THE ATTRITION RATE IN RAPE
There is now a large volume of research literature on rape
attrition, that is on when, how and why cases are dropped
from or otherwise lost to the criminal justice process.
The dictionary definition of attrition is ‘grinding down by
friction.’ This is very fitting to that fundamentally
important portion of attrition related to the psychological
reactions and decisions of the victim. It is not sufficiently
acknowledged that the victim is the main decision-maker
leading to attrition (80%+) and that the victim’s lack of
confidence in the system is such a major factor.
The more usual analogy for thinking about most
investigations of attrition is that of an obstacle course with
cases dropping out at a series of barriers related to
specific events and decisions by key actors.
Research on attrition has played a very important role in
the gathering of evidence to support the mainly feminist
driven and by now largely accomplished, if not always
effective, reform of the law and criminal procedures
relating to sexual offending.
The concept of attrition has acted as a lens that focuses
attention on many of the critical, complex issues around
how the law deals with sex crime.
Descriptive
Diagnostic
Evaluative
Arguably, the attrition rate is most meaningful, useful
and thought-provoking when defined in its broadest
and simplest, descriptive terms.
This is where the numerator or the outcome of
interest is significant, appropriate punishment
following conviction for rape and where the
denominator or pool of potential outcomes includes
all rapes that actually occur.
Basic (or Ideal) = Punishment following conviction
Attrition Rate
All Rapes
 This rate tells us what we really need to know how many rapes go totally unpunished or inadequately or
inappropriately punished.
 A precise rate of this kind is unattainable because of the
inherent subjectivity in the judgment of appropriateness of
punishment and the difficulty of establishing the true
prevalence of rape.
 However, using data from victimisation surveys and rape crisis
centres and taking a sentence of imprisonment of any length
as a generally appropriate response, it is possible to arrive at
a serviceable estimate.
The simple, hugely disturbing message of the basic attrition
rate defined (conservatively) in this way is that probably
less than 1 in 40 cases of rape end up being
appropriately punished.
According to Polk (Brit. J. Crim, 1985) attrition is very familiar across
many types of crime. A majority of cases known to the police are lost
(do not result in a custodial sentence) in the criminal justice process.
End in custodial sentence
Rape
7%
Robbery
6%
Assault
2%
Burglary
1%
Homicide
28%
Some of these crimes also have high rates of under-reporting.
What is similar?
Inefficiencies in the system
The burden of proof – evidential issues arising from due process
What is different?
A far greater proportion of perpetrators are known in rape
The role of victim credibility is central in rape – harder evidential issues
The scope for prejudicial attitudes and actions in rape
The significant degree of victim withdrawal from rape cases
Attrition rates in published studies commonly focus on reported or
recorded offences and on convictions because these tend to be the
only (relatively) reliable figures available.
This is a topping and tailing that misses much of what is important:e.g. the huge extent of under-reporting and the significant role of
sentences in determining public and victim perceptions and
expectations.
However, it is often the only way to proceed and it is also essential to
narrow the focus at least temporarily to do justice to the complexity
of the causes of/reasons for attrition – effectively a diagnostic ( and
sometimes an evaluative) process.
For example, early studies especially in Britain examined and drew
attention to the loss of cases between reporting and recording of
offences – due to no-criming etc. These studies had a diagnostic
role, pointing to problems in the system. They were useful in that
they helped gain reforms that restricted police discretion and
provided more supportive procedures for victims reporting sexual
crime.
The identification of a perpetrator and the police’s ability to make
that person accessible to the legal process is an obvious
precondition for a successful prosecution. But decisions and
actions by the following actors can be crucially influential. They can
conclusively end a prosecution or lead to other types of attrition.
Victim
Police
Director of Public Prosecutions
Trial Judge
Jury
Appellate Court
The executive (Minister for Justice)
Police
Director of Public
Prosecutions
Trial Judge
Jury
Appellate Court
The executive
(Minister for Justice)
Victim
Potential
General
Perceptions Victims
The victim is the main decision-maker when it
comes to attrition [80% plus]
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
CJS factors - aware of pain, difficulties and risks
Incident factors - aware of drink/drugs issues
Social factors - privacy, loss of reputation
Psychological factors – self-blame, ‘getting on with life’
Fear of the perpetrator
(Hanly et al 2009)
Balanced against:
1) wanting justice _ “the right thing to do”
2) social influence – others wanting justice
3) security concerns – protection from future assault for
self % others
The attrition process is complex not only because a host of actors
with varying, carefully defined roles are involved, but also
because decision-making occurs within a restrictive legal
framework with specific rules and procedures.
The chief purpose of this framework in the criminal trial is providing
due process, that is ensuring as far as possible that the innocent are
not found guilty and punished. Ensuring that the guilty are convicted
and punished is an equal but in a sense a subsidiary aim.
Loss of a case, where there is culpability, is a failure to impose
appropriate punishment, whoever decides and for whatever reason.
But the reasons can be very different. This can be disbelief or an
educated calculation that the evidence is not strong enough to lead to
a conviction, irrespective of views on the victim’s version of events.
The DPP must attempt to both vindicate the victim’s right to justice
and ensure due process for the accused. Paradoxically the DPP must
sometimes bring about one form of attrition (decline to prosecute) in
order to avoid another potentially far more damaging form of attrition
(acquittal or collapse of a trial).
Police: No-criming
Down-grading
Insensitive, humiliating or demoralising
treatment of victim
Ineffective investigation
Director of Public Prosecutions:
Decision not to prosecute
Decisions facilitating lesser sentences
Trial Judge:
Dismissal
Management of trial
Sentence
% Total % Received
Received
Lost
30%
60%
12%
75%
3%
50%
Jury:
Acquittal
Indecision
Appellate Court:
Sentence
The executive (Minister for Justice):
Sentence
1.5%
600
Irish annual statistics for rape reports,
prosecutions and convictions
500
400
300
200
100
0
1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
REPORTS
60
47
50
46
51
54
57
68
73
74
75
61
84
PROSECUTIONS
89
110
127
143
184
191
180
256
292
218
290
401
497
328
410
446
378
353
42
29
60
63
40
78
66
67
103
84
97
94
98
81
100
72
75
61
72
CONVICTIONS
44
37
39
30
32
31
39
34
31
34
36
28
16
27
26
20
21
26
43
35
51
47
37
43
27
30
27
36
CONVICTION RATE
19
30
24
16
15
14
15
16
18
12
7
13
7
7
7
10
REPORTS
PROSECUTIONS
CONVICTIONS
CONVICTION RATE
ATTRITION AT THE TRIAL STAGE
442 Trials for Rape 2003-2008
After 13 Absconsions
After 52 Nolle Prosequis
After 18 Hung Juries
After 97 Acquittals
After 58 lesser convictions
204 Rape convictions
100%
3%
12%
4%
22%
13%
46%
177 Trials for Rape Hanly et al
After 4 Absconsions
After 14 Nolle Prosequis
After 8 Hung Juries
After 52 Acquittals
After 29 lesser convictions
70 Rape convictions
100%
2%
8%
5%
29%
16%
40%
51 of these 70 convictions followed Guilty Pleas. Less than 25%
of contested trials led to conviction for rape. Kelly et al followed up
100 reported Irish cases from 2004.
Alleged perpetrator: Identified 79
Arrested
49
Interviewed
69
Charged
18
To Court
16
Convictions
8
Convictions for rape
6 [ 38%; 4 Guilty Pleas; 40% of contested trials]