Separate court to deal with rape?The NSW state government has been told that they should set up a separate court to deal with sexual assault cases. Sexual assault crimes have conviction rates among the lowest for any crime. As the stats say:
- 90% of reported assaults do not end up in conviction
- 17% of reported assaults do not end up in court
- 56% of defendants are found not guilty
- 30% are cleared by police within 180 days
- 8000 reported cases of sexual and indecent assault each year
It should also be noted that it's estimated that only one or two in ten people who have been sexually/indecently assaulted will ever report it to the police. The vast majority of attacks will be made by people known to their victim (approx 80-90%), and this can be something that works against the victim as it will be assumed that they consented or at least didn't mind (see below for more on this). It's crazy that there's more likely to be a conviction if some stranger has jumped on you from behind the bushes in the park than if a family friend or former boyfriend or whatever does basically the same thing.
Anyways, as the article says:
"The proposals are aimed at avoiding delays, boosting convictions and reducing the trauma for witnesses giving evidence against alleged attackers..."
"A criminal law expert at the University of NSW, Sandra Egger, said changes in the past 20 years to make trials more humane and encourage victims to report sexual assaults had not led to increased conviction rates.
"We have seen more people than ever coming forward to report crimes but at the same time we have had plummeting conviction rates," she said.
Associate Professor Egger said low conviction rates were often related to the sexist attitudes of jurors. "Sometimes jurors will assume that if a young woman is wearing provocative clothes or dancing provocatively or drinking alcohol on the dance floor it's an indication that she is sexually available and probably consented."
The co-ordinator of the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault, Dr Melanie Heenan, said specialised courts helped prevent unnecessary discussions of a witness's sexual history."Isn't that a comforting thought!!! o.0 It's similar with the attacker-known-to-victim situation. And it's infuriating. When the hell will people start to realise that "No" actually does mean "No" regardless of whether the person's wearing a mini-skirt or neck-to-ankle Muppet suit, has had a few drinks or has only ever come into contact with alcohol through cough medicine, etc?!?!
Insight on SBS earlier this year focused on this topic and it was distressing to hear from victims who had been brave enough to go to court with it that when they were there, they were asked about what underwear they were wearing when it happened, how low-cut their top was, how attractive they were, what their "history" was, etc, as if ANY of that is relevant. Rape is about what the perpetrator did. That is what should be the focus!
It makes me so angry that these sort of crimes seem to be put in the "Oh she was asking for it by wearing/doing/drinking/thinking that" or "No doesn't actually mean no" or "She knew her attacker... obviously she was gagging for it!" or similar baskets. Women still are getting the blame for being raped, for men abusing positions of trust, for men using a woman's fear to get their rocks off...
And as a society, we're giving the message that it's okay to do, because hey, you won't be prosecuted! And if you do get to court, it's really likely that you'll get off there again. Why not rape some puppies while you're at it? Or join a rugby league team? I hear there's always spots to play for with the Bulldogs.
ARGHHHHHH!!!
Stupid "justice" system that doesn't work, stupid beliefs that people have about things! Excuses need to be stop being made for men (and women) who assault people in these kinds of ways.
There was a mouse in the house.
