Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape?

At present, just one in 20 reports of rape results in a conviction. Doubtless, many of the convicted 5% are unknown to their victims. Doubtless, many of the men involved in the other 95% are known all too well. Should we be surprised that juries acquit them, or that police or prosecutors consider a conviction would be unlikely in their cases? Or, indeed, that the women involved withdraw their allegations?

In date-rape cases, it's his word against hers. Often, juries will be in no position to determine who's lying. Campaigners sometimes speak as if any man accused of rape must necessarily be guilty. Yet jurors know that some women make false accusations, and that others misinterpret or misremember events or even deceive themselves about what's occurred. In the face of uncertainty, our judicial system requires acquittal.

Attempts to deal with this situation by loading the dice in favour of the prosecution tend to rebound. If evidence about an accuser's lifestyle is ruled impermissible, jurors are left wondering. Might a supposed victim's behaviour indeed have seemed to imply consent? A victim whose lifestyle might have implied the opposite is denied the opportunity to get this across.

The government has abandoned the idea of permitting supposedly expert witnesses to brief jurors on the "myths" surrounding rape. Its explanation for this decision is "cobblers", according to Yvonne Roberts. Yet, the decision wasn't made simply to protect the accused. The new solicitor general, Vera Baird, who knows of what she speaks, said she feared that presenting the profile of a typical rape victim might deter women who didn't fit that profile from coming forward. She might have added that jurors who resented being leant on in such a way might have been goaded into conceiving their own, less sympathetic, ideas about what might be a myth and what might not.

In the wake of Ms Baird's decision, Women against Rape is already demanding that police, prosecutors and judges somehow take other steps to sort things out. Will the quest for a procedural solution go on for ever?

Rape isn't the only crime that's unresponsive to law enforcement. We don't imagine that prosecuting drug dealers will solve the drugs problem. We urge their potential victims to "just say no". We advise that those receiving emails from Nigeria that promise large sums of money in return for smaller upfront payments should exercise caution.

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight.

To suggest any comparable behaviour in the field of rape is considered outrageous. Yet, why shouldn't women be encouraged to think twice before visiting footballers' hotel rooms late at night? Why shouldn't they be advised that to get themselves into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male could carry risks? Whatever the polite classes may feel, a large proportion of the population continues to see sense in such admonitions.

Feminists object that even to mention such things constitutes a shift of blame from perpetrator to victim. Yet, when we fit window locks, does this make burglary our fault?

The insistence of feminist activists that the courts must provide the only solution to rape is surely political. They want a demonstration that the state backs women against men. Yet, in perpetuating the idea that women have no part to play in securing their own safety, campaigners are doing them no favours.