http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5...r-rapists.html
There is one law for terrorists, and one for rapists
Why does the low conviction rate for both terrorism and rape provoke such different responses, wonders Alasdair Palmer.
Figures released last week by the Home Office showed that, since 2001, only around one in eight of those arrested by the police in the course of investigations into terrorist plots are convicted of terrorist offences by the courts. Those figures were seen by many people as evidence that the police have arrested people who had nothing to do with terrorism.
"The overwhelming majority of those arrested for terrorism were not guilty of any charge," noted Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, articulating the concerns about the misuse of state power. Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman, endorsed that point: the figures showed that many of those "tarnished with the brush of terrorism aren't terrorists".
Later in the week, another set of figures came out relating accusations and convictions. This time, the crime wasn't terrorism. It was rape. Although the rate of convictions to accusations is even lower in rape cases than it is with terrorism – only about one in every 14 accusations of rape made to the police leads to a conviction – the reaction was very different.
No one suggested that the low rate of conviction in rape cases implied that most of "those tarnished with the brush of being rapists aren't rapists". On the contrary, the problem was taken to be that the police and the courts let the guilty men go free.
The contrast is striking. With terrorism, failure to secure more convictions is produced as evidence that the state's powers are too great. When rape is the crime, that failure is interpreted as proof that those powers are not great enough: police and court procedures allow too many rapists to escape punishment. Terrorism and rape cases both show that court procedures don't always get to the truth: "acquitted" or "never even charged" cannot be taken as proof that someone is innocent. Rape prosecutions hinge on the critical issue of consent. Juries are often understandably reluctant to convict when the case comes down to the victim's word against the accused.
With terrorism, the importance of breaking up terrorist conspiracies before they lead to mass murder means that the police make arrests before they have enough evidence to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". Waiting until after the explosion has taken place is not a way of protecting justice. It is a way of being grotesquely, irresponsibly stupid. But it also means that many more people are arrested during anti-terrorism operations than are ever convicted.
In both kinds of case, ministers have tried to find ways of modifying court procedures so that it is easier to "get" those suspected of the crime. Those attempts have usually been frustrated by the judiciary on the grounds that they violate the right to a fair trial. Making intercept evidence admissible would certainly increase the number of suspects that could be convicted in terrorist cases. But there is no equivalent "silver bullet" for rape trials: hence the temptation to change the rules so that those accused of rape are deprived of the traditional protections.
Ministers face very severe criticism from civil liberties groups when they try to alter court procedure to make it easier to convict or to detain those suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Will Liberty, or the Lib Dems, mount a similarly intense protest the next time the Government attempts to change court procedures to make it easier to "get" those accused of rape? They did not campaign against its earlier attempts. It is baffling that protecting the rights of terrorist suspects should be considered more important than protecting the rights of those accused of rape.
There is one law for terrorists, and one for rapists
Why does the low conviction rate for both terrorism and rape provoke such different responses, wonders Alasdair Palmer.
Figures released last week by the Home Office showed that, since 2001, only around one in eight of those arrested by the police in the course of investigations into terrorist plots are convicted of terrorist offences by the courts. Those figures were seen by many people as evidence that the police have arrested people who had nothing to do with terrorism.
"The overwhelming majority of those arrested for terrorism were not guilty of any charge," noted Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, articulating the concerns about the misuse of state power. Chris Huhne, the Lib Dems' home affairs spokesman, endorsed that point: the figures showed that many of those "tarnished with the brush of terrorism aren't terrorists".
Later in the week, another set of figures came out relating accusations and convictions. This time, the crime wasn't terrorism. It was rape. Although the rate of convictions to accusations is even lower in rape cases than it is with terrorism – only about one in every 14 accusations of rape made to the police leads to a conviction – the reaction was very different.
No one suggested that the low rate of conviction in rape cases implied that most of "those tarnished with the brush of being rapists aren't rapists". On the contrary, the problem was taken to be that the police and the courts let the guilty men go free.
The contrast is striking. With terrorism, failure to secure more convictions is produced as evidence that the state's powers are too great. When rape is the crime, that failure is interpreted as proof that those powers are not great enough: police and court procedures allow too many rapists to escape punishment. Terrorism and rape cases both show that court procedures don't always get to the truth: "acquitted" or "never even charged" cannot be taken as proof that someone is innocent. Rape prosecutions hinge on the critical issue of consent. Juries are often understandably reluctant to convict when the case comes down to the victim's word against the accused.
With terrorism, the importance of breaking up terrorist conspiracies before they lead to mass murder means that the police make arrests before they have enough evidence to prove guilt "beyond reasonable doubt". Waiting until after the explosion has taken place is not a way of protecting justice. It is a way of being grotesquely, irresponsibly stupid. But it also means that many more people are arrested during anti-terrorism operations than are ever convicted.
In both kinds of case, ministers have tried to find ways of modifying court procedures so that it is easier to "get" those suspected of the crime. Those attempts have usually been frustrated by the judiciary on the grounds that they violate the right to a fair trial. Making intercept evidence admissible would certainly increase the number of suspects that could be convicted in terrorist cases. But there is no equivalent "silver bullet" for rape trials: hence the temptation to change the rules so that those accused of rape are deprived of the traditional protections.
Ministers face very severe criticism from civil liberties groups when they try to alter court procedure to make it easier to convict or to detain those suspected of involvement in terrorism.
Will Liberty, or the Lib Dems, mount a similarly intense protest the next time the Government attempts to change court procedures to make it easier to "get" those accused of rape? They did not campaign against its earlier attempts. It is baffling that protecting the rights of terrorist suspects should be considered more important than protecting the rights of those accused of rape.
Comment