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

I meant that advances in forensic evidence can sometimes make the presumption feel outdated, not the principle itself.

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.

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

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.

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

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’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.

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 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

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 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

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.

@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

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.

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.

@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.

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 💐

Don’t be ridiculous. Everyone gets the innocent until proven guilty approach, and I for one don’t argue with that premise. However in a he-said/she-said situation it’s hard to be clear about the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and the actual clarity of what happened. (Just my experience having actually sat on a rape trial jury).

Yabu. If you want a conversation about sex crimes prosecution rates, AIBU isn't really the place for it.

They don't have to prove 100% but to procecute you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that's the basis of a fair trail and it's right this happens

Yes I read a good book by a SC judge where she mentioned this.

Op sounds tough, I was lucky to get a fraud case. Interesting but nothing upsetting. I can see how a case with a victim would be hard.

Decisions to remove a child from their parents. It's on the ballance of probability. Most child abuse cases don't meet the threshold for criminal prosecution and/or are not seen as in the public interests. Of the ones I've worked on the parents have accepted and not contested my evidence but if they did, there would be a finding of facts hearing. It's the same with non-molestation orders, not all victims of DV or harassment and stalking have enough evidence to meet the threshold (in my experience that's sometimes because the police don't bother to look for it) but they can have enough to take it to family court for a balance of probability. It wouldn't result in any sentencing but can put an order on the perpetrators to keep them away from the victim and give powers to the police to arrest them if they breach the order.