Ken Clarke
Ken Clarke must have been astonished at the hoo-hah over his entirely accurate comments that all rape is not the same. No-one denies that rape is a serious crime, one which can have terrible long-term psychological sequelae for the victim but there are degrees of severity that the courts and the sentencing guidelines have always recognised. Violent psychopathic stranger rape is simply of a different order of trauma from non-consensual date rape where both perpetrator and victim have been drinking together and in between these two extremes there is a spectrum of terrifying events.
Mr Clarke uses the language of his generation (I don’t feel so far away from his generation to want to criticise it) and the newspapers and Ed Milliband used that as a convenient political weapon. It’s the nasty face of politics that I rather hoped the new opposition leader would forego.
Whether or not one agrees with the proposals for a reduction in sentence tariff for those who plead guilty early, saving courts time and money, is another matter and the Coalition have now withdrawn their proposals for the moment, presumably to let the fuss die down. And yet rape victims ought to be relieved by a proposal that would allow them at avoid the court trauma of having to relive the event under hostile cross-examination. What we want is far more women to come forward to the police about rape and not feel afraid of the court proceedings. A higher conviction rate would help to make women feel safer.
Great article, and a lot of common sense.
We must also avoid the trap of thinking that because the ‘conviction rate’ is low, that we do things which will result in innocent people going to prison.
Oi !
(“) We must also avoid the trap of thinking that we are sending innocent people to prison.
(“)
Surely you mean “We must avoid the trap of sending innocent people to prison” ?
1101 23 jsdm
This ludicrous situation is brought about by charging a young man of eighteen with rape because he sleeps with his girlfriend, who is a month under the age of consent. If these situations were managed with a mature outlook rather than ‘a lets charge him with something’ mentality Ken Clarke would not have been in the situation he is now. The fault lies in absurdity not wordity.
And what a breath of fresh air he was, having the courage to speak as a normal human being, without feeling gagged by the overly aggressive PC brigade. We need more Ken’s not less.
This ‘Rape’ matter, although complexly huge, exists within what I would identify as a much more serious and insidious Overarch and Undercurrent of “Life-Negating-Enforcements”.
I speak of the “enforcement” upon people, by World, Nation-State, and Local Governments, under the guise of “health services”, “education”, “economics”, “religion”, “market sovereignty”, “checks and balances”, “social services & supports”, “the social contract”, “financial guarantees” (e.g. the direct-debit guarantee whereby principal parties can ‘variably’ rip you off to their hearts content),
but also by “everyone-can-win pyramids” and “golden balls & scratch-its ‘competitions'”;
of life-negating exploitations, manipulations, and unwinnable-competitions.
Shark-like, at best fox-like, they all propagate abuses, comparable to different kinds of ‘rape’.
Since my personally suffered instance takes up over 500 words, I do not attempt to detail it,
but suffice it to give a condensation here;
and for the fuller detail to respectfully refer the reader to either of two non-profit democratic-citizens websites
http://www.75l25w.com or http://www.lifefresh.co.uk .
Condensation:
(1) GPs now instruct the patient that
(a) The GPs’ Remit only allows them to prescribe a medication, or refer to you a psychiatrist (or
other specialist).
(b) GPs can not refer you to, nor recommend, nor recognise, such services as Holistic-Health,
Alternative-Therapy, or Complementary-Medicine;
(c) nor refer you to nor recommend health-education nor self-help sources.
(d) Neither can the GP read your letters-of-self-report;
nor take any notice of any health-improvement or impairment-remediation or management source
you quote or refer-to.
(e) The GP patient-interview will be reduced from 15 minutes to 10 minutes.
(2) The NHS Psychological Support Service has never actually been such: it has always been and will ever remain solely a psychiatric imposition, even upon those who do not need psychiatry and have no ‘mental-illness’; and thus has no remit to be positivising nor to use or recommend any of a long list of proven remedial, educational, and self-help advances and non-pharmacological, non-invasive, non-neutralising, and non- negativising, advances and methods.
(3) Nevertheless, both GP-medical and Psychiatric-staff are empowered to make false-claims for expertises they can not actually deliver, neither to the individual as a person nor as a patient;
and are empowered to discharge you or remove help from you regardless of your needs and regardless
of your wishes.
