AIBU to feel unsettled after jury service in a sex crime case?

Hi @Postjurywoes sorry to hear you are feeling unsettled but totally understandable.

I have done Jury service twice and felt unsettled at the end of both.

This is an interesting thread and I hope you get some good responses.

Op, do you mean the onus is on yhe victim proving their innocence rather than the defendant being proved guilty?

I was on the jury of a rape trial last year. It was an eye opener, and very unsettling, so I get where you are coming from op.

There is a presumption of innocence of the defendant. You don't have to prove your innocence.

It s the job of the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt ie 99 percent that the defendant is guilty.

It's just the way of the system

Totally makes sense. I felt really conflicted about the whole process. I can totally see why women don’t report these things. I made the only decision I could make within the confines of the law as it stands. I just wonder about the law, the whole process really.

So in this country we have innocent until proven guilty. That’s widely regarded as a good principle to avoid miscarriages of justice and people being punished before the facts are known.

The defence is there to represent the defendant but also to pick the prosecution case apart. That’s how they can test the strength of the prosecution case.

Only if the jury is sure, after all the cross examination and scrutiny can the person be convicted, as you know.

It’s difficult with sex cases because they are so hard to prove but imagine if we worked the other way.

Eg. We think John murdered Gary. John denies it. There isn’t enough evidence to prove he didn’t. John gets a life sentence.
Meanwhile, Richard who actually did it, is a free man because John’s already been locked up and he can’t prove a negative.

I hope that makes sense.

In today’s day and age that is beginning to sound a bit outdated, isn’t it?

I had similar recently op

ultimately there wasn’t enough evidence on the defendant so I felt I had to go with guilty

he was deffo a bad guy (but so was she to be fair) they were obviously both drug dealers and she was possibly involved in sex work based on some of the information we got

but end of the day I felt sorry for her - but there wasn’t enough evidence on that particular case

a few jurors were hard work though one woman was just saying guilty - and I asked why and she was like well he’s obviously not a good guy so he must have done it.. but our job wasn’t to decide that was it - we were looking at one case and listening to he said she said and that was all we had 🤷‍♀️🤷‍♀️

I felt so stressed and upset afterwards for a long time

Well it is kind of stacked in the defendant's favour because of the near impossibility of proving a negative. Hence our justice system operates on the premise of innocent until proven guilty.

And as hard as it is to stomach, its really important we take that approach. Imagine the opposite happened to you - that you were accused of a crime you didn't commit, but couldn't prove it, and your freedom was removed as a result.

At law school our criminal law lecturer and evidence law lecturers explained the burden of proof like this -

”Better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man hang”

the burden of proof was developed at a time where getting the wrong verdict meant corporal punishment, life sentences and the death penalty being meted out to innocent people.

so criminal law - where the sanctions have always been harsher, including the dealth penalty, has the beyond a reasonable doubt formulation. It is the prosecutors job to prove that every element of the offence to that standard.

civil matters the standard is “balance of probabilities”. That’s why OJ Simpson wasn’t convicted in a criminal court but lost his civil case that was brought by the families.

in some countries - eg France - the criminal judge investigates, asks the questions and reaches the verdict.

english criminal case law frustrated me too and that is why I did not go into criminal law. I’ve not had to do jury duty yet but my (lawyer) husband did for a historic sexual abuse case and every aspect of the jury system blew his mind. He was voted Foreman (he didn’t let on he was a solicitor but the others figured out he was good at explaining things) and they reached a guilty verdict.

Hi, I used to be a criminal barrister (well I technically still am but now I’m employed in house, not going to court or doing cases involving sex offences).

I think you have to be really kind to yourself and remember that these types of cases are really upsetting even to hear about, for all involved.

In our legal system in general, everyone has a right to a fair trial, which includes equal representation (ie a decent lawyer). Our system is adversarial so it is one side arguing against another by design, and that’s why one or both sides can come across as “arguing black is white” - it’s their job. Some other countries have inquisitorial systems where it’s more about the judge calling for evidence from each side than about the parties arguing each side. There are arguments for and against both.

Equally, it’s our system that the prosecution must prove its case so that the jury (or Magistrates in a less serious case) are sure. The same for all types of offences. That tends only to feel uncomfortable, I think, in cases of sexual offences - both because the subject matter is so sensitive and because there tends to be little evidence other than the accounts of the two (or sometimes more) people actually involved - the defendant and the complainant (as they’re called).

There not that often any independent evidence such as CCTV or evidence of other witnesses that’s completely determinative of the facts.

It’s very hard because rape, for instance, is an offence that carries a life sentence, so it would be difficult to argue the burden of proof should be lesser for such a serious offence. That said, of course the effects of it on a victim can often be described as a “life sentence” so there’s alot of public interest in making sure the guilty are (safely) convicted.

I don’t know what the answer is to this but just some thoughts about why it seems so uncomfortable.

If it makes a difference, I used to prosecute these offences more than defend, but like most barristers I did both at various times.

This really bothers me, i think there should be a better system of jury selection .

It is exceptionally difficult to get justice in a sexual assault case, particularly if the two parties were known to each other. it’s why statistically very few women come forward.

The problem is, how can you prove you said ‘no’ as a victim, especially if there are no injuries ?

This. The defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty so the prosecution has to make a case for guilt. The defendants team have to show that prosecution’s case is weak not that defendant is innocent. This is the basis of UK criminal law. This is I presume as consequence of guilty verdict is severe. Civil law is basis of probability and usually results in financial settlement so 51% v 49% is acceptable I think. ( edited to add happy to be corrected)