Dani Garavelli: Adding insult to injury

It is distressing that despite all the awareness-raising initiatives, retrogressive ideas simmer just under the surface

YOU can see them in any city centre in the early hours of Saturday morning. Young women with bare midriffs swaying across the street, a bottle of half-drunk Smirnoff Ice still clamped in their fists; or sitting on a kerb alone, crying, their mascara making black tracks down their cheeks; or collapsed in a doorway, their skirts riding up their thighs. And admit it, you do sometimes think: what are they playing at, these girls who should have the world at their feet? Is their imagination so limited that the best they can hope for from a night out is to drink themselves into oblivion? You worry about them too; think really they ought to take better care of themselves. Because you know that in their comatose state they are easy prey for sexual predators.

What I never, ever think, though, is that by drinking themselves into a stupor these women are asking to be raped; that because they are incapable of saying no, it means they're saying yes. To me, there is a world of difference between saying "these women are placing themselves at unnecessary risk", and "these women are fair game". The first merely acknowledges the way things are (that there are men out there who will take advantage). The second actively condones sexual assault, shifting the burden of responsibility from the offender to the victim. It suggests that by placing themselves in a vulnerable position, women are actively colluding in sexual crimes perpetrated against them.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp, that a woman's right not to be raped is absolute; not qualified by circumstance. But it's too sophisticated apparently for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA), which, it emerged last week, had been docking payouts to some victims on the grounds that their drinking was a "contributory factor" in the crime. The woman who exposed the practice – Helen – was raped after a night out four years ago. Her attacker was never caught.

The former beauty therapist suffered such trauma as a result of her ordeal, she hasn't been able to work since. Yet when the CICA ruled on her case it found she was 25% to blame for what happened to her. And not just her. Fourteen women in the past year – 1% of all rape-related applications – were told the same thing: that, by participating in an entirely legal pursuit – drinking alcohol – they had effectively forfeited the right to full redress for their ordeal.

We are not talking here about a trial, where the excessive consumption of alcohol on the part of the alleged victim might make it impossible for her to recall the exact sequence of events, and so lead the jury to return a not guilty verdict. No, the CICA, which makes its decision on the "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond all reasonable doubt", accepted a rape had taken place. It just believed a drunken victim was a bit less worthy than a sober one.

Admittedly, the CICA conceded its mistake as soon as it was pointed out, insisting this was not policy, but an error of judgment. However, at a time when rape convictions are at an all-time low (6% in England and Wales, 3.9% in Scotland), it is distressing to discover that despite all the reclaim-the-night marches, the investment in police training, and the awareness-raising initiatives, such retrogressive ideas are simmering just under the surface, at the heart of the establishment.

I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised. We already know these prejudices are widespread; that the inability to shake them off is one of the reasons juries are so reluctant to convict. Look at any internet forum on rape and you will find misogynists castigating women for everything from consuming too much alcohol to "leading men on" to making false rape claims out of greed or spite. There are those who see the country's poor conviction rate not as evidence of our incompetence in bringing such cases to court, but as proof that women are liars.

Even among the wider population, attitudes are hardening. A Scottish Government survey last year found that more than one in four people thought a woman was partially responsible for being raped if she was wearing revealing clothing or had been drinking. Almost a fifth took the same view if a woman had had a lot of sexual partners and almost a third if she had been flirting.

It seems little ground has been gained in the 20 years since Jonathan Kaplan's film The Accused sought to challenge public perceptions by telling the story of Sarah Tobias, a hard-drinking, promiscuous waitress, who nonetheless did not deserve to be gang-raped over a pinball machine in a bar. That's particularly depressing because both the police and government seem genuinely committed to improving the situation. Earlier this year, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland called for rape to be investigated by senior officers and training to be standardised throughout the eight forces. The Scottish Government has introduced a Sexual Offences Bill which defines "consent" in law and creates a new offence of "spiking a drink for sexual purposes", while at Westminster, the Government has pledged to increase the number of sexual assault referral centres from five to 36 by 2009.

These are positive moves, but they don't really get to the crux of the problem. Yes, you can encourage women to come forward, treat their allegations seriously, investigate them thoroughly and present the evidence effectively in court. But as long as a significant proportion of the population continues to believes the onus is on women to wear more, drink less, stop flirting and avoid dark alleyways, rapists will keep on getting away with it.