—————–
The above is just one instance of Life-Negating-Enforcements;
of which Rape is one seriously misunderstood and evil branch,
and towards which the “Corrective” and “Educational” services are as badly misnamed as “Shot-in-back-by-Own-Troops” is officially badly misnamed as “Friendly-Fire”.
===========
2359St210511.JSDM.
Some astute remarks there Miles but these days nobody with any self-respect HAS or admits to “having” a GP.
That is the one thing you must not do; the rest is irrelevant, but to somebody who has……it is.
Trouble is, Gareth, that evidently the First-World campaign to transform our ‘Brittle-Masses’ into ‘Resilient Communities’ (1998) was made to fail;
so also have been failing all attempts, at making affordably-available to all levels of People, lifelong sustainworthy individual human development;
thus majorities still lurk behind chintz curtains, ‘everywhere’, dutifully observing their external goings-on and non-goings-on;
and numbers of these ‘neighbourhood-watchers’ secretly monitor our GP surgeries to see who goes in and who comes out.
One’s own neighbours also have some sort of hidden knack of finding out what you are up to and where you go, or don’t go; and networkingly ‘informing’ every-body-and-his nightly-howling-tom-cat, except yourself.
So, to hell with it, yes I am under a GP;
but hold on, doesn’t every citizen and resident in Britain have to be medically-registered ?
and the great majority have to be thus registered under the GP system ?
0241 2705 JSDM
I am so tired – I can’t even remember if I’ve already posted the above or not – sorry.
I have never quite worked out what date rape is. Presumably the man (or woman) has to turn violent suddenly to get the pleasure that he wants, after dinner in the flat?
Rape generally has to include the marks of violence, I think, and that would also include
‘consentual’ rape, unless the girl dashes round to the police station with emission dripping out of her, in which case DNA would be sufficient. What a man raped by a woman (by another man, I can) would do I can not think. Even consentually, there would have to be marks of physical violence.
It is all a question of plenty of work for the lawyers, and clients who get interested in the law and want to see whether it works or not.
I know that a gentleman always asks and says “Please” first. If it is “No” then he does not, and now that sodomy is lawful between
men, the same would apply to a “gentleman” doing such a thing with another man, foul behaviour that it would be.
The problem is that anyone who sticks their head above the parapet on the subject of rape risks being branded sexist or misogynistic. As a result, it is impossible to debate any of the issues surrounding it, as is shown by the distinct lack of comments on this post.
How, for example, could anyone propose tougher sentences for so-called “date rape” if they aren’t allowed to differentiate between it and rape by a masked stranger with a knife?
Thanks for those comments. I think we ought to be clear that in England rape is sex without consent and does not have to be by force. Unreasonable coercion and making someone inebriated and unable to refuse sex are also ‘rape’. And therein lies the problem, since common sense tells us that if a woman puts herself in a position when she’s too drunk to know what she’s doing must take partial blame for any untoward outcome. Trouble is most cases are not that simple and there are probably thousands of rapes which are not reported because of women’s anxieties about the way they will be treated by the police and courts. Last year there were just over 700 convictions, a very small number. Unless the perpetrator admits to guilt (about half of convictions), the majority of cases where there is no supporting extraneous evidence and rely on the testimony of the witness and accused do not result in a conviction.
Bedd Gelert, the issue of false accusations is an interesting one. the Home office reckons that between 9 and 11% of accusations are malicious or false, but that may be no different from other types of crime accusations like theft and burglary. But it is understandable that the police should be cautious when they know that a man’s whole life can be destroyed by a case brought by a malicious accuser.
What do people object to about victims’ treatment by the police or courts? In this country, we have a principle where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And to be proved guilty requires evidence. A case that’s just one person’s word against another is never going to be proved.
The only way to improve the conviction rate would be to require people by law to sign consent forms before having sex. Otherwise, sorry, it’s always going to be impossible to prove most rapes beyond reasonable doubt. Perhaps better education is a more realistic way to prevent so-called date rapes.
Should be as simple as stylusing one’s formal-signature on the sort of pocket-screen carried by delivery-workers;
that should be instantly recorded in a Judicial Electronic Archive;
along with any subsequent reversal, change-of-mind-at-the-last-minute——or slightly-beyond ?
