman "had it coming". Perhaps this displays my dislike of the "Ibiza" culture which you find in city centres every weekend. There are genuine cases of rape and sexual assault - these are harrowing experiences which deserve to be solved through the legal system. And then there are thousands of examples of a falling out. Of two people getting very drunk, getting off, and then regretting it in the morning. Drink, in that circumstance, is the problem. Perhaps what I mean is let's deal with the cases that should be properly dealt with and treat the ones that shouldn't with scepticism. Having trained "rape detectives" might well be the answer there.

[ice_cube]

Isnt it true that most women who are sexually assulted know their attackers? People tend to be assulted by 'friends', date raped etc rather than because they are wearing a short skirt. (I cant find the statistic right now, but Im sure I saw it somewhere). Therefore this whole argument of 'she was asking for it' is a bit stupid.

[obi_adorno_kenobi]

(Original post by ice_cube)
Isnt it true that most women who are sexually assulted know their attackers? People tend to be assulted by 'friends', date raped etc rather than because they are wearing a short skirt. (I cant find the statistic right now, but Im sure I saw it somewhere). Therefore this whole argument of 'she was asking for it' is a bit stupid.

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/rape...w-attacker.htm

That's possibly one set of stats you mean?

[Drogue]

(Original post by Chumbaniya)
I can understand the thought process that a police officer might have in this situation, but if the fact a woman exhibits "peacock activity" causes him to treat a rape allegation less seriously then it isn't an appropriate thought process for him to have.

People display themselves in other ways than the sexual, and don't get treated negatively by the law for it. If man wears a flashy and expensive suit in an attempt to impress people, a police officer isn't going to make light of him reporting that he is mugged (going back to the excellent allegory mentioned a little while back). And yet he deliberately set out to attract attention for his wealth. I don't see how this is any different to a woman deliberately setting out to attract sexual attention and then reporting a rape.

The drinking can be significant. Everything else is a bias against potential rape victims that is actually very heavily instilled in our society. To be honest, it's something I've had to look at in myself as a result of the discussions here - I'd never suggest any woman "had it coming" but the idea that a woman dressed up provocatively is somehow inviting sexual contact, consensual or otherwise, is so generally accepted that it's something you have to focus very hard to ignore.

(Original post by Cirsium)
But that should be down to judge and jury. Innocent until proven guilty is all well and good. But there should equally be an understanding that when somebody reports a crime - any crime, but especially one so personal - that this is taken seriously and not apologised for or excused.

I think it's worth distinguishing between how seriously an allegation should be taken and the actions that are appropriate to take following it. I don't think anyone here would dispute that any allegation of a serious crime should be taken seriously. However in order to take it further, somebody needs to assess if there's a realistic chance of conviction. While questions of guilt are ultimately be for a judge and jury, if there isn't any realistic chance, what is the point in taking it to trial? It's a lot of emotional turmoil for the victim and a lot of cost for the state to clog up a legal system further without the benefit at the end of being able to lock someone up for the crime.

As for the judgemental questions victims can get, I agree this needs to be done far more sympathetically. However I do think it needs to be done, as if there's no evidence or witness to a crime, you'd need a very convincing victim to have any decent chance of convicting someone in court. And when it comes to who a jury believes, what someone was wearing, how much they'd drunk, etc., are things that will matter to them. I'm sure much of this is simply prejudice, and I'm not at all arguing that women who've been drinking or are wearing skimpy clothes are somehow asking for it, but would anyone disagree that there's probably a correlation between how little a woman is wearing and how much she's drunk on a night out and her likelihood of consenting to sex that night? I know I have female friends who have particularly short skirts they keep reserved for when they're going out on the pull (one even referred to her "**** me" heels, though obviously this is mostly in jest, they're just shoes that make her feel sexy). And if there is a correlation, then when it comes to the question of whether the jury believe she consented or not, it is one of many factors they may want to consider.

It's utterly ****ty, but I agree with obi - what is there society can do? Trained rape/sexual offence police officers is probably a good move to ensure victims are treated more sensitively, and educating juries or trials in front of judges could help reduce the impact of prejudices at trial. But without getting rid of 'innocent until proven guilty', I don't think there's much you can do to raise conviction rates in crimes where there are often no witness or evidence other than the victim's testimony. In a case of his word against hers, it doesn't take much to instil reasonable doubt in a jury.

