Abuse affects all dimensions of human development and existence

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

Physical and neurobiological

In addition to such direct results of trauma as broken bones or ruptured internal organs, physically abused children often display retarded physical growth and poor coordination. Malnutrition may slow the development of the brain as well as produce such dietary deficiency diseases as rickets. In both children and adults, repeated trauma produces changes in the neurochemistry of the brain that affect memory formation. Instead of memories being formed in the normal way, which allows them to be modified by later experiences and integrated into the person’s ongoing life, traumatic memories are stored as chaotic fragments of emotion and sensation that are sealed off from ordinary consciousness. These traumatic memories may then erupt from time to time in the form of flashbacks.

Cognitive and emotional

Abused children develop distorted patterns of cognition (knowing) because they are stressed emotionally by abuse. As adults, they may suffer from cognitive distortions that make it hard for them to distinguish between normal occurrences and abnormal ones, or between important matters and relatively trivial ones. They often misinterpret other people’s behavior and refuse to trust them. Emotional distortions include such patterns as being unable to handle strong feelings, or being unusually tolerant of behavior from others that most people would protest.

Social and educational

The cognitive and emotional aftereffects of abuse have a powerful impact on adult educational, social, and occupational functioning. Children who are abused are often in physical and emotional pain at school; they cannot concentrate on schoolwork, and consequently fall behind in their grades. They often find it hard to make or keep friends, and may be victimized by bullies or become bullies themselves. In adult life, abuse survivors are at risk of repeating childhood patterns through forming relationships with abusive spouses, employers, or professionals. Even though a survivor may consciously want to avoid re-abuse, the individual is often unconsciously attracted to people who remind him or her of the family of origin. Abused adults are also likely to fail to complete their education, or they accept employment that is significantly below their actual level of abilit.

Marital rape Vs Stranger rape

[tweetmeme source=WeAre_Survivors”]

Did you know that marital Rape was only made a criminal act in the UK in 1991? Up until then it was considered impossible for a man to rape or sexually assault his wife. To quote:
“A husband cannot rape his wife unless the parties are seperated or the court has by injunction forbidden him to interfere with his wife or he has given an undertaking in court no to interfere with her.” (The Law Made Simple, The Chaucer Press, 1981)

Stranger rape is usually a one-off, someone you don’t know, with whom you don’t share any experiences or history. When the assault happens, there can be no doubt as to what is happening: that it is Rape (though even in such situations the victim will often wonder what she has done to precipitate the assault and will blame herself).

In marital rape the circumstances are very different. It is – quite apart from a physical and sexual violation – a betrayal of trust. Here is a person whom you thought you knew intimately, with whom you share a history, a home and quite often children. Here is a person whom you have made love to on a frequent basis often over many years, with whom you have shared your most intimate secrets and fears, and whom you believe to love you, want the best for you, who would never intentionally hurt you. Marital rape is so destructive because it betrays the fundamental basis of the marital relationship, because it questions every understanding you have not only of your partner and the marriage, but of yourself. You end up feeling betrayed, humiliated and, above all, very confused.

Another problem victims of marital rape face is that such instances are rarely a one-off, but a repeated if not frequent occurance. This can be a huge issue to the victim, because she will feel as though she has somehow ‘asked for it’ by staying or putting herself in the situation where it can happen again. Also, once it has been tolerated on a number of occassions, she may question her right to then act upon it.

Many women who are victims of marital rape have great difficulty in defining it as such. The traditional idea that it is impossible for a man to rape his wife and that somehow, in taking our marriage vows we have abdicated any say over our own body and sexuality, basically denied ourselves the right to say ‘no’, is still prevalent amongst wives as much as amongst their husbands. A wife being raped will often question her right to refuse intercourse with her husband, and while she may realise that legally it now constitutes rape, there are many reasons which may prevent her from perceiving it in such a light.

We prefer to see it possibly as a communication problem (did I make it clear enough that I did not want intercourse tonight), we may see it as an act for which the man is not fully responsible due to his nature (men have a biological need to have sex and if there is a woman next to them in bed when they are in the mood they just cannot help it), we may see it as a misunderstanding (although I told him I didn’t want to, maybe I gave him the wrong signals somehow), we may have religious issues which question our right to refuse intercourse (I have got to submit myself to him and accept his will above mine as my Lord and Master).

Basically, as wives being raped by our husbands, we look for every reason, every excuse to deny it is Rape because we do not want to accept the alternative: it is Rape, he is hurting and humiliating us with intent, we can no longer trust him, turn to him in comfort, gain reassurance and protection from his company and our home is no longer safe.

Male rape and sexual abuse

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

What is male sexual assault?
Male sexual assault is when you have been forced to take part in any sexual act with another man or woman which you did not willingly consent to. Even if you did not resist or fight back at the time of the attack, it is still assault.

Who can it happen to?
Quite simply, anyone. It could have happened to you whilst you were a child or a teenager, or as an adult. It is not a ‘gay crime’ – it happens to more straight men than gay men.