Wouldn’t it be quite expensive, ‘though, to ensure fair-play and compos-mentis by adding to the hand-held-screen, a sufficiency of Sensors
to evaluate one’s blood-levels of, for instance, alcohol (&) drugs ?
————
Possibly the existing cellphone’s “camera” could be improved to become the “CCTV-monitor”, directly feeding to that above-mentioned “JEA” ?
Let each party record the event ?
Let Government install at least a sound-microphone in every likely “sexual-activity” place, and issue a simple carrying-card educating everyone how to shout “Rape !” or “Stop it I don’t like it any longer”
or “Police !”.
========
It also becomes a bit like carrying an Identity Card –
only those who have something untoward to hide are against it –
Similarly with “Privacy” versus “Transparency” ?
1717M23 jsdm
What do people object to about victims’ treatment by the police or courts? In this country, we have a principle where the accused is innocent until proven guilty. And to be proved guilty requires evidence
Unfortunately as soon as somebody is arrested the instantaneous nature of modern media comes in to action so innocence may be harder to prove once an arrest has been made on “reasonable suspicion” (of a local dimwit dressed in a blue uniform)
I only have film to go by but it seems that
once you get to the police station you
“convict yourself three times over” as the saying goes!
It is not your word against theirs, but your word against yours, and charges are very easy to concoct, and leading questions hard to avoid!
Jonathan, I think the fundamental problem is that women’s whole life can be exposed by insensitive cross examination which has nothing to do with whether she was raped or not. A promiscuous or ‘easy’ lifestyle does not make the victim necessarily less traumatised by rape. If you think about burglary or theft, you do not expect when you call the police about a break in that the police will immediately start to question whether you were in fact burgled or whether you are making it up. Its all a matter of attitudes. I understand that the police are much more sensitive now and courts have better guidance on what questions are or are not appropriate but it’s clearly still an issue for many women.
Some of the rape charges are way out of line and verge on the absurd. Charges of rape to young boys who have sex with their young girlfriends, with consent, are later charged with statutory rape. Or, if a girl has as change of heart, because the boyfriend is no longer interested in her, she then calls for a rape charge.
The case below was the singularly most ridiculous brought to the Old Bailey. And it verged on abuse of the children involved.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/dec/17/boys-aged-ten-charged-rape
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent
As I wrote in a previous post, it is time the law was reviewed. The promotion by the state of sexual exploration and introduction of sexual education in schools has resulted in an explosion of rape charges against children.
Additionally, mass immigration from countries where laws on rape are so far removed from ours and no requirement for the people entering the UK from those continents to seek or to be educated on our culture and laws gives government an obligation to adjust usual practice in those circumstances.
The rise in rape is a direct result of government policy, government changes of practice, and laws in respect of the people. Therefore government has a duty to the people to correct the error caused by their inefficiency.
There is no offence of ‘statutory rape’ in this country, but I take it you were using this as shorthand for the offence of rape where the offence arose because one of the parties to the sexual incident was below the age of consent.
It seems to me understandable but potentially dangerous that a mindset exists – with Kenneth Clarke and a few million others – that such forms of rape are less serious than other forms (I’ll leave aside for the moment the distinction he and others made between ‘date rape’, however defined, and ‘more serious rape, however defined).
This is a dangerous distinction as the very reason for an age of consent is that a person under that age is deemed incapable by virtue of their age from considering all the issues to do with making an informed consent and also is not capable of uttering the nuances of different levels of consent. So whilst on the face of it a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old may appear to have fully consented to what they did, the law considers the 15-year-old just cannot give a consent. It is no the point that then or for a period of time later there may appear to be ‘little harm done’. Later on, perhaps years later, the child may come to regret how easily they gave away their innocence. A few months difference at that age – between late 15 and early 17 – is still a lot when it comes to power and influence.
On ‘date rape’, it is suggested that a person should not have taken a fancy to someone, should not have brought them home, should not have got into bed etc. But a date can still turn very nasty especially if one or both parties are muzzy with drink or worse, even setting aside issues like spiked drinks. Rape is very hard to prove in court when there has been an initial consent to meet, to go home etc. But the trauma can still be there for years or decades.
For these and other reasons I am relieved that judges have discretionary power over sentencing. I would recommend review of sentencing guidelines to ensure there are no anachronisms or inconsistencies. But I would not tie a judge to those guidelines if he/she can justify a deviation from them. Incidentally I recall that the Attorney General had to give consent, before any prosecution, to any apparently consensual age of consent cases, so a charge of this category of rape does not always lead to a prosecution and court hearing.