None of this makes rape any less serious an offence or suggest that allegations shouldn't be taken seriously and treated with sensitivity. But this needs to be separated from the decision of whether it's worth taking a case to court, and at some point someone needs to ask difficult, emotional, personal questions.

(Original post by Feefifofum)
Under-reporting has another side though. It is widely reported that rape and sexual assault victims are treat abysmally in many cases - with implications that they were asking for it, that they wanted it then later changed their minds, etc. And the conviction rate is shamefully low. If a woman (or, indeed, a man) feels that they are going to be made out to have been at fault, and treated poorly, and for there to be no guarantee even of a trial, let alone a conviction, then what is going to make that person wish to put themselves through that, on top of what they have already suffered?

Surely if the treatment of those reporting rape and sexual assault was different - if the culture of victim-blaming was comprehensively wiped out, for example - then that would encourage far more people to report the crimes that they have been subjected to? If so, then it is up to the authorities to change the way they handle these sorts of cases, and society as a whole (somehow) to change its attitude and accept that these crimes are abhorrent and not to be tolerated in any situation.

I'm sure there are some people who do blame rape victims, though it seems absurd and sick to me. However I imagine there's a lot of questioning of the type I mention above, which I wouldn't classify as 'victim-blaming', since it's not drawing any inference about blame, it's focused on whether a jury will believe it beyond all reasonable doubt.

The conviction rate is low, but I can't see what would change that, and without it I'm not surprised most victims don't come forward, even if they're not made to feel at fault. As you say, it's a lot to put yourself through for a small chance of any benefit. Perhaps reporting rates would go up if the stigma were removed from it and victims were treated more sensitively by police, but I can't see what more can be done, and I doubt it'll stop it being a hugely under-reported crime

[*Corinna*]

(Original post by Craghyrax)
No I think that's a very sensible idea. I got screwed over quite badly with my thesis and undergrad dissertation because the supervisor predicted it 8 marks higher than the examiners gave it

:O yeah that's quite bad! So, should I ask my supervisor first or should I randomly contact someone?

[Cirsium]

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
See, the bit in bold is the issue. I'm sure it's not an odd thing to associate skimpy clothing with a clear effort to attract attention from men in clubs and pubs. If you attract attention and then get so blind drunk that you're no longer able to forcibly say no or defend yourself then this becomes a difficult situation for the police (or a judge) to determine whether a serious crime has taken place or its a case of 6 and half a dozen.

But that's not the situation I'm thinking of. It's not "I was blind drunk and I don't know what happened". It's "I was on a night out with friends and somebody I didn't want touching me decided that because I was dressed a certain way he could do what he liked to me. But the implication, based on friends' experiences, is that because I was dressed a certain way I automatically lose my right of consent, or it was somehow all a tragic misunderstanding. I agree that these questions do need asking, but the inherent assumption that girls who dress a certain way (which, unfortunately, is nowadays more or less a uniform for how to dress in a nightclub) are inviting any sexual advance regardless of whether they know the person or whether they verbally say they're not interested is, to put it bluntly, ****ed up.

(Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
But, if that is unacceptable (and I am entirely certain that it is), whereupon do we, as a society, lay the burden of proof in these cases if not on the victim?

I agree that at some stage these questions will be asked in a not-very-nice-way. But blaming the girl while she's trying to report a crime is not the way to do it.

Nor do I but I'd certainly not have much sympathy with the man who got mugged if he wanders through a poor neighbourhood with a Rolex watch flashing about.

Straw man. I know that's based on my analogy, but here's a more realistic one. Man is out for drinks with work colleagues after work. They have a couple. It's safe. It's friendly. He agrees to walk to a taxi rank with one of his colleagues, who he knows fairly well. Half way there colleague demands he give him his watch. Man think it's a joke to start with and doesn't comply until colleague gets nasty and starts making threats of violence, or that he'll tell everybody in the office <something bad>. Eventually he pins him to the wall, takes his Rolex and walks off. The man is humiliated and ashamed that he wasn't able to defend himself. He tries to tell his wife who accuses him of selling the watch or being careless and losing it. He tries to tell his boss the next way, but his colleague denies everything, and the stories seems so unlikely that it isn't believed. What's worse, now everyone thinks he's a liar and nobody will talk to him anymore, just whisper behind his back.

Still lacking respect for him?