Who are the perpetrators?
Again, it could be anyone – male or female. But the facts show that more men were abused from within the family than outside, and more men were raped by people they knew rather than strangers.

How common is it?
It’s much more common than most people think. Research statistics tell us that almost 3% of men reported a non-consensual sexual experience as adults and over 5% of men reported sexual abuse as a child.

Is it a crime?
In England there were changes to the 1956 Sexual Offences act in 1994 which made the rape of a man an equal crime to rape of a woman. Further updates to the Sexual Offences act in 2004 mean that the different types of sexual assault that men can experiences have been defined.

What kind of effects can male survivors experience?
It varies from individual to individual, but common effects include; feelings of isolation, depression, anger, anxiety, issues about sexuality and gender, substance abuse, self-harm, eating disorders, negative body image, fears about abusing, hyperconsciousness of body and appearance,  PTSD/C-PTSD and DID.

Who else is affected?
The psychological and mental health issues which survivors often experience, can also lead to real problems with relationships. So anyone who shares his life, be it partner, friend or family, can be affected.

Why is male rape and sexual abuse such a taboo subject?
Firstly, few people even realise that male rape exists. So a man who is trying to come to terms with sexual assault can feel like there is nowhere to turn. But secondly, society itself places certain expectations on men – they are supposed to be “strong” and “able to take care of themselves”. This only heightens the sense of confusion and self-doubt felt by survivors of male rape and sexual abuse; many of them end up blaming themselves.

Why do so many men suffer in silence?
Because of our society’s taboo about male rape and sexual assault it is rare that a victim will go to the police or seek immediate help – on the contrary, he will often be as desperate to keep it a secret as his attacker is. As well as the trauma and feelings of shame, many of our clients face the difficulties of people’s attitudes to male rape and abuse.

For more information on male rape see here

The first time I was raped.

[tweetmeme source=”life_with_DID”]

As it is sexual assualt awareness month I thought I would share a bit of my past. I have a lot of experiance of abuse, rape and assualt, but the following is the one that seemed to fit the best with the theme of this month.

Just before my 16th birthday my mum and I had an argument, she wanted me to get a full time job and I wanted to go to college, so she threw me out  and spent a few weeks on the streets before a friend of a friend offered me his second flat to rent. After a few weeks though he insisted that I date him or be evicted and then he moved in. He was abusive, physically and sexually, but the sexual stuff didn’t come until far later than when this story takes place so we’ll ignore than for now.

I had started 6th form by now and was also working part-time. But Tristan still expected me to do all the housework and cooking. And if it wasn’t up to scratch there would be punishments…

Tristan had problems, he was a heroin addict and had psychotic depression, and so I let a lot of what he did slide… About 4 months after I had moved in with him we started to have money problems, he started to be unable to afford his drugs and so started to get more and more violent due to the withdrawl, I even ended up in hospital a few times…

Then one night he took me with him to meet with his dealer, I assumed that he had gotten some money from somewhere but it turned out that they had come to an alternative agreement.
They went to one side to talk and I stood in the alley, then Tristan came over and said he’d be back soon and not to move. He walked off… I knew something was wrong, but I was too scared to move. Then I could feel something sharp against my back and feel the dealer stood behind me. He told me to turn round slowly and not to scream… I was scared, I didn’t move, I couldn’t move, he grabbed my by the shoulder and pulled me round and threw me against the wall.
He pushed me up against the wall and put his knife against my neck, telling me that if I made any noise he’d remove y voice box.

Then it happened… first anal, then… then “real sex”… I cried… there was nothing else I could do, I cried… I just kept saying over and over to myself that it would be over soon… it hurt so much though, so I focused on that, I used the pain to block out what was going on.

After what seemed like an age he stopped, stood up and walked away. Tristan was there at the end of the alley, he’d watched it all…

The dealer handed over the drugs and Tristan took me home… That night was the first of many when he started to nag me for sex… and the first of many when I refused.

What is financial abuse?

[tweetmeme souce=”life_with_DID”]

Financial and Economic abuse is a type of abuse in which the abuser uses the money as the means of having control over his another.  This form of abuse is common in cases of deomestic abuse.

When the victim asks for money the abuser will deny his it. The victim are not allowed to be self-employed by the partner, or if they are employed will be forced to give over their earnings to the abuser. This way the victim will be totally dependant on the domestic abuser. There could be some economical abused by the abuser on her partner to beg their partner for everyday necessity such as food, health care items (medicines) or diapers or toys for their children. If any case the abuser allows her partner to work, he or she has to give all the earning to their abuser.

Several times the abuser may give the money to his or her partner, which may not be sufficient enough to buy or purchase everything. The money which was given by the abuser to his or her partner generally has to be accounted for and proof of purchase has to be shown to the abuser.

