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

It is and I was so worried when it was going to be a jury trial. Please don't think I didn't think about them too.. we only had a sentencing and there were two observers in the court room and their shock and horror was palpable (and that was with minimum gory details and only the victim impact statement). Please understand, from my point of view, I see the role of a juror as a noble one but it does of course impact you and I really think you should tell someone and seek some therapy or counseling on the matter. Being this close to such a big case, I was amazed at the process and just fucking delighted he caved and admitted his guilt and saved us all the trauma. You've done a good thing by bearing witness to this and making a judgement and you should ask for help because when you're involved in things like this, you cannot unsee it again.

CPS prosecute on the basis of evidence that shows there’s a 50% chance of securing a conviction. Or it’s in the public interest somebody had done something that needs to be addressed for clarity or some reason. It sounds like with your case it wasn’t an easy one so all you can do is decide based on the information you have and try to do the best you can. Looks like the prosecution didn’t do a good enough job to prove that the dependent was guilty beyond reasonable doubt. and it has to be using evidence not opinion. unfortunately sexual assault and rape is down to consent or lack of and can end up being ‘he said she said.’ that’s why it’s so difficult.

You’ve got a lot going on OP. I’m not surprised your head is mashed.
It’s an important public duty you did there and it sounds like you gave it the thought and diligence it deserved. Take some time to just let it settle - if you couldn’t be sure then you collectively reached the right verdict.
Take care of yourself.

Same.

I think there is something fundamentally different in sexual assault and rape cases though, because it is really the only type of offence that I can think of where the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ test is applies to what the defendant thinks. In any other offence, the question is “it is beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant did this thing”. So there is a murder, did the defendant do it?

In sexual assault and rape, the question is “is it beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant thinks they did this thing”. So the question is not, “a rape has occurred and did the defendant do it”, but rather, “did a rape occur”. I can’t think of other criminal cases where we could give so much weight to whether the defendant thinks they committed a crime.

It’s nuts really, because as soon as the defendant says they thought they had consent, then it is not beyond reasonable doubt.

The only comparable I can think of is Boris Johnson and his ‘knowingly mislead parliament’. He clearly did mislead Parliament, and he most likely did it knowingly, but all he had to say was that he didn’t do it knowingly and the case falls apart - because you can’t ever prove it.

I think it would be theoretically possible to change the question and ask if it is beyond reasonable doubt that the victim did not give consent. That would place the emphasis on the victim and what they thought. But I can’t see ever happening.

Just remember that the prosecution is brought by the state (Crown) and they have so much expertise at their fingertips (Police, CPS, NHS etc.). If the presumption on the accused was of guilt rather than innocence, the accused would be arguing their innocence against the wealth and expertise available to the country. Imagine the chaos if the state apparatus just had to point the finger of blame with minimal evidence, and the accused be assumed guilty unless they could somehow rustle up their own evidence/perform a thorough investigation to prove their innocence. Laziness and corruption would be rife.

@Peoplesfrontofjudea2000 Agree, and there are factions in our political system that might consider democracy as a little outdated when the electorate produces the ‘wrong’ answer.

I’m sorry though that you’re feeling unsettled OP and I think you shouldn’t ignore that and maybe speak to your GP about it because you may offer some counselling for you to talk through why you felt what you did and how to process it. I should imagine that most cases are not very pleasant to sit through because it’s dealing with crime.

I did jury service on a (historic) sex abuse case. In the beginning I wondered how on earth I was going to know what to believe, but it did gradually become easier. It became pretty obvious that the accuser (who was not the actual victim) had a major grudge against the defendant.

The judge had impressed on us that if we had the slightest doubt, we must return a not guilty verdict.
In the end I’d say I was 90% sure.

We returned a 10/2 not guilty, but I have to say that 2 of the jury panel had made up their minds from the word go - they paid little or no attention to the witnesses.

Can I say I am the Mother of a victim of a huge rape case. She was lucky in that at the last second, he pled guilty to all 11 charges. It was an extremely difficult thing for her to go through but please do no underestimate the healing that comes from seeking justice. Knowing he is locked up has really helped her and not leaving him out on the streets to hurt other women was her main motivation. And I know the conviction rates are shit but it did help her, it really did because it gave her the power back when he'd tried to take it from her. I am so proud of her.

The principal is that you judged by your peers ie the man in the street, not by experts or by people who may have an agenda because they belong to an institution such as the crown, police or government. that’s why everybody has to do jury service when they’re called -there’s very few exceptions and we are judged by what society deemed appropriate at that time and by the laws in place at that time. If you look at history, you might see why that is deemed to be fairer.
The next point is who judges who is suitable for a jury. What would qualify someone to be part of the jury to make these decisions? Who decides who gets in juries? How do you avoid bias?
thirdly these cases are quite disturbing so why would someone who didn’t train to work in law or policing be subjected to this multiple times?

How is the presumption of innocence outdated?

Because if the Crown (the prosecution) is going to be able to lock someone up, they need to have damn good cause and to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the alleged perpetrator should be locked up. Deprivation of liberty is serious.

We can't lock people up on the basis of an accusation. That way lies a country I'd certainly want no part in. Imagine, for a moment, if you were accused of something you didn't do. Would you want to be imprisoned on the basis that the alleged victim said you did it? Or would you want the prosecution to have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did it.

No it’s just that sometimes we don’t like the outcome. Rather like democracy

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)

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

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.

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