And I disagree with you that drink is the issue. I was groped as a sober 17 year old, who couldn't articulate that she didn't like someone dancing that close. I was groped as a not so sober hockey player who none the less told a guy no once, and assumed (wrongly) he would then give up. And I was groped by a work colleague, who maintained it was "just an accident and a misunderstanding". That was the one where I was forced to write a formal apology for calling him a ****er in front of a student. (At the time, as my reaction to being groped). I've never gone home and got off with someone, but I've had some guys get pretty up in my face when I've refused to go home with them. If they can get that angry and have that much of a sense of entitlement after a quick kiss in a club then I dread to think about how easily it could get much worse had I taken someone home before announcing that I didn't do one night stands.

[Cirsium]

(Also, this was genuinely the first thing on my stumble upon filter this morning:

[sj27]

(Original post by Cirsium)
Straw man. I know that's based on my analogy, but here's a more realistic one. Man is out for drinks with work colleagues after work. They have a couple. It's safe. It's friendly. He agrees to walk to a taxi rank with one of his colleagues, who he knows fairly well. Half way there colleague demands he give him his watch. Man think it's a joke to start with and doesn't comply until colleague gets nasty and starts making threats of violence, or that he'll tell everybody in the office <something bad>. Eventually he pins him to the wall, takes his Rolex and walks off. The man is humiliated and ashamed that he wasn't able to defend himself. He tries to tell his wife who accuses him of selling the watch or being careless and losing it. He tries to tell his boss the next way, but his colleague denies everything, and the stories seems so unlikely that it isn't believed. What's worse, now everyone thinks he's a liar and nobody will talk to him anymore, just whisper behind his back.

Excellent analogy.

[Craghyrax]

(Original post by *Corinna*)
:O yeah that's quite bad! So, should I ask my supervisor first or should I randomly contact someone?

Course director.

[Drogue]

(Original post by Cirsium)
Straw man. I know that's based on my analogy, but here's a more realistic one. Man is out for drinks with work colleagues after work. They have a couple. It's safe. It's friendly. He agrees to walk to a taxi rank with one of his colleagues, who he knows fairly well. Half way there colleague demands he give him his watch. Man think it's a joke to start with and doesn't comply until colleague gets nasty and starts making threats of violence, or that he'll tell everybody in the office <something bad>. Eventually he pins him to the wall, takes his Rolex and walks off. The man is humiliated and ashamed that he wasn't able to defend himself. He tries to tell his wife who accuses him of selling the watch or being careless and losing it. He tries to tell his boss the next way, but his colleague denies everything, and the stories seems so unlikely that it isn't believed. What's worse, now everyone thinks he's a liar and nobody will talk to him anymore, just whisper behind his back.

Still lacking respect for him?

That's a great analogy from the point of view of respect for the victim. However in terms of believability and prosecution, there are some crucial differences as far as the evidence goes: if he'd sold the watch, they'd be some money to show for it; and if the defendant claimed he'd given it as a gift, the police would probably suggest it be returned rather than taking it to court, which obviously isn't an action possible in rape cases.

On the other hand, if man has no money in place of the watch, if the defendant doesn't have possession of the watch, and if there's no evidence of a struggle, the police probably wouldn't take it seriously, and may even view it as potential insurance fraud.

I agree entirely that rape isn't caused by wearing skimpy clothes, but I'm not convinced it, or the attitudes around it and issues around prosecuting it, is primarily caused by bias against women or institutional acceptance of it. If other crimes had a similar lack of evidence and emotive nature, you'd get similar issues. People have trouble being believed, to the extent that other people are sure it happened, when they make any claims or accusations for serious things where there's no evidence, especially when there's this sensitive, emotive aspect to it. It's just that no other crime has these problems to the same extent. This isn't to say there isn't any bias against women or unwarranted prejudices - I'm sure there is - but I think people often conflate this and the intrinsic issues into one, when they're distinctly different and I'd argue that the intrinsic issues play the biggest part in the low conviction rate for sexual offences.

[Feefifofum]

A lot of the issue seems to boil down to recognizing that there is a problem, but disagreeing whether that is institutional, societal, or both. Since institutional efforts to solve some of the problems have been largely unsuccessful (see for example the US and Canada's rape shield laws - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_shield_law ) then perhaps more efforts to change society's perception of both rapists and rape victims are what really needs to be done. If it was more widely acknowledged and put into practice that a woman wearing skimpy clothing or being drunk or walking home alone is in no way the cause of rape (perhaps stupid, one might argue, but definitely NOT her fault) then this sort of questioning in court would not be listened to with the same lenience by a jury, for example.