In many cases the abuser will put all the bills in their partner’s name and at the same time the abuser will not allow his or her partner to see the bank statements, bills or any other money transaction that may happen.

Many financial and economic abusers are not good with money and he or she will end up destroying the credit of their partners.

Some domestic abusers who are not good at money may force his or her partner to do illegal acts for money. There are also abusers who will use any money brought in for children through welfare, child support checks or monetary gifts on themselves.

The abuser who refuses to work will put the entire burden upon their partners to keep the household running. And the money which is brought in by the working victim is mishandled and used in wrong way. In many cases, if the household item or bills fall behind the abuser blame the victim.

Diplomatic immunity – overveiw

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

There has been a lot of talk on diplomatic immunity recently, especially regarding the Pope. As such I thought it may be a good plan to write a bit about diplomatic immunity and what it entails.

So how much immunity does a person really have? It depends on your rank, a quick breakdown of the can be seen here. Top diplomatic officers have full immunity, as do their deputies and families. That means ambassadors can commit just about any crime—from jaywalking to murder—and still be immune from prosecution. They can’t be arrested or forced to testify in court. (This category would probably include al-Madadi, who serves as third secretary in the Qatari embassy). Lower-ranking officials have a weaker type of protection called “functional immunity.” These officials are covered only for crimes committed within the scope of their regular work responsibilities. If, for example, a consular official got into a fistfight during a meeting with a U.S. official, he would be protected from prosecution. If the fight occurred at a bar over the weekend, he would not. Service staff for an embassy or consulate, from the kitchen employees to the valets, have no immunity whatsoever. And, contrary to popular belief, any diplomat can be issued a traffic citation. They just can’t be forced to pay it.

There are limits, however, though these usually require the person to be sent home and their higher ups to agree that conviction or repercussions are necessary In 1997, for example, the Republic of Georgia waived the immunity of its No. 2 diplomat after he killed a 16-year-old girl from Maryland while driving drunk. He was prosecuted, convicted of manslaughter, and served three years in a North Carolina prison before returning to Georgia, where he was paroled after two more years in prison.

Diplomatic immunity has been around for hundreds of years under customary international law as something of a golden rule: Treat other diplomats as you would like yours to be treated. This custom has also helped prevent politicians from ordering the prosecution of diplomats on trumped-up charges as a way to pressure their foreign enemies. The rules of diplomatic immunity were codified in 1961 in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

There are problems with this though; diplomatic immunity – the law which allowed the Libyan killers to escape with a police escort – is an offshoot of the theory that government members and agents are legally untouchable abroad for anything done during their term of office, even if it’s a crime of so called “private lust” (like rape or child abuse). However, it does not protect an ex-official of a state from prosecution for crimes against humanity, such as genocide or torture, where sovereign immunity is overridden by an international convention.

But this still leaves diplomats free to murder and rape and run up unpaid parking fines, because they are protected by a convention agreed in Vienna in 1961. This may have been expedient during the cold war, to protect diplomats from being framed (as well as blackmailed and honey-trapped). But it produced the result that foreign officials – and their spouses and children and chauffeurs – may fearlessly engage in serious crime, using their inviolable embassy premises and baggage for drug and gun-running and money laundering, or assist terrorists with whom their state is in political sympathy. The only thing that can happen is a declaration that they are persona non grata, followed by a police escort to the airport, unless their sending state waives immunity.

However, in a democracy this system sort of works as a diplomat will in time become such a liability in terms of international affairs and general public opinion that they will either be removed from their post or their immunity revoked.

In other systems though this is more complex: Going back to the case of the pope, for example, the Vatican state is a theocracy, so in effect the Pope is the government, meaning that he would have to dismiss or remove immunity from himself… and that won’t happen will it? I don’t think anyone ever would do that to theirselves.

Child on child sexual abuse

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

Child-on-child sexual abuse refers to a form of child sexual abuse in which a prepubescent child is sexually abused by one or more other children or adolescent youths, and in which no adult is directly involved. The term describes sexual activity between children that occurs without consent, without equality, or as a result of coercion. This includes when one of the children uses physical force, threats, trickery or emotional manipulation to elicit cooperation. Child-on-child sexual abuse is further differentiated from normative sexual play or anatomical curiosity and exploration (i.e. “playing doctor”) because of overt and deliberate actions directed at sexual stimulation or orgasm. In many instances, the initiator exploits the other child’s naïveté, and the victim is unaware of the nature of what is happening to them. When sexual abuse is perpetrated by one sibling upon another, it is known as “inter-sibling abuse”

The incidence of child-on-child sexual abuse is not known with any certainty, similar to abuse by adults. It frequently goes unreported because it is not widely known of in the public, and often occurs outside of adults’ supervision. Even if known by adults, it is sometimes dismissed as harmless by those who do not understand the implications. In particular, inter-sibling abuse is under-reported relative to the reporting rates for parent-child sexual abuse, and disclosure of the incest by the victim during childhood is rare.

