Morning:
20°c
Johnny Depp has become, in his young middle age, like a star of the movies’ golden period
Secret deal hatched by News of the World to hush up details of phone-tapping was sealed in a tiny room at the Royal Courts of Justice
More...
Juries reluctant to convict men of rape if woman was drunk
Last updated at 23:07pm on 06.12.06
Juries take a dim view of women who drink
Juries are reluctant to convict men of rape if the woman who brings the allegation was drunk, research has found.
It said that when jurors believe a woman was intoxicated, it is reasonable for a man to take her silence as consent to sex.
The findings are compelling fresh evidence that juries composed of ordinary people are unwilling to comply with Government demands to deliver more convictions for rape.
Ministers say there are too few convictions and have been altering the rape laws in order to try to get more men jailed after rape trials. Barely five per cent of allegations end in conviction
A key element of the controversy over rape has been the question of when a man who has sex with a drunken woman can claim that he thought she consented.
Three years ago the Government brought in new laws to try to get more guilty verdicts. The 2003 Sexual Offences Act changed the rules so that a defendant in a rape trial could no longer defend himself by claiming he honestly believed the woman consented.
Since the Act came into force, a defendant has had to pass a tougher test and show it was reasonable for him to believe she consented.
The Government-sponsored research found that juries are not sympathetic to the idea that drunken sex should end in a rape conviction more often - and a long jail sentence for the man.
Academics Vanessa Munro and Emily Finch asked mock jurors to consider seven different scripted sets of rape trial evidence. Each trial was considered by three different 'juries' recruited through local newspaper and radio adverts.
They found that jurors regularly took the view that it was reasonable for a man to assume that silence meant consent, even if the woman was too drunk to speak.
The juries also held a woman responsible for her actions if she had accepted drinks from the defendant, failed to resist pressure to drink more, or did not take care to make sure her drink was not spiked by more alcohol or drugs.
Juries were reluctant to convict a defendant who had doctored a woman's drinks unless he had specifically intended to commit sexual assault - as opposed to just loosening her inhibitions.
Juries, the researchers said, were also less inclined to convict a man for rape of a drunken woman if she regularly drank heavily in the company of men.
The findings, published by the Government's Economic and Social Research Council, brought calls from both the academics involved and the Home Office for more efforts to 'tackly myths' about rape and make juries more willing to convict.
Dr Munro said: "The findings reflect the hold that gender stereotypes still have. They suggest that rape myths can have a profound influence on jurors. More needs to be done to secure justice for victims of rape."
But some judges, lawyers and criminologists believe that the Home Office is leaning on juries to convict innocent men and that jurors are right to resist pressure.
Dr David Green of the Civitas think tank said: "The whole point of a jury is that it allows the opinions of wider society to be heard in the justic system.
"This study appears to show that juries are reflecting public opinion, which broadly is that people have a personal responsibility for their behaviour. If a woman gets drunk and loses control, that is something for which she is responsible and must take the consequences.
"A man who has sex with her in that state may be acting in an ungentlemanly way, but that is not a crime."
Dr Green added: "A jury is there to bring elites crashing down - especially in areas like rape law which has been subject to a sectarian campaign by extreme feminists."
Earlier this year Solicitor General Mike O'Brien said rape conviction rates were "unacceptably low", with only 751 convictions from more than 14,000 rape allegations in 2004.
He announced plans to allow "expert" witnesses to explain to juries the damaging impact of rape, and video evidence showing distraught women in police stations within hours of alleged rapes.
But the plans have not yet been pushed through, partly because of concern amont judges and lawyers that high numbers of rape allegations prove groundless and that juries should not be manipulated.
The Home Office said that ministers are considering a new legal definition of "capacity to consent" in rape trials.
A spokesman said: "We need to tackle the myths, particularly the view that victims are either partially or fully responsible for the assault they have experienced if they have been drinking.