What has really muddied the pool is that the issue which triggered this rape debate was the wider issue of discounts for guilty pleas (not just in rape cases). Personally I can see the benefit of discounts, and permitting (rather than compelling) a judge to go up to 50% of sentence rather than 33% may benefit us all in terms of the costs of keeping people in prison, and there is the other benefit of perhaps sparing victims from having to testify in court. Some victims may want their day in court but the judicial system is not primarily there for their benefit. I do however worry about the compounding effect of a discount for a not guilty plea and a discount for good behaviour in prison, which together may result in surprisingly early releases. In sum, I am relieved that judges – who in my juryman experience are not all fools – still have, and will retain, judicial discretion. That is why we call them judges.
‘Judges’ have never been judges, since all they have to do is know which Tome to find the judgements and sentences in, and read out loud and clear the one that closest fits the detailed picture they have been given by the real-workers-and-victims-on-the-ground.
(Bit like the Lord Norton Quiz, really, don’t you think ?).
1150 25 jsdm
You greatly underestimate the role of judges – it is not just to conduct the trial and guide the jury as to points of law, but also to pass sentence upon a conviction. And I do wish people would stop taking pot shots at judges as if they were still in the era of Lord Goddard (who was a monster)
@danfilson:
Statutory Rape does exist in this country. Or, are you implying the term I use is eroneous?
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sexual_offences_unlawful_sexual_intercourse/
There is no offence in the sense that a person can be charged with grievous bodily harm or driving without due care and attention. Clearly there is an offence based on the Sexual Offences Act 1956 which, as I recall, was a consolidating act. But the charge is of rape not statutory rape, I believe. The point I am making is that the law does not have gradations of rape – that is for the prosecution and defence to argue and for the judge to consider at sentencing (and the link provided also shows the role of prosecution services in determining how to exercise discretion, essentially that all cases with those under 13 should be prosecuted etc).
If we accept that Ken Clarke simply chose his language badly and the “hoo-hah” is a result of misunderstanding, you should be more careful with your own language. You use the term “non-consensual date rape” as if there can be consensual rape, and go on to tie ‘date rape’ with the woman being drunk on two occasions. One of the reasons Ken’s comments were offensive was because of the massive misconception of what ‘date rape’ is, which should be called ‘acquaintance rape’ more widely. Because it is often just knowing, or having some social contact with, the attacker prior to the attack. Since many victims of crime, not only rape, are known to the perpetrator, ought we to share responsibility in other cases too?
Using the “language of his generation” is no excuse – remember that marital rape only became illegal in the 90s – and the language used directly ties in with the idea that the idea that a violent, unexpected “stranger” rape is a real rape and other forms of rape are not “real rape” or are less serious or harmful. Being raped by a stranger or being raped by someone you know and possibly love and trust- there’s no way to say which is objectively “worse”. Each is a devastating experience.
Of course sentences vary with aggravating and mitigating factors. What you hopefully meant when you say “All Rape Isn’t the Same” is that if there are additional crimes committed alongside the rape itself: at knifepoint, beating or other forms of GBH/assault such as HIV infection and so forth, these are reflected in the sentencing, Rape is not beating someone up, it is having non-consensual sex with someone. By all means add consecutive sentences if they also beat someone up, but do not reward them by decreasing their punishment for rape just because they were able to ‘date’ rape someone they knew.
Your suggestion if a “woman puts herself in a position when she’s too drunk to know what she’s doing must take partial blame for any untoward outcome” is an entirely different point, and a deeply offensive one, not only to rape victims, but to women facing this kind of ignorant, prejudiced nonsense, and to most men, who are perfectly capable of understanding that they are responsible for their own actions. Women are not to blame for their own rapes and by removing some culpability from the rapist you are saying they do not deserve as much blame. In your ‘stranger rape’ example will you also look for mitigating factors where the woman ‘puts herself’ in danger – walking alone, out at night, wearing the wrong clothes etc. I’d hoped these damaging attitudes had long passed, but a number of politicians keep trotting them out this week.