Sometimes this abuse is performed by children who have been sexually abused, either by family members or by adults or older children. Sometimes children who have experienced these things react by coaxing, manipulating, or forcing younger children into the same kind of sexual behaviour. Brothers and sisters may become the victims of this ‘second hand’ abuse. Sexually intrusive children who act out their own abuse in this way are sometimes called ‘sexually reactive’, sometmes this is a form of abuse reënactment to make their own experiance seem more “normal” or to give them a sense of power that was lost during their own abuse.

Child on child sexual abuse is a misuse of power and authority. Older children who sexually abuse their younger brothers and sisters frequently abuse them in other ways as well. Persistent putting down, teasing, or belittling younger children about their size, gender or other personal characteristics is called emotional abuse. Scaring younger children in dark rooms, telling them that no one loves them, or that terrible things are going to happen to them are also examples of emotional abuse. Much of the hitting, pinching and smothering of younger children is dismissed by bigger or older siblings who tell their parents, ‘We were only having fun’ or ‘We were just wrestling.’ However, this isn’t ‘just fun’ if it’s forced on the younger child; it is actually physical abuse.

Warning signs

Normal behaviour-

• Rubs genitals before falling asleep
• Explores differences between boys and girls
• Is interested in watching adults go to the bathroom
• Plays “doctor” with other children
• Plays “house”. Plays ‘mommy’ and ‘daddy’ roles

Behaviours that should cause concern-

• Frequently rubs genitals instead of playing
• Keeps asking questions about sex even after questions have been reasonably answered
• Persists in watching adults in the bathroom
• Forces other children to play “doctor “
• Pretends to have intercourse

Suggested reading:

Wiehe, Vernon. Sibling Abuse: Hidden Physical, Emotional and Sexual Abuse (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 1997.

Examples

Three young boys, ages 8 and 9, accused of raping 11-year-old girl

Three boys, 8 and 9, charged with raping 11-year-old girl

The social function of rape myths

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

I have written a few times about the myths surrounding the topic of rape, but I’ve never written about why these myths have survived for so long and the social functions that they serve. Rape myths allow people to feel safe by letting them believe that rape rarely happens, and that when it does, it is because the person secretly wanted it or that they were “asking for it”. The myths enable us to maintain the belief that we live in a just world. They allow us to believe we can prevent future rapes. And in some cases they even maintain the Adam-and-Eve tradition of our culture, in which man s believed to be the innocent victim of the evil temptress – women.

Myths provide a false security

When we are confronted with the story of a rape, the easiest way to maintain our feelings of safety and invulnerability and to believe that what we are heating is indeed a work of fiction, not a true story. If we believe “many rape reports are false”, then we significantly lower our perceived chance of becoming a victim too. In 1976 a survey evaluating the acceptance of rape myths was conducted at the University of Minnesota School of Social Research. Most participants believed tht more than half of the women who claim to be raped lie about it because they are “angry at the man and want to get even”, or “they are pregnant and want to protect their reputation”. More than 49% reported believing that woman who say they are raped are “lying to call attention to themselves”.

There have been a few cases where women have recanted there stories, as happened in the widely publicised 1985 Gary Dotson/Cathleen Webb case in Illinois. However, the vast majority of women who report being raped are telling the truth. Even a woman who recants my not have lied about being raped. She may have decided to change her story for a number of reasons: such as to end threats from the rapist family or friends, or due to pressure from a religious leader who urges her to “forgive and forget”. Battered women often recant to the police in order to get the assailant out of jail, after he begs for their forgives and perhaps even offers to change his ways or to repay her in another manor.

The implication behind many myths is that there may have been sexual intercourse, but not rape. For example, the myth that “a woman can run faster with her skirt up that a man can with hos pants down” is simple enough. People who believe or quote this myth believe that a woman shuld be able to run away from and escape from any rapist, and if she does not, then she can’t have really wanted to get away. This fails to take into account such bodily reactions to fear as immobility, as well as the fear that if you do not do what he wants he may hurt or even kill you.

Many people believe that a rape has not occurred unless the woman fights to the point of exhaustion and sustains physical injuries, such as cuts, bruises, or torn clothing as proof of her resistance. A 1979 study completed at Iowa State University found an interesting difference between male and female attitudes towards rape survivors who did or did not fight back. In cases where the survivor resisted forcibly, male participants believed that the woman was more inelegant and less to blame than if they had not fought. But the women participants believed the inverse to be true.

According to the researchers, the findings supported established societal norms. The participants interpreted the survivors behaviour according to norms for their own sex: Men are taught to fight back and defend themselves, and see this as the intelligent, responsible thing to do; women are taught that men will be good to them and won’t hurt them if they do as they are told. The result is that many women believe if a woman is foolish enough not to follow a man’s directions, she “deserves what she gets”. The Iowa State University study also found that because they expect women to resist physical aggression, the men were less likely to believe a crime – a rape – had really been committed when the woman did not fight back. They were more likely to blame the nonresisting woman and to believe the rape was her own fault.

