Nouse.co.uk » Government proposes to redefine sexual assualt to secure higher conviction rates

Government proposes to redefine sexual assualt to secure higher conviction rates

January 23, 2007
Claire Yeo

Trials such as the one that recently took place in York Crown Court have become the subject of a well-heated debate that has sparked an outraged and emotional reaction from various groups and individuals.

The debate has been triggered partially by government proposals seeking to redress the highly uneven balance of conviction rates in rape trials, and partially by the incidence of “false” cases, which have seen some women “crying wolf”.

To combat this, ministers have proposed the naming of women who are found to have falsely accused men of sexual assault. This has already been practiced in the recent case of a man who spent three years in prison after being falsely accused. The House of Lord’s Court of Appeal has since named the woman involved. There is, however, the worry that this legislation would further deter many women from coming forward to report such crimes. The numbers of reported attacks are much fewer in comparison to the actual suspected incidence of sexual assault.

The real crux of the current furore is, as always, the delicate issue of consent. Cases of alleged rape are notoriously tricky to prove, often culminating in a moral judgement on behalf of the jury as to whether the accused or the accuser is telling the whole and honest truth. This is reflected in the shockingly low rate of conviction in such cases, with only 5-6% of accused rapists being convicted, according to the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).

The role of alcohol in many cases makes the jurors’ decision all the more difficult. Not only does alcohol confuse the mind, altering the accuracy and even existence of memory, but it also lowers inhibition and alters normal behaviour patterns.

The water is further muddied by the apparent proliferation of the use of so-called “date-rape” drugs such as GHB and Rohypnol. Yet the extent of the usage of such drugs is, in reality, much slimmer than is often imagined. A study from 2004 –2005 has shown that of 120 victims only two cases showed evidence of such drugging. Detective Chief Superintendent, Dave Gee, a co-author of a recent ACPO report, has claimed, “The most common method of spiking drinks is alcohol.”

This has led government ministers to propose amendments to legislation concerning the legality of “drunken consent”. The core of the amendment would be to invalidate a female’s consent to sex if she is inebriated. In practice this could mean many men becoming liable for charges of rape or sexual assault, following sexual intercourse with a “drunk” female.

How, in this case, is “drunk” to be defined? Need the person involved consumed as much as a bottle of Jack Daniels or is half a glass of wine enough? What if both consenting parties are under the influence? Where is the line to be drawn between rape and consent? The proposal is in this respect outrageous. While it is one thing to affirm that it is morally wrong for a male to take advantage of an inebriated female, it is another to label consensual drunk sex as rape, with the accused facing the serious possibility of a long prison sentence and being listed on the sexual offenders’ register.

The reaction to the proposal has been predictably fierce. Some have proclaimed the responsibility to be among the women themselves who get so drunk that they have no idea where they are and what their name is. Some even go to the extreme of seeing it as women’s own fault. Others, including a number of women’s groups, have reacted equally strongly, asserting that the blaming of victims is totally unjust. They are still victims of a crime and should be treated with equal sympathy.

The debate seems set to continue. What seems to have been overlooked, however, is that it is almost impossible to proclaim universal judgements about cases as a whole, when each case is unique. Perhaps we should all leave the decision to the jurors – having access to the evidence from both sides, they are the ones who are most informed.