Conviction Rate for Rape Falls Precipitously in Great Britain

A report about rape prosecutions in Great Britain recently found that the rate of conviction had fallen from 1 conviction for every 3 cases brought to trial in 1977 to just 1 conviction for every 13 cases brought to trial in 1999. Why has the conviction rate fallen so sharply?

One explanation, of course, is that police and prosecutors are simply bungling the job. The report blames police for not being thorough enough in collecting evidence and prosecutors for not empathizing with rape victims enough.

But it is difficult to believe that police and prosecutorial actions visa vis rape cases have declined that much since 1977, especially given the enormous publicity in the United Kingdom (as in the United States) about the horrors of rape.

An alternative explanation, which the report apparntly did not examine, is that police and prosecutors in the UK are under pressure from groups and are bringing to trial weak cases today that would not have been prosecuted or would have led to a plea bargain in the 1970s.

It would be interesting to see researchers take a random sample of 1977 cases and 1999 cases that went to trial and compare the strength of the evidence in those respective samples. I suspect they would find that marginal, difficult to prove cases were not brought to trial in 1977 whereas they are being brought to trial today, and naturally the conviction rate is going to decline.

Source:

Rape conviction rate has dropped to just one in 13, inquiry reveals. Ian Burrell, The Independent (UK), April 1, 2002.

Share

Women Who Run with Nazis

Norway’s Hanna Kvanmo, who sits on the Nobel Peace Prize committee sparked a controversy when she said that she and other committee members regretted awarding Shimon Peres the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 and wished they could take that decision back. Of course, Kvanmo apparently thinks Yasser Arafat has done a standup job of upholding the prize’s values and said nothing about Palestinian terrorism.

What’s going on here? Fredrik Norman fills in the details. Ms. Kvanmo’s position is a bit easier to understand in light of her activities during World War II.

On April 9, 1940, Nazi Germany invaded Norway and conquered it in about two months. Kvanmo was one of about 1,000 young Norwegian women who subsequently joined the German Red Cross and went to work on the Eastern front taking care of Nazi soldiers.

While the Nazis were rampaging across Europe, leaving death and destruction in their wake, Kvanmo chose to spend the war helping to treat war criminals (among other things, Kvanmo and others treated the wounds of members of the SS).

At the end of the war, many of these nurses were returned to Norway where they were sentenced to varying terms of prison for aiding the enemy.

Leave it to a woman who aided the Nazi war effort to lecture the rest of the world about peace.

Source:

The 9th of April. Fredrik Norman, April 9, 2002.

Share

Should Great Britain Discriminate Against Female Doctors?

The BBC reported on an odd trend in British medicine today — there are too many female doctors. One of the central planners of Great Britain’s medical system touched off a controversy by suggesting that medical schools might have to start discriminating against women in order to boost the number of male doctors.

The problem with female doctors goes to the heart about debates over why men earn more, on average, than women. Female physicians in Great Britain end up working significantly less than male physicians do. According to statistics from the Royal College of General Practitioners, female physicians work an average of 24 years versus 31 years for men.

What are they doing during those 7 years? They are temporarily leaving the profession or entering part-time work, probably to accommodate other priorities such as raising children.

Add to that the fact that about 60 percent of students in medical school are women, and the result is an almost certain shortage of doctors in Great Britain during the next decade. The government says it will find a way to scrounge up 2,000 extra physicians, when the British Medical Association estimates that at least 10,000 more physicians are needed.

So, should medical schools in Great Britain start discriminating against women? Of course not. The problem here has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with Great Britain’s National Health System.

In the United States, the health care system deals with shortages through the free market. For example, over the past several years there has been a pretty marked shortage of nurses. Competition for available nurses has driven nursing salaries higher, in turn enticing more people to become nurses. Eventually the number of nurses available will meet or exceed the demand and nursing salaries will likely level out and likely decline in some places.