Some people concede that a man may have used force but still maintain that the woman “really wanted it anyway”.  More than 70% of the general public responding to a survey in 1978 believed that women are raped because, out of an unconscious wish to be raped, they do such things as dress provocatively. Rapist, however, know that this is not true. When a group of convicted rapists were surveyed only 7% said that the rape was the survivors fault.

Myths maintain our belief in a just world

We would all like to be able to believe that we live in a just world in which people get what they deserve. It would be nice to think that if we are good people and do the “right” things, then “bad” things will not happen to us. However, following this reasoning, if a woman is raped, then it must mean that she is bad or that she has done something wrong that makes her deserve it. Unfortunately though, all women, no matter how “good”, can be vulnerable to rape and other bad things. This can be hard for us to accept as it requires us to see ourselves as vulnerable.

Some women feel that if they can find what they did wrong to “cause” the rape and never do it again, they will not be vulnerable to being raped in the future. It is, however, important to separate the issue of vulnerability from blame. Indeed, there may be something you or someone else did that made you more vulnerable, or an easier target, such as leaving a door unlocked. However, that does not mean that you are to blame. Only the rapist is to blame for the ape. The fact that they took advantage of your vulnerability does not make you to blame.

Angela dropped her keys as she reached her apartment door. When she bent down to pick them up, a man grabbed her and forced her into her apartment, then raped her. Ever since, she has been extremely careful about having her keys securely in her hand because, she says “If I hadn’t dropped my keys, then he wouldn’t have raped me, and I don’t want it to happen again.”

Finding “the thing” that you did “wrong” and not doing it again may actually provide a false sense of security. While no one is ever entirely safe there are things that we can do to make ourselves less vulnerable. And recognising and being aware that you are vulnerable is one of those things, afterall how can we take steps to limit our vulnerbility unless we know that we are vulnerable in the first place?

When rape statments are withdrawn

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

Where the complainant does not wish to give evidence the case could not normally proceed. With intimates, withdrawal sometimes happens because the complainant is reunited with the suspect. Emotional and financial dependence was felt by police and lawyers to be a common reason for a woman feeling unable to pursue the allegation. In one case a complainant’s statement revealed that she wished to withdraw her allegation, although she still maintained that she had been raped: if her husband went to prison and lost his job, she would lose everything.

In interviews with police officers, it was suggested that it was important for them to warn the complainant about possible evidential difficulties with her case and what would happen if she went to court. The following quotes make the same basic point, but with different emphasis.

“We would always explain to them that they are going to get a hard time, we don’t sort of paint a rosy picture especially if… it’s one of consent but we’ll say that we will support them as much as we can and we are behind them. And we sort of prep a re them for what they are going to face and a lot of them realise that.”

“… if you do really think that it is going to be very difficult to prove, is it worth putting the victim through that and going to court and for them to find a jury don’t convict the person and then sometimes they could end up well nobody’s believed me at the end of the day, which is another sort of trauma for her.”

In warning complainants about the difficulty of securing a conviction, the police might put complainants off pursuing their case without meaning to. The four complainants who were interviewed felt that the police had actively encouraged them to withdraw their allegations. One complainant was told in no uncertain terms that the evidence in her case was weak, even given her injuries:

“I showed them my bruises right… and do you know what they said, ‘your bruises are not good enough’. I went ‘well what do you mean my bruises are not good enough? ’ – ‘your bruises ain’t good enough, you’ve got no case.’”

The manner in which the police deal with a complainant will obviously affect the way she feels. Even if they do not tell her to withdraw her allegation in so many words, she might be left feeling that it is her only option. An extreme example of this involved one complainant who recalled being taken to the police station where two male CID officers sat with her in a room and questioned her; she said that suggestions were made to her that sometimes women allege rape when it is not in fact true, and that her experience was likely to have been consensual given that the suspect was an ex-boyfriend of hers. Further, she alleged that, as far as they were concerned, blood which was found at the scene of the incident was seen as indicative only of ‘rough sex’ having occurred. At no point did the officers apparently take a statement from her, apart from recording her eventual decision to withdraw.

“They didn’t actually let me speak, I never wrote a statement with them, only to retract my complaint, that’s all I did. And that wasn’t my idea.”

Police and CPS law ye rs cited other fa c t o rs which might encourage rape complainants to withdraw their allegations. They thought that certain ethnic communities and religious groups put pressure on complainants to withdraw their allegations. Orthodox Jews were mentioned as one example. It was suggested that there needs to be more specific police training, so that they are better equipped to deal with sensitivities of this sort. As one lawyer put it:

“It may be difficult in [a big city] to cope with the diversity sometimes… police are not always experienced enough or trained enough to deal with pressures from cultural groups.”