The issue of false accusation may be “an interesting one” but it derails a discussion from rape sentencing, where the accused has been found guilty, an implies that we cant really believe rape accusations anyway, so why focus on fair punishment.
maude elwes – This ‘ludicrous situation’ is actually in not brought about by your example. Consensual sex between two teenagers over the age of 13 is NOT rape, according to the law. It is only legally speaking rape when it involves a minor of under 13. Ken incorrectly used this example to try to mitigate criticism – your posts, especially the second, are complete nonsense – but we expect more from the justice secretary
Actually, what I found most shocking amongst all Ken Clarke’s remarks was that he seems to be ignorant of the law. While I could just about excuse the American-sounding term “statutory rape”, as Cloud points out sex with a child aged between 13 and 16 is not rape if they consent. Someone aged over 18 can be charged with “Sexual activity with a child” under 16, but it still isn’t rape. If the Justice Secretary doesn’t understand the law, how are the general public supposed to?
@Cloud: Your post suggests you are on one.
All adults are responsible for their acts. And women as responsible as men.
To push the nonsense you spout regarding the attitudes of society by implying that decency is not a requirement, or, giving an accurate impression, or, blatantly suggesting a person is ready for sex, and therefore, not responsible if taken seriously, denies what you are trying to sell.
First of all, are we discussing women or children here? You seem confused.
A woman has a responsibility to herself foremost. And that is absolute. Are you suggesting a woman who goes into a war zone, knowing it is a war-zone, and is blown up by dropping bombs or gunfire is not responsible for her actions or any injuries she incurs?
If a woman goes into a pub, and becomes blindingly drunk, flirts ludicrously with the men in that pub and leaves with him, knows he is looking for the sex and is implying that sex is on offer, then who is responsible for her demeanor? I take it you concede she is responsible for her actions? Or, is it you believe the men in said pub are to blame for her lack of concern for her welfare?
She then, in her drunken state, takes the pub man back to her bedroom. Still in that drunken state, and he, also not in the best shape from drink and (not all men are made impotent by drink, often the reverse is true) he then takes her at her word. She is as accommodating as she can be and they spend the night together.
The next morning she is barely sober, but, fears exposure of some kind. Or, he is not as handsome, well placed or the kind of guy she feels she wants to be associated with, so she cries rape. Even worse, he finds her obnoxious and wonders why he finds himself there. She then is humiliated.
Now, you obviously see her as the little girl lost. He had his dreadful way with her, but, she is Goldilocks having simply been in the woods looking for a nice bed and some porridge and got more than she bargained for. Therefore, he becomes nasty Daddy Bear.
At the same time, you want women to be respected, seen to have credibility and be admired for their competence and abilities. Yet you claim irresponsibility, incredulity, incompetence and lack of common sense denotes women in a court of law.
Grow up and accept woman are far smarter and more savvy than you dare give them credit for. Especially when it comes to men and sex. If a jury finds the accused not guilty then you can bet they are on the right track. Innocent until ‘proven’ guilty is the law. The onus being on ‘evidence.’ If you remove that factor from the law, then you remove any semblance of fairness and justice from that same law. The law is there to protect us all, including men from Goldilocks.
Cloud, see Maud’s response. Women must take responsibility for actions which lead them into dangerous situations and indeed other potentially criminal situations unconnected with rape. I accept that there are many types of acquaintance rape which are every bit as serious as stranger rape. Jonathan, i rather agree with you that Ken Clarke should have known there’s been a change in what is and is not statutory rape but it is only a change in phraseology, not the offence.
Baroness Murphy – this is genuinely astounding. You should apologise and retract this victim blaming.
Firstly, Maud’s ‘example’ is not of a rape at. He states consent “he then takes her at her word. She is as accommodating as she can be” and then a false accusation. Nobody is arguing that in this situation the woman would be responsible for a crime and not the man. But this is simply a diversion from the topic, and why careless use of language such as Ken’s is dangerous – It makes people like Maud believe that their position, that ‘date rape’ actually amounts to regret and false accusation, is legitimate.
But you go far further than Ken and place blame on the victim – “see Maud’s response. Women must take responsibility for actions which lead them into dangerous situations and indeed other potentially criminal situations unconnected with rape.” People can eliminate some risk from their life by avoiding dangerous situations. But every single day men and women balance taking risks with engaging in everyday life. I agree that “All adults are responsible for their acts. And women as responsible as men.” This means that a drunk woman takes responsibility for her actions;
So if she smashes her own glass and cuts her hand, she takes responsibility. If she stumbles into the road into the path of an unsuspecting and carefully driving car, she takes responsibility, and if she has consensual sex she later regrets, she takes responsibility.