Much of Great Britain’s health care system is controlled and centrally planned by the state. The National Health System is perpetually short of cash and cannot afford to pay market rates for doctors. This means that talented doctors open up expensive private practices or else go into other fields or emigrate to other countries. The result is the shortage seen today which the British Medical Association wrongly associates with simply a decline in the number of men seeking to be general practitioners.

Source:

Medicine ‘may have to favour men’. The BBC, April 8, 2002.

Share

Judge Overturns Army’s Affirmative Action Promotion Policy

In March a federal judge ruled unconstitutional an U.S. Army policy that gave preferential treatment in promotion to women and minorities.

The Army’s written policy urged promotion boards to consider “past personal or institutional discrimination” when considering candidates for promotion. A white, male officer passed over for promotion in 1996 and 1997 sued, arguing that the policy was unconstitutionally discriminatory.

In his ruling, Federal Judge Royce C. Lamberth noted that the Army had failed to establish that women and minorities had been discriminated against in the past during promotions. He cited statistics noting that since the 1970s the promotion rate for white and black officers had been almost identical.

“This [policy] undeniably establishes a preference in favor of one race or gender over another, and therefore is unconstitutional,” Lamberth wrote in his 68-page opinion.

The Army has not yet decided whether it will appeal, but since Lamberth framed his ruling very similar to Supreme Court decisions striking down affirmative action programs, overturning the verdict on appeal would be a long shot at best.

And imagine that — the Army having to judge people as individuals based on merit instead of based on their particular group membership. How will the nation ever survive such a radical notion?

Source:

Judge halts an army policy on promotion. Neely Tucker, Washington Post, March 5, 2002.

Share

Independent Women’s Forum on the Inaccuracies in Women’s Studies Textbooks

Christina Stolba has written an excellent 33-page summary of the overwhelming deficiencies of the most popular textbooks used for Women’s Studies courses in the United States. According to Stolba’s report,

Rather than offering young men and women exposure to knowledge, these texts foster a cynical knowingness about women’s status in society, one that consistently emphasizes women’s supposedly subordinate position. The danger of such a worldview, particularly for a generation of young men and women who enter the classroom already steeped in popular myths about women’s place in society, is that it will ripen into a form of anti-intellectualism.

One of the textbooks Stolba looks at is Sheila Ruth’s Issues in Feminism, which I skewered here many years ago.

Stolba goes through the litany of problems from absurd factual errors to stereotyping to the anti-intellectualism (in too many of these textbooks, critical thinking is blasted as an artificial construct of the patriarchy). But the most absurd abuse of the textbooks is their condescending attitudes toward young men and women.

Stolba notes, for example, that the authors of the textbook Gender & Culture in America conducted surveys of their students and found that, “nearly all of the women, but none of the men interviewed, plan to curtail or cease their paid employment after their children are born.” They cite one female student proud of her GPA and career prospects but who tells the authors that she believes “children suffer if their mothers work outside the home.”

Of course to a movement that places so much emphasis on reproductive choicest, there can be no room for allowing young women to make their own choices in other areas. The authors of Gender & Culture in America simply conclude that women like this student are victims who “are apparently unaware that in these decisions they are following traditional gender stereotypes.”

Except when having an abortion, no woman in radical feminism ever makes choices except when their actions agree with the radical feminist view of the world. Anything else is chalked up to false consciousness, patriarchal oppression, and/or implicit societal-wide threats against women. And yet, even though radical feminists constantly circumscribe the range of acceptable choices for young women, they still scratch their collective heads in amazement at the general rejection of their philosophy.

Could it possibly be that, unlike their sisters in academia, young women in fact take the pro-choice message about deciding for themselves to heart. For academic feminists, “pro-choice” is just a convenient ideological term that serves a political purpose. For many younger men and women, however, choosing for themselves is a way of life, and such people have as little use for the boring constraints of radical feminism as they do for traditional anti-feminism. And good for them.

Source:

Just in Time for Women?s History Month, Review of Women?s Studies Textbooks Reveals Questionable Scholarship, Ideological Bias, and Sins of Omission. Independent Women’s Forum, March 20, 2002.

Share