Each of the complainants spoken to maintained that if they were raped again they would not report the attack to the police. Of course, too few complainants were interviewed to be able to generalise from their experiences. However, other research supports these findings. A study by Jennifer Temkin (1999), for example, documents the negative perception of rape victims about the way their cases were dealt with. Most complaints were of the disbelieving attitudes of the police and the insensitive ways in which cases were handled.

It should be pointed out that some stations attach a high priority to the care and support given to rape victims. This is reflected in initiatives such as the introduction of victim suites, often away from police premises, the appointment of chaperones in some forces, improved channels of communication to keep victims updated, improved training for officers of both genders and specialist help provided through Victim Support. However, until such initiatives become the rule as opposed to the exception and involve all those concerned, the task of improving police services is not yet complete (Adler, 1991; Temkin, 1999; Victim Support, 1996).

women, rape and the legal system

[tweetmeme source=”WeAre_Survivors”]

For a legal system to be fair it is vital that the rights of the defendant to a fair trial are upheld, but it is equally important for the complainants to obtain justice. The rights of both defendants and complainants must be balanced. Women should be enabled to obtain justice without jeopardising the rights of the accused. In rape trials though this is rarely the case, the defendant is too advantaged, allowing men guilty of sexual assault to go free.

Over the last few decades, the legal system has taken a rapping with freeing defendant after defendant following wrongful conviction: the Guildford four, the Birmingham six and Judith Ward, to name a few.  As shocking as these miscarriages are, miscarriages of justice resulting from wrongful acquittals should not be forgotten. It is an injustice not only when the innocent are convicted but also when the guilty go free, or when a case never gets to court at all.

The plight of the rape victim remains as acute as ever. They are viewed in and out of court with suspicion and hostility, and facilities which are meant to aid them are few and far between (Temkin 1987). In the US too, conviction rates are low. According to the FBI in only 16% of reported rapes end in conviction (Steketee and Austen). Consequently the courts have been described as a “disaster area” for rape victims (Bart and Moran 1993) and many of the reforms enacted have had a very limited effect (Allison and Wrightsman 1993). In Europe too, rape trials are an area of particular controversy (Pitch 1995). For example in Switzerland it has been estimated that only 2% of reported rape cases lead to a conviction (1994).

In the 1970s there were campaigns aimed at dispelling the myths surrounding rape. All sorts of myths were challenged: that rape was an expression of sexual desire; that rape was due to the irresistible urge of male sexuality; that rapists were crazed psychopaths; that rapists were black; that rape was a mere misunderstanding, etc… However, today many of these myths still exist strongly in many peoples minds, along with a few “new” myths.

One such prevalent myth is that men need protection from women who are prone to make false allegations for all sorts of reasons, ranging from spite and revenge through to fantasy and pretence (as a means of hiding their infidelity or sexual adventures) to confusing bed sex with rape. Or it is argued that a woman could have avoided the rape if she had not laid herself open to attack (victim precipitation), or she asked for it and secretly enjoyed it (victim participation). Myths about the nature of rape are contradictory, on the one hand rape is often seen as easy to get over, or as an experience that women should “lay back and enjoy”; and on the other hand, it is seen as a very serious crime. Rape is the ultimate form of objectification, in which the womans consent is overruled and her humanity denied. The offence poses a threat to physical integrity and this is compounded by humiliation and deprivation of privacy and autonomy. Yet rape is trivialised by women as well as men. It is argued that some rapes are not as bad as others. It is obviously true that there are different reactions to rape, as to any other trauma, but to argue that therefore rape should be graded according to its gravity misses the point. Rape is the ultimate denial of female subjectivity in a culture where a whole range of sexual practices operates in male interests.

Societal expectations concerning rape reporting are also contradictory. One view is that if a woman is raped, she should be too upset and ashamed to report it; the other that she will be so upset that she defiantly will report it. Both views exist simultaneously, but it is the latter that is written into law. Any delay in reporting is therefore used against her. There is further contradiction in that the complainant should appear upset as a victim but controlled and calm as a court witness. If in court she appears lucid as a witness she may not be seen s a victim. If she appears too upset, she runs the risk of being seen as hysterical and therefore not believable.

One common theme throughout many of these myths is that they absolve men from responsibility for rape. Such myths are important, as rapists draw on them to justify their violence. In Scully and Marolla (1985), men convicted of rape were interviewed; one argued “she semi-struggled but deep down inside I think she felt it was a fantasy come true”. Rapists do not invent their rationalisations; they draw on social myths reflecting ideas that they have every reason to believe that others will find acceptable (Grubin and Gunn 1990).

Women have been accused of lying about rape from time immemorial, and some women do make false allegations of physical battery. According to police statistics, approximately 8% of rape, as compared to 2% of reports of other crimes, are false or lack supporting evidence.

Even if 8% of women do lie about rape, they are the exception, not the rule. If there is any rule, it is that sexual assault is by far the most underreported crime in the United States (national crime centre 1992).

