is the fact that only 6% of rape cases end in a conviction proof of a patriarchal society?

YES.

And in response to Lulabell's answer... how do you explain that in a case of a woman's word versus a man's, the man doesn't get convicted? Patriarchy.

Until men stand up to men who rape men, women and children, and say rape is wrong and won't be tolerated under any circumstances, rape will continue. Look at how many people are justifying all rape because some are false accusations. So is all murder ok too, since some people are falsely accused of murder? Just why do so many of these people identify with the ones being accused of rape? It makes you wonder just what they are so worried about. Yep, the western world is still very patriarchal. A man's word still counts more than a woman's.

It isn't really proof of much at all. Basically what it means is that the majority of rape cases don't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond any reasonable doubt. The judicial system in the UK is designed to favour the accused by requiring a very high standard of proof in order to result in a conviction. Rape is often a difficult thing to prove to that standard.

Of course this is terribly unjust, but what can really be done about it? You can't simply lower the standard of proof, since if a man is falsely accused of rape (and I don't believe that to be a particularly common scenario, but it does happen) then there would be a good chance of his being punished for a crime he didn't commit.

I'd be curious to know the difference between the conviction rates for male/female victims. Seems like when there's a male victim, the entire world pays attention and the court system is inclined to pursue all avenues that "justice is done"

Does the 6% number include male victims, not include male victims? Either way, the differences could be huge.

Knowing this number would certainly contribute to the question of a patriarchal society.

I know for a fact its very hard to prove rape. Part of it is to protect the attacker from false accusations. I'm divided on the issue. There are many cases where the attacker walks away without so much as a slap on the wrist. I know of one such case personally. But, at the same time, we shouldn't make it so easy to convict a person based on accusation that innocent people are sent to jail.

Proving most rapes is often very hard because it comes down to "he said-she said". Personally, I don't see how they can change the standards without risking innocent people. While I agree that the percentage of false accusations are not near as high as some of the people on the forum will try to make it, we have to be aware that, yes, there are some people out there who will make false accusations.

Unfortunately, its just a situation that seems to have no remedy.

Some things that have helped, however, is that when on trail they can not bring up your attire during the attack or your past history. Small steps like this is at least helping women gain the courage to come forward after an attack. This way they don't feel like they'll be attacked again while on the stand (which, of course, happens anyway).

What is comes down to is a weight measure.. The judges and juries on one hand measure the value of the victim/survivor, a mere woman, and her future value to society, against her perceived damage. The life-long damage that rape causes to the woman, her future spouse(s), and her children is severely under-valued. Even in this forum, men have acknowledged that they think that rape is no more than an unwanted sexual experience and do not even understand the extreme physical pain involved, much less the unending, and unmendable emotional scars.

Against that side, they measure the accused, and man, who is perceived to be far more valuable to society for the contributions that he may make in the future, and weighed against that are the damages that he will endure if convicted, meaning a certain amount of years in jail, and the loss of what he would have contributed to society if he was free.

WIth that in mind, you will only have a conviction if the woman is from a good family, and educated, having a future of great contribution to society, and if the male is of low-breeding, and has little or no education, and is not expeced to contribute much to society. That accounts for the low conviction rate.

The idea that it has anything to do with the testimony at trial, or the guilt or innocence of the accused is a myth. The same thing is true for murder. It is not about guilt or innocence, but about who you murder, and who is accused of murder. If the accused is brought to trial for murdering someone more valuable to society that he/she is, they will probably be found guilty. This helps explain the large percentage of minorities in prison.

This is based on many jurisprudence studies done in the US, but I suspect that the same thing holds true for the UK, since both societies are very class conscious.

I agree with tugboat. I see these types of statements among extremists on both sides. They are making their own gender look incredibly stupid, and it achieves the opposite of what they're trying to achieve.

i love how instead of people just ANSWERING THE FREAKING QUESTION, they go off on a speil about how the "greater crime is all the false accusations"

yes, that's bad. but you know what? i'm having a hard time garnering any sympathy for anyone who, when confronted with a problem like a rapist walking free and raping again, just ignores THAT problem and shoves the lesser problem under the lens. disgraceful.

now, to answer your question, as a medical nurse i've seen it time and time again- she takes a shower. she cleans herself up. complete loss of evidence. no ability to prove anything.

and it's not her fault, either. i mean, heck, i'd want a hot freaking shower too.

so it all comes down to evidence.

possibly, but perhaps it also has to do with how many women actually report the rape, because many do not. There is still some way to go in changing attitudes to this heinous crime and as to qwerty who said they are all liars is obviously having a bad day. Also remember that women also serve in the judiciary so its not always men that are at fault.

On one other level if men that do this and who are caught after the first time and are let out and do it again i suggest a mandatory 30 year prison sentence. No argument.

No, the fact that there is such a crime as rape disproves your assertion. If you add to that, the fact that most of the acts these days coming under the definition of rape, aren't what most rational people would regard as worthy of the name. Then we have false allegations. Figures show, that if you reduce the crime stats. to include only those acts which used to be regarded as rape, false allegations, and those claims where there doesn't seem to be a case to answer, they haven't risen at all.

Let me fire one back. There has always been considerably more male prisoners than female prisoners. How can men, therefore, have framed the law to suit their own purposes? It is clear that men have a much harder time than women in staying inside the laws of the land, as you would have it, framed by men themselves.

You have to remember, if you are a reasonable person that is, that men have a much stronger sex drive than women and have been primed by nature to be the chasers. So, don't expect to stop it once intercourse has commenced, because the right time to do this is before.

Rape is a hard thing to prove. Since you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to convict someone of a crime, that's why there are so few convictions.

Dream Fairy- Got a problem with men? I've heard of a woman do every single thing you stated except school shootings. They're not as common, but they happen. Actually, women do abuse kids more often.

Lindie- Yeah we all know a woman's word is more important than a man's and all men should be jailed instantly at the word of a woman.

Some women won't rest on this until we jail every single man accused of rape apparently.

Qwerty has issues too.