Handling of rape charges criticised

Press, Volume CXIII, Issue 33279, 17 July 1973, Page 7

Handling of rape charges criticised

(N.Z.P. A.-Reuter—Copyright) WASHINGTON, July 11. Police procedures for the handling of allegations of rape in the Washington area are under scrutiny by lawyers and Justice Department officials after complaints by women’s organisations. A survey by a special committee in the suburb of Arlington found that during two years only 48 per cent of 633 defendants in rape cases were prosecuted. “It is possible,” the report said, “that non-prosecution rates for other serious crimes are equally high. But when less than one of every four persons arrested for rape is convicted of that offence, when more than half are not

even prosecuted, something appears to be wrong with the system.”

The report noted the dominance of men in the field of criminal justice. “Some people will continue to be suspicious that discrimination will exist as long as women play so small a part in the decision making process.

There was a “discouraging, debilitating level of uncertainty” on the part of the victim as to how she would be treated by the police, hospitals, prosecutors and the courts, said the committee.

“A woman should not have to prove she was in fear of death or grave bodily harm in order to see her assailant convicted,” the report said. “Proof of forcible rape should require only that the woman’s submission was achieved by the use of force or the threat of force, which put her in actual fear of physical harm.” The report highlighted a complaint of women’s organisations that many victims refused to complain to the authorities because of fears of publicity and harassment by police, hospital staff and defence lawyers in court. It recommended the local police force retain a group of specially trained gynaecologists on the Government payroll; they would be on call to examine rape victims ati hospitals. The report said penalties for rape should be in line with those for other serious violent crimes, but added that the maximum penalty of life imprisonment was too severe, “giving the public a distorted view of the nature of the crime, and making convictions hard to get.”