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

These trials can be highly traumatic and you did an amazing job of just getting through it.

Sounds silly but it may be worth talking through your experience with ChatGPT as sometimes it’s good to just get it down in words and ask questions.

If you genuinely think the process is wrong then you can start a petition about it.
It takes one person to set the ball in motion, even if nothing changes for years.

I don’t know enough about the law and court system but I have worked with many criminals and victims and there are so many things wrong with way it ( eg subconscious bias, the judge not eating breakfast, the day of the week for sentencing etc), as well as the obvious racial and class bias etc.

I don’t know the answer but it does mean that people get found guilty or innocent when they shouldn’t be or receive unfair sentences.

You have got a lot going on OP.
If it was me, I’d spend the evening mind dumping to ChatGPT and then trying to let it go so you can focus on everything else you have going on.

Well done for your service OP and I hope your other issues are not too bad 💐

@JLou08sorry is this is a silly question, but what specifically is judged at family court? I always thought ALL criminal cases had a burden of proof of beyond reasonable doubt but all civil cases were assessed on the balance of probability.

It was Blackstone in the 18th century who said 'it is better that 10 men go unpunished than an innocent man is imprisoned '. It is equally important that we are judged by our peers ie an impartial group of ordinary people chosen from the local community. This is to stop eg prejudices of the rich against the poor or the poor against the rich etc. In the past jurors have been pressured eg to convict or not. Notoriously in Bushel's case, the trial of Quakers William Penn and William Mead the jury acquitted. The Judge locked the jury up for 2 nights without food, water, heat. They still refused to convict and were fined and imprisoned in Newgate. After a writ of habeas corpus a landmark ruling established that judges could no longer be punished for returning a verdict the court disliked. We need to think very carefully before giving away our hard fought rights.

So you'd prefer guilty upon accusation?

Someone reports a crime. If the CPS decide there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, they charge. But the accused is innocent until PROVEN guilty. And it's up to the acusers legal team to do that. It's also up to the defendants legal team to contest every accusation and evidence provided.

@Postjurywoes I did jury service back in February. We were given a pack of information beforehand, and in that pack was a list of email addresses/website addresses and (I think) telephone numbers, of people/organisations we could call if we needed support or help after the case.

If you had the same, it sounds like you would benefit from talking to someone.

And I'm sorry your head is mashed - sounds like you're having a bit of a tough time right now

It makes sense though because of the reality within which most sexual activity happens.

And it’s not merely what the defendant “thinks” but whether that belief is reasonable.

I always find the difficulty with sex crimes is that it often comes down to consent and how do you prove it was there or wasn’t?

at least with other crimes there can be dna, cctv, witness evidence etc, with sex crimes, particularly where the parties are known to each other, there’s not much to go on.

Thats why when people say innocent until proven guilty, it’s tricky because what proof can a victim offer up but their own witness statement, ie their own word?

very tricky and explains why prosecution/ conviction rates are so low, but what is the alternative as a persons word on its own doesn’t seem like strong enough evidence? I don’t have the answers

No it absolutely is not outdated. It completely undermines all common sense to have a system where an accuser does not have to prove an accusation.

I had to be in court this year as a victim of a sexual assault. I live in a very multi cultural city. The entire jury bar one was white male which really shocked me

Because we work on the premise of innocent till proven guilty and I think that’s the right approach. It should be for the accuser to prove the accusation they are making.

Obviously the jury will have to then decide based on what is presented to them from both sides.

I’m not suggesting a presumption of guilt and agree it would be morally wrong. My point is that rape cases are unusual, the act may be accepted, yet the case turns on consent and whether the defendant’s claimed belief in consent was reasonable. That does deserve discussion.

In family court it's on the ballance of probability. I'm a social worker and although I've heard of rare cases where it can go wrong, I can say hand on heart every case I took to the court was based on strong evidence of abuse. So much so that not one parent ever contested.
I don't fully understand the process in criminal court, but from what I know, family court is much more civilised and thoroughly considered. There are rarely arguments at the witness stand. Statements are produced and all parties respond, the judge reads and may ask for further evidence before eventually making the decision themselves. We don't have children or DV victims on the stand being humiliated or called liars and I think that should be the way when sexual offences are being dealt with in the criminal court too. Is it anymore harmful for an innocent person to be convicted than it is for a guilty one to be found not guilty when it comes to sexual crimes? A guilty man walking free puts others at risk and causes further harm to the victim.

I get you OP. I’ve actually done jury service far too many times including murder case but the first time I was called up I was 19 and had a rape case. Looking back I think I was too immature to be doing that.
My issue was it was a case of he said she said because of the nature of the allegations. No proof at all and impossible to know beyond a reasonable doubt. But I always felt in my gut he was guilty. I had no proof at all, nothing to go on but my gut. He was found not guilty. The rest of the jury just plainly thought no evidence can’t convict and being young I didn’t speak up enough. Hard to convince others on a gut feeling and nothing else.
but that feeling that we may have got it wrong and how devastated the girl must have been has never left me many years later
the big takeaway I took from this is just how hard it is to get a conviction in many rape cases

But that is daft. Forensics in the case of a sex crime just tell.you sex took place, not the motivation for it. You must have the presumption of innocence and be afforded a robust defence.

You misunderstood the judges direction. It is not beyond any doubt it is beyond any REASONABLE doubt.

I felt exactly like you OP, I found the whole experience really troubling - the behaviour of the barrister, the witnesses, the defendant, and my fellow jurors, one of which was totally immovable from the outset. We were able to secure a guilty verdict on one count but not the other and I hope the victim took some solace from that. I am hoping I don’t get called to ever do it again.

I meant that advances in forensic evidence can sometimes make the presumption feel outdated, not the principle itself.

It's completely understandable that you feel this way.
In my opinion jury service needs to be done away with. I got called at 23 but got out of it as I'd just had a baby. Now being 40, I think it madness that I could have been a part of deciding someone's fate or having to carry what you are now. Those decisions should be made by professionals who know what they're doing and have been vetted. Not just any Joe blogs selected from a list who could be naive, vulnerable, easily led, have unchecked prejudice etc.

I sat on a historical rape case - a step brother raping two sisters 30 or so years previously. Honestly, there were some people on the jury who could have been in the room with them and would still have been saying ‘but can we be sure it went in?’
We did get a guilty verdict on one count (not unanimous) and it went back to court for a retrial on the other 11 counts, and the second jury found guilty on two more counts. Justice was done.

What alternative is there though? A system based on presumption of guilt would be morally wrong and prone to corruption. Unless you are suggesting some sort of a different system specifically for SA cases..but I honestly don't know what that could be. Have you specific ideas? It would be interesting to discuss

I always would recommend reporting it because even if you don't take the case forward, those reports often become crucial if it happens subsequently to someone else. But agree that the conviction rate is dreadful and discouraging.

It’s not difficult with sex cases- the current system cannot effectively address sexual assault, abuse and rape. It is not fit for purpose, but the 98% of victims who never see justice are collateral damage to the overall idea that ‘imagine if it was the other way’. Imagine if the successful prosecution rate of these crimes rose above 2%. I would never recommend reporting to the police or do it myself. Therefore, in effect, rape and sexual assault is decriminalised.

I see what you mean. His word is good enough and accepted but her word isn’t.