A gap or a chasm? - National Police Library Online Catalogue

A gap or a chasm? Attrition in reported rape cases
30
s t ronger impacts were found adjusting the methodology and looking at three states (Bachman
and Smith, 1994) but the higher attrition rate compared to other serious crimes persisted.
The Senate Judiciary Committee issued a report entitled Detours on the Road to Equal Justice
in 1993 that documented attrition in rape cases across the USA. The average conviction
rate in 1990 was 12 per cent. The report demonstrates disparities in how rape and other
violent crimes were prosecuted. The key Attrition points identified were: arrest (62% of
reported rapes do not result in an arrest); dismissal (of the cases that moved into the system,
48% were dismissed before trial); and acquittal at trial. The committee also noted reluctance
amongst prosecutors to bring cases where the parties were known to one another – the
majority of rape cases. However, the review found significantly higher conviction rates in
particular areas of the US, including Washington and New York. A subsequent review notes
that conviction rates across the USA range from 2.5 to 19.9 per cent (Sinclair and Bourne,
1998, p576) but offered little explanation of these wide discrepancies.
B re reton (1993) discusses four Australian studies where patterns similar to those
documented for England and Wales and the USA are re p o rted. The key players are the
victim, in terms of the decision to report and continuing with the case, and the police in
terms of the decision of whether to lay charges and their influence on the victim’s subsequent
decision-making. Several studies also note 20 to 35 per cent of cases being dropped by
prosecutors. Guilty pleas are much lower than in other criminal cases. Two factors had the
most impact on outcomes at trial: evidence of physical injury; and admissions by the
defendant at some point in the process.
Identifying Attrition points
Attrition research identifies a paradox internationally: despite widespread reform of statute
law and, in many jurisdictions, procedural rules, the 1990s witnessed declining or static
conviction rates. The UK has one of the most pronounced patterns. Remarkably little
re s e a rch or legal commentary has, as yet, attempted to explain these common – and
unexpected – international similarities.
R e s e a rch to date in adversarial legal systems has identified four key points at which attrition
occurs. The first point is the decision to re p o rt itself; estimates of the re p o rting rate range from 5
to 25 per cent. Even using the highest re p o rting rate estimate, thre e - q u a rters of cases never
reach the first hurdle within the CJS. The second involves the police investigation stage – the
initial response, forensic examination, statement taking, evidence gathering and arrest and/or
i n t e rviewing of suspects – between half and thre e - q u a rters of re p o rted cases are lost here. The