Myths about women making false allegations override commonsense explanations of why they should run naked into the street, cry compulsively, spend the night in police stations for fear of retribution for taking the case to court, change their name, move home, or even go into hiding. The phase “false allegations” needs up-picking, the malicious woman who concocts a false story to take revenge on a past lover would not get very far in the legal system, where a past sexual relationship usually precludes cases even getting to court. It is possible that on rare occasions women who have perhaps been raped or abused in the past may allege that it has happened again, but it is unlikely that a sensitive investigator would not be able to uncover this. Temkin (1987) points out that there is no evidence that fabricated allegations happen more often in rape cases than for any other type of crime.

Most commonly, however, false allegations refer to the woman’s words pitted against the defendant’s protestation that she consented. In most trials, the fact of sexual intercourse is not disputed; the issue is the meaning of consent. Men’s exaggerated fear of false allegation is perhaps more about men’s fantasies of women. It reflects a society where forced sex is far more common than imagined and where women who are forced into sex often do not name it as rape.

Two Scottish researchers found that reasons given by the police for complainant fabrication included the following: to explain a pregnancy; as an excuse for getting home late; spite; hyperactive imagination; and remorse (Chambers and Millr 1987). Similar arguments are often presented in court by the defence.

Although the FBI estimates that only 10% of rapes are not reported, police data and the results of national surveys of sexual assault centres indicate that 50% are not reported (Hall 1995). In the UK this issue is even more pronounced with 60% of rapes not being reported.

However, many experts feel that these figures grossly underestimate the degree of underreporting. Underreporting is especially prevalent among illegal and recent immigrants, among women from cultural backgrounds that value sexual chastity, and among women who were attacked by someone they knew (Petrak and Hedge 2002)

The limited information available indicates that African-American and Hispanic survivors, as compared to European and American survivors, face more negative social reaction if they disclose attempted or completed rape (Crawford and Unger 2000). Of all groups, Hispanic women have been found to have the highest rates of staying silent and the lowest rates of asking for help from others. Sexual assault is considered such a stigma that many suffer in silence rather than risk social disapproval and rejection (Ullman and Filipas 2001).

The anti-rape movement of the 1970s resulted in greater public awareness of sexual assault and improved recording procedures and legislation, making it easier for women to come forward. However within less than 2 decades, this process started to be, and continues to be, undermined by a backlash that dismisses sexual assault as “rape hype” and feminist propaganda. This movement also alleges that researchers exaggerate statistics (Media Education Foundation 1992) and that date-rape victims “cry rape” as an excuse for “bad sex” (Roiphe 1993)

Women who regained memories of childhood abuse were accused of lying to gain attention, financial compensation or of waging a personal vendetta against a family member. There have even been efforts to eliminate federal funding for rape crisis centres (Gilbert 1993).

These and other forms of backlash have silenced and continue to silence women who have been sexually attacked, causing some women (at times myself included) to wish that they had been mutilated physically as well as raped, so that they would be believed and respected as truth-tellers and not ridiculed and alienated as liars.

Women may regret having sex (the morning after phenomenon), but this does not cause them to “cry rape”. Women may reluctantly agree to have sex, but there is no evidence that they cannot distinguish such occasions from when they do not consent and are raped. In 1991 a study was carried out by Painter which indicated that it is more common for women not not recognise certain situations, including being “coerced into sex”, as rape than to “cry rape” when dissatisfied with sex. Rather than being eager to classify themselves as having been raped, the opposite appeared to be the case. In other words, when they were raped, they were often disinclined to see it as rape. Painter concluded, firmly, that women are unlikely to “cry rape”. It is important to be clear that consenting to sex, however reluctantly, is different from being raped. Additionally not resisting in response to threats or coercion is also distinct from consenting. The focus of trials should not be placed so heavily on whether or not the woman resisted, but on what lead the defendant to the belief that she consented. It is for this reason that it is (or should be) essential for the defendant to give evidence, or at least to justify his failure to do so.

The police treatment of rape cases has radically changed in the last few decades. The catalyst for this was, in part, an episode of the BBC television series police in 1982, in which police officers were seen in a live investigation of a woman reporting a rape. The brought to the public’s attention the harsh interrogation techniques rape complainants were subjected to and provided the impetus for the police to reform the procedures (Scott and Dickens, 1989). As a result of pressure from the Womans National Commission following publication of its report “violence against women” (1985), the Home Office issued a circular calling for improved police training to deal with rape and sexual assault, the appointment of more women police surgeons and the provision of better facilities for medical examination of women who had been attacked. Police handling of rape and sexual assault complainants, if not perfect, has greatly improved. Most police officers now have had some training (although this is often fairly minimal) and a chaperonage system is in place in many stations.

The number of women reporting rape and sexual assault to the police has doubled over the past decade in Britain, but the proportion of reported rapes resulting in a conviction has more than halved there are possible reasons why more women are reporting rape: confidence that the police will believe them has undoubtedly increased and greater acknowledgement of the prevalence of violence against women within the community could well have had an effect; but there could also have been an actual increase in the prevalence of rape.