But if an assailant attacks her with a broken glass, they take responsibility. If a car decides to purposefully swerve to hit her, they take responsibility and if she is raped, the rapist takes responsibility. Just because a person has chosen to diminish their own capacity by drinking does not give everyone else the permission to override their personal autonomy and commit any crime they like. The drunk takes responsibility for their actions, just like everyone else. They do not appropriate responsibilities for the actions of everyone else on the planet. And a lack of “common sense” does not make you fair game.
Maud – you say that it’s ok for someone to rape you if you fail to give “an accurate impression.” All impressions are necessarily subjective. But if I offered you a lift and then decided against it you wouldn’t then legitimately be able to steal my car and drive it yourself, regardless of whether you had an accurate impression of the offer or not. And everyone always has the right to change their mind.
Finally, on the ‘statutory rape’ – this is not simply a change in phraseology, Ken was defending his policy by saying that this offense skews the average length of rape sentences downwards. But any such offenses are not classified as rapes and so would have no impact on the average length of a rape sentence
Cloud, You exemplify the ‘outraged wimmin’ that get us all a bad name, see Jonathan’s original comment. I am sure we would agree on the majority of individual cases and the attribution of blame. All rape is serious and vile, it remains the case that some rape is of a different order more vile than others. We don’t have any difficulty recognising that with murder, physical violence, theft and other crimes; rape is the same. If not, explain why.
I’m not generally inclined to pursuing pointless internet debates, but as you are a member of the legislature I’m disappointed with your response.
If you look at my first comment you’ll see that I absolutely recognise that sentences vary appropriately depending on mitigating and aggravating factors for all crimes. But rape itself is a distinct act (unconnected to additional violence etc, as you note), so in response to Jonathan, we don’t need to differentiate between the rape itself in either of his cases. If it were desired then a tougher ‘baseline’ sentence for rape would apply in both cases. The knife in the second case would be an aggravating factor attracting additional penalty. This is a similar sentencing procedure to the other crimes you list and I haven’t argued that it should be any different. So if we agree here, is your point that sentences should vary on ‘culpability’? (where our views diverge hugely.) Roger Helmer MEP has recently said something similar and been condemned across the political spectrum.
@Cloud:
The first line you write on this last post is arrogant. If you find the debate beneath you, don’t join it. And, I find you just as disappointing as you likewise find those who write here.
Clearly you are boxed in by a belief system that isn’t fixed in reality and shows a lack of insight or experience of the human condition you want to address.
Ken Clarke was quite right when he voiced his view that ‘Rape’ had different levels of
severity.
You cannot pretend a woman who first gave consent, then changes her mind, either during or later, is as horrendous a crime as being attacked on your way home from work or play, by a maddened stranger, who is threatening to kill you. these crimes are not equal in depravity. One man is believing he is a lover, the other is a man out to be murderous.
No intelligent thinking human being could embrace the idea that both are at an equal level of morality.
And I think your act of emotional blackmail on the Baroness for voicing the views of the majority is close to the macabre chanting of the three witches in Macbeth.
This charge was not in the UK, but, this is where you are wanting to lead us. The crazed Swedish system is a mad political avalanche of so called female injustice. And much of it is rigged, which creates a resistance to the women who suffer terribly from this repulsive crime.
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/business-of-it/2010/11/19/wikileaks-assange-faces-arrest-on-rape-charges-40090919/
http://www.arseweb.org/www/newsreel//t13i104.html
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/03
/03/proposed-reforms-will-make-it-easier-to-convict-your-son-of-rape-even-if-hes-innocent/
http://priceandslater.co.uk/latest_news/derby-paedophile-gang-convicted-of-horrendous-sexual-abuse-of-teenagers.html
What I believe concerns you more, is the fact that figures on conviction for rape is low and that doesn’t auger well for the lawyers in prosecution. So, what you are looking for is a rise in conviction regardless of the lack of evidence.
http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/30107-William-Shakespeare-Witches-Chant–from-Macbeth-