"Rape is never the responsibility of the victim, whatever the circumstances."
Reader views (8)
Here's a sample of the latest views published.
As a rape victim I'm disgusted that people think drinking makes it my fault. Yes I had drunk a couple of glasses of wine but it was because of my size (I was very underweight) that this alcohol had such a huge effect on me. I still said no, and I know he knew that but will the jury decide my choice to drink makes rape no longer a crime? We will soon find out.
- Lauren, London
Nigel, you are wrong. While there are women who cry 'rape' after consensual sex, the real reason that the conviction rate is so low is because it is a crime to which there are usually no witnesses and where it is a classic 'his word against hers' situation. The only way that the government will secure more convictions is if they change the burden of proof in rape cases. This would be a terrible thing for British justice, but I am willing to place money on this government trying this before too long.
- Libertine, London, UK
I'm bothered by the implication that if a man and a woman are really blotto, and have sex, that only the woman can be a victim. Is he not a victim of sexual assault?
If the sexual integrity of women is so important in our society, then surely women have a responsibility to guard and preserve it? If I got pissed and handed my wallet to a man, do I really have the right to feel aggrieved if he
steals my money?
I also resent the feminist expansion of rape to cover every sexual situation including feeling emotionally pressured into having consensual sex.
- Sarah, London
Alcohol lowers inhibitions and aften causes people to do what they otherwise wouldn't have done. Have I slept with a woman who was on the verge of being unconscious? NO. Have I slept with a girl who probably did so because she was a bit ****ed? YES. Why should I face prison, because next day when we both feel a bit regretful, she can salve her conscience by accusing me of rape.
While we're at it, can we also have some justice, and ensure that women who falsely accuse men of rape are also named in the media.
- Kenzy,, London
There is a problem with the legal side here, but I don't think the government should be setting targets for convictions. What we need to aim for is not MORE convictions but APPROPRIATE convictions: ie a way of working out whether or not an act was rape. This is impossible, so far as I can tell, because there is no way of proving consent or lack thereof - hence the low conviction rate.
The alcohol content of a woman seems to me to be completely irrelevant. If the alleged rape was by someone she knew and trusted, it is not surprising that she felt able to relax and drink a bit. If it was by a stranger, the circumstances need to be taken into account. These attacks seem to me to be more likely to take place late in the evening, when the streets are quieter and people are heading home after an evening out. Again, it is not unreasonable that the woman may have had a couple of drinks. (Note that I'm talking about sensible drinking - I agree that it is not advisable for women ever to get so drunk that they lose control, but I also think that anyone wishing to have sex with such a woman is disgusting and clearly taking advantage.) That does not make it okay to have sex with her if she doesn't want it.
Consent or lack thereof can almost never be proved, I believe. Therefore it will always be difficult to convict. That isn't a comment on the women involved. And it's far better than locking up men just in case they did it. Women who accuse falsely are as disgusting as men who rape.
- Suzanne, London
The fact that only 751 convictions are obtained from 14,000 prosecutions suggests something entirely different to me. What I mean is that far too many women are crying 'rape' after the fact, when the intercourse was, in fact, consensual.
- Nigel Boag, Costa Mesa USA
Rape is an abhorrent crime, however manipulation and pressure by the government and politicians to force up the number of convictions is equally abhoorent. The reason for a jury is to give a considered opinion based on the evidence, how therefore can anyone say convictions are too low because of the statistics - it is the evidence that is important. Rape may not be the responsibility of the victim, but that doesn't necessarily mean that all sex between drunk adults is rape, and the government should leave well alone.
- Lee, UK
If a man is able to have sex then he is not drunk! He was simply taking advantage of the situation. No matter which expert say it was just a situation etc. Unfortunately the jury (these are simply ordinary people) did not think through this case deep enough. If the guy is in a state to have sex then he is definitely in a state to know if the girl is drunk or not and that he is taking advantage of the situation.
- Bp, London