	1	2	3	3a	4	4a	5	5a
	Total number of cases reported to the police	Total number of cases proceeded against at magistrates court	Total number of trials committed for trial	Percentage of cases that that did not proceed from 2 to 3	Number of cases appearing at crown court	Percentage of cases that do not get from 3 to 4	Total found guilty	Percentage of  guilty who got conviction of “rape”	Percentage of reported cases that end in conviction
1985	1842	884	758	10.2%	569	25%	450	53.3%	24.4%
1986	2288	927	804	13.3%	593	26.2%	415	44.8	18.1%
1987	2471	1048	867	17.3%	649	25.1%	453	43%	18.3%
1988	2855	1288	1082	16%	799	26.2%	540	42.9%	18.9%
1989	3305	1400	1140	18.6%	930	18.4%	613	43.8%	18.5%
1990	3391	1467	1147	22%	914	20.3%	561	38%	16.5%
1991	4045	1711	1323	22.7%	961	27.7%	559	32.6%	13.8%
1992	4142	1648	1184	28.2%	933	21.2%	485	29.4%	11.7%
1993	4589	1704	1202	29.5	892	26%	455	26.7%	9.9%
1994	5039	1782	1266	29%	940	26%	425	25%	8.4%

This trend has continued, and in 2008 the percentage of reported cases which ended in conviction was at an all time low of 6%.

In 1993 a study was done by Lees and Gregory in which women who had not reported their rape where asked why. The most common reason (57%) was a lack of confidence that the police would believe them, or take them seriously, particularly if they knew their attacker. Other reasons were fear of further attack from the assailant or his friends (18%), fear that the man would return, as he knew where they lived (14%), fear that if the man was of professional status he would the advantage over them (in one case the assailant was a high-ranking police officer). Several women did not report the event as they felt, or were made to feel, that the rape was their fault because they had gone willingly to the man’s home. Finally, 15 women were put off from reporting because they did not want to testify in court. Reasons including belief that a conviction was unlikely; belief that she, the victim, would be “on trial”; fear of reprisals by the man; not wishing to involve relatives; and not wishing other people to find out what happened. The reality of woman’s fear of retaliation were brought home by the case in 1995 of a husband who was acquitted of raping his wife only to return to their home days later where he beat her to death in front of their children.

Have you ever asked a woman who has been raped if she enjoyed it? Have you ever asked her if she was asking for it by wearing short skirts? Have you ever asked her if her shoes are not real leather but a “cheap” fake, implying that she may be too? Have you ever asked her to describe loudly in detail what happened in front of room of people? Have you ever asked her why she did not fight back more strenuously? Have you ever asked her whether she has ever had an abortion? Asked her about past sexual relationships? Ever demanded details of her menstrual cycle? Probably not… but these are all questions that have been asked in court. In fact these questions are encouraged on the grounds that they are the only way to protect men from false allegations. These questions also have the side effect of destroying the womans credibility.

So, if only 6% of rape cases end in conviction does this imply that the other 84% are examples of false accusations? Well I don’t think so… especially after myself reporting a rape a few years ago and never getting to court at all… women often put themselves through all the above only to have the defendant acquitted and walk free.

I will leave you with an example of this, which occurred in 1984 when Alister Winter (not real name) was accused by Julie (not real name) of rape. Julie was living with her parents in Sussex and had a boyfriend. One night she went to a Christmas party and got talking to a man there, when she went to leave he claimed that his car would not start and asked if she could give him a lift, thinking that it was a simple good deed she agreed. When they got to his home he insisted that she come in for a Christmas drink to say thankyou. She agreed to go to his flat and once there, the mans mood changed. He offered her drugs, which she refused, saying she had to go as she had to up early the next day. He physically stopped her from leaving, blocking the door and gripping her wrists. The more scared she got the more he seemed to enjoy what was happening/ he threatened to break her arm if she resisted, she pleaded with him and pretended to have an asthma attack. He pushed he down and raped her. After the rape he kept saying how he was not finished with her.

Julie managed to convince him that she needed her inhaler from her car, he made her leave her bag and shoes in his flat to ensure that he would return. When they got to her car Julie managed to leep in and lock the doors before he stopped her. She then drove off with him following her until she got to the police station; half naked, with no shoes and no bag.

Julie was covered in bruises and cuts, and had gotten a STI. She attempted suicide and ended up in psychiatric treatment. But Alister Winter was acquitted, although the judge unusually made an order for him to pay his legal costs of £15000. A friend of Winter was quoted in the media as saying “he used to have any woman he fancied, and has probably raped many times and gotten away with it”.

In 1993 Winter again appeared in court. It transcended that he had been taking women and raping them showing them the newspaper cutting from the previous trial as a method of making sure they did not tell as he would only be acquitted anyway. On this occasion he was found guilty of rape, buggery and administering controlled substances to have sex with female clients.