That was all very poorly phrased, sorry, I just cycled 2 miles with it snowing sideways and I am not happy

[cpchem]

(Original post by Athena)
On a totally different topic, I got an email a few minutes ago from my supervisor 'strongly encouraging' me to go on the departmental PhD retreat. It looks fun, except it means giving up a weekend to talk science with the other PhD students from my institute. Bearing in mind my institute is in the middle of ****ing nowhere (it's not even in Cambridgeshire!) and I only ever see Cambridge at the weekends, or if I hoard all my reading and written work for a day in town, I have no desire to turn a five day working week away from the city and enjoyable things like college brunch, grad drinks and staying at my boyfriends, for twelve days when I can't get to the bank, go shopping or see the dentist/GP/whatever.

So I sent the head of the graduate programme, and my supervisor, a long email telling them why I won't be going (as paraphrased above), and how they should stop being so interfering. I wonder whether I will live to regret this.

Why do they feel the need to occupy a weekend with something that could quite happily be held during the week at work? That seems daft. My research group goes away for two days every year camping and doing various things (last year we went shooting and cycling in the Forest of Dean) - but it's entirely different; nobody has to go (but everybody does), we go during the week, and we have fun - discussion of work isn't forbidden or anything, but it doesn't happen.
Insofar as working at weekends is concerned, I think it's one of those things people should just be honest about. If it's required, then supervisors should say so up-front. It's one of the reasons I'm a fan of my current group; there aren't expectations that people will come in on Saturdays or Sundays, or that they'll work late every night. As long as the work gets done, it really shouldn't matter.
Hopefully your supervisor is a human being, and will understand that you're not willing to drop everything for something that should (in my opinion) be going on during normal working hours.

[Cirsium]

I've been doing my fair share of pissed off emailing, but with little effect
You would think that if Finance email an order to the wrong division, and they email back and say 'we don't deal with this... but we'll find out who does' and that they then do email back with the right email address, that Finance, having forwarded this to me, would have placed the order with the right division. You would however be wrong. You would also be wrong if you thought that three weeks was sufficient time for them to pay for a course I'm meant to be going on so I don't lose my place Le sigh.

[scarlet ibis]

Woe! The boaters community group I'm involved in has just imploded. An ex-chairman, who stepped down from his position as chairman at the last AGM and recently left the group entirely has just accused the lovely and enthusiastic treasurer of not managing the funds well, insinuating that she was conducting suspicious behaviour with the money, and generally being insulting towards her (all entirely untrue).

Meanwhile other members are snitching on each other for rule breaking in order to fuel petty arguments between ex-lovers, meetings descend into ranting fests and no-one except me and a few other committed individuals (including the lovely treasurer who has now resigned) ever get anything done. Individually there are lots of really wonderful people in the river community but the community group itself is has become really self-destructive because of a few angry, negative individuals. Gah!

[Cirsium]

I am sat in A and E, reading some Bulgakov, feeling very sorry for myself and sulking that I won't get to eat my dessert

[IlexAquifolium]

(Original post by Cirsium)
I am sat in A and E, reading some Bulgakov, feeling very sorry for myself and sulking that I won't get to eat my dessert

Oh no. Is it something they can quickly fix?

[cpchem]

(Original post by Cirsium)
I am sat in A and E, reading some Bulgakov, feeling very sorry for myself and sulking that I won't get to eat my dessert

What's up?

[Cirsium]

Quickly fixable, but this is A and E so the wait to see a doctor is 4 hours. I just had a fight with a can and lost. A ring pull one that stuck and then gave, lacerating my hand in the process. I bled on my pear Last time I did this I refused to go and then got yelled at, so when housemate started insisting ihe drive me I gave up protesting. At least I have a book. Sigh.

[IlexAquifolium]

(Original post by Cirsium)
Quickly fixable, but this is A and E so the wait to see a doctor is 4 hours. I just had a fight with a can and lost. A ring pull one that stuck and then gave, lacerating my hand in the process. I bled on my pear Last time I did this I refused to go and then got yelled at, so when housemate started insisting ihe drive me I gave up protesting. At least I have a book. Sigh.

Took me about an hour last time I did that (stuck a knife in my hand whilst opening a paint tin). Hope they fix you up soon - they were able to get away with glue and sticky strips when I went, no stitches