Rape – myth and reality: no ordinary crime

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

In the summer of 2009 I was invited by the Government Equalities Office and the Home Office to carry out a review into how rape complainants, both men and women, are treated by public authorities. The review was commissioned by the last Government because of a concern among some Ministers to put the spotlight on the experiences of those reporting rape and establish what improvements were needed. The background was a widespread perception that too many reports of rape fell by the wayside, and that the conviction rate was too low. Many commentators maintained that the conviction rate was 6%. It was said that the treatment of rape complainants was often dismissive, the police sometimes failed to give rape cases the proper priority and that rapists were ‘getting away with it’. Juries were, it was said, likely to believe myths about how rape victims behaved and so acquit guilty defendants. Police performance was also criticized. The cases in London of Kirk Reid and John Worboys, who because of police failings managed to rape and assault many women before they were stopped, were much publicized. Altogether, therefore, it seemed there was a lot going wrong and improvement was needed. The timescale for the review was short and with the general election date more or less fixed the only possible approach to meeting the time schedule was total immersion. The work was carried out in five months. The conclusions emerged from what the review team heard in nine days of visits to all regions of England and Wales, and from a large number of individual submissions. Over 200 people were seen personally, and more than 100 others wrote in or submitted evidence. The two days spent in a large urban Crown Court to observe rape cases being tried and listen to the views of judges who specialized in rape cases were most illuminating. Reports of work being done by academics and officials in both New Zealand and Australia on better ways of responding to rape were very helpful. Until this assignment, my main knowledge of rape came from my prison work. Rape is such a feature of male imprisonment that it is impossible to spend much time studying imprisonment around the world without taking it into account. In a remarkably honest approach in the USA, they have a Prison Rape Elimination Act which recognizes the high incidence of rape and puts a range of obligations on prison administrations to prevent rape and punish the perpetrators. I therefore came into the review with a consciousness that rape does not happen to women only and that men who are raped suffer seriously from the trauma. Meetings were held with organizations that provide help to men who have been raped and one of the most grateful messages the team received on the publication of the review came from one of these organizations. There was appreciation that men had not been ignored and that the language used in the review was gender-neutral. It also became clear that the subject of rape of women was shrouded in a web of attitudes, strongly held views and responses shaped by centuries of history. Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s lovely opera, The Marriage of Figaro, which was first performed in 1786, comes to mind. The maid Susanna is going to marry the manservant Figaro. They both work for Count Almaviva. Susanna and Figaro are very happy because they are about to get married and their boss the Count Almaviva is so progressive that he has given up his right to take Figaro’s place on the wedding night. He has given up his right to take the virginity of all the women on his estate. The way people look at rape has a history, and for women that is the history. In 1786 women of a certain class had no chance at all to decide about their sex lives. They were all raped by the local lord of the manor and that was life. In The Marriage of Figaro the progressive lord of the manor had abolished that practice and Mozart celebrated that. That is one reason why rape is no ordinary crime, why it is unique. ‘It’s rape, they have invaded your privacy, invaded your private being’, said one victim. It is unique in the way it strikes at the bodily integrity and self-respect of the victim and unique in the controversy it generates. All discussions about it are conducted with emotion and evoke the heavy burden of history. The way the review was received suggested that it had been a worthwhile assignment. It was welcomed by the judiciary, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Association of Chief Police Officers, victims’ organizations and the Government. It was also welcomed by those who work in This article arises from Baroness Stern’s presentation at the Friends’ Dinner of the British Academy of Forensic Sciences held at Apothecaries’ Hall, London, UK, on Thursday, 11 March 2010. Her original presentation has been expanded to include material about The Stern Review, which was still under embargo at the time of the Dinner.