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

Thank you so much for this. I have served on a jury twice and on one of the cases the judge instructed us that he wanted a unanimous decision.

We came out 10 / 2. He sent us back in to achieve the unanimous vote. Things became quite heated and eventually we did.

The judge then passed sentence and disclosed the string of offences the defendant had been previously convicted of and imprisoned for, that was an eye opener.

Yep. There's no choice sadly. And it's the defence barristers job. :(

I was on a similar case. I 100% believed the man was guilty. But there was not enough evidence to support that outcome. I think about it often.10 years later.

The problem is in rape cases you aren't just needing to prove the event happened and was done by the person on trial (as in your case was Gary stabbed; did John stab him). But also what did John think Gary was thinking at the time. So you would need to prove that John did not think Gary wanted to be stabbed beyond reasonable doubt. Obviously in a murder case it's not usually reasonable to believe John thought Gary wanted to be murdered, and even if he did it's irrelevant as you can't consent to murder.

In a rape case it's basically about proving someone's theory of mind about another person (it's what the Jury thinks John thought Gary thought). When the perpetrator has a clear reason to mislead about the level of theory of mind they had at the time. "I thought she/he wanted me to" is a hard defence to disporve beyond reasonable doubt under the very strict definition of reasonable doubt. That makes it different to other types of crime and uniquely disadvantaged by the reasonable doubt requirements. I don't know the solution. But I do understand why the OP felt so uncomfortable with the process though I hope she realises it isn't her fault.

@JLou08 thanks for explaining. That all makes sense. Well done you for working in this area, it can't be easy.

I empathise. This must have been extremely hard. I have found it very hard to stop thinking about a case that was reported on in March this year that involved a 12 year old girl and video evidence of the attack. There was no doubt that the attack had taken place or who the perpetrators were and the defence (a specialist in sex cases) successsfully argued that the perpetrators weren’t aware the 12 year old had not consented (to a gang rape!)

I wasn’t in any way involved but I have thought about that poor young girl and the flaws in our law a great deal since then.

The case with William Pen was different in that the question wasn't about whether he and the other defendant had done the crime. The Jury knew beyond reasonable fount that he had done the thing he was accused of in the literal sense. The issue was the Jury didn't want to find him guilty because they disagreed with the Law that said what he had done (preaching in public) was a crime. So the precedent set there was that even if someone breaks a law if the Jury disagrees they effectively outrank the legislators in that individual case based on their own conscience. It's very hard to imagine that ever applying to a rape case (yes he raped her but morally he was in the right and the law was wrong).

I was a juror last year and live in a predominantly white county and city. Our jury was a total mix of age range, background, sex and race. I was pleasantly surprised.

I'm a magistrate. I sit in a panel of three who are, effectively, judge and jury in criminal trials including some sexual assault trials.

I do think the burden of proof should be very high, and whilst it isn't a perfect system I don't think that the problem would be made better by lowering it. It's true that there is a low conviction rate for rape, but I think the harms caused by altering the burden of proof would be worse for society (albeit better for some individuals who see their rapists convicted).

I also think that there is a growing problem with the make up of juries, especially in complicated cases. Some people just don't have the brainpower or concentration to understand the law, interpret the evidence or keep off the internet during trials. Not sure what the solution to this is though, if there is one.

As regards defence barristers... None of them would ever lie to the court. They would be disbarred for that. If a defendant has confessed their guilt to their barrister, the barrister wouldn't be able to lie about that in court. But the barrister's job is to advocate for the defendant, and to test and probe the evidence. Sometimes this will be difficult for the accused, but again it's about balancing rights and I think in the main the balance is about right.

Your first paragraph exactly sums up the problem we face with getting rape convictions. The prosecution has to prove the victim did not consent. Proving a negative. So a victim has to take some sort of action to show they do not consent. Rather than positively consenting. And as we know women can freeze if attacked.

I don’t disagree with you. I don’t know what the alternative is though. I’d very much like
to see the conviction rate increased. As it stands it isn’t fit for purpose but that’s outside the jury’s control - they can only work with the system we have.

I haven't been able to read all the messages, so apologies if this has already been mentioned but you might be interested in this https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/519/justice-and-home-affairs-committee/news/217310/justice-and-home-affairs-committee-launches-new-inquiry-into-support-for-jurors-in-england-and-wales/
I have also serves on juries twice and still think about what I heard and the blatant flaws and inefficiencies of the whole process. Fwiw, my second jury service was a far better experience than my first and gave me more faith in what's inevitably an imperfect system.

In criminal courts ,the prosecution bears the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt which means being “sure” that the crime was committed

The jury must consider all the evidence presented and be sure that the defendant committed the offence before convicting. Proving with absolute certainty is rarely possible

A “reasonable doubt” is a doubt that is based on the evidence, or the lack of evidence, and is genuinely capable of affecting your decision

In criminal courts it is not sufficient to think that the defendant is probably guilty or that guilt is more likely than innocence. ( that burden is called “the balance of probability” and is used in civil / family courts)

Then it should never have been brought to court. In any other offence there would be insufficient evidence to charge if based on nothing but "he said, she said". But in the caes of sexual offences, the CPS routinely charge, and this is why you ended up in the situation you did.

I've always queried this logic. Getting things right ten times, and wrong once seems much better than being wrong ten times and right once. And yes, I know people say 'but what if you were that one wrongly convicted?' but statistically speaking, you're far more likely to be victimised by one of the ten freed, guilty men, than to be the one person wrongly convicted. Letting ten guilty men go free arguably causes far more harm to society at large than one innocent person being wrongly convicted.

I work in a related field.
it’s not a perfect system but no one knows what would be better

You're not allowed to ever reveal anything from the jury deliberations, so I'd ask for this to be deleted

I was also on a rape case as a juror 30+years ago and to this day I still believe he was guilty - but some if the other jurors either wouldn’t believe that a boss would rape his employee (like wtf??), but others didn’t care and admitted they would vote with the majority just so they could go home. Only 1 other woman held out with me, so it was 10 to 2 and so they found him not guilty by majority. I felt so sorry for the woman - not only that this happened to her, but his lawyers were brutal to her. I’m still upset about it to this day.

This is the way it must be.

The purpose is to protect the Citizen from the State.

It’s really difficult in crimes
of consent because the baseline is that consent was given (innocent until proven guilty) and in reality it’s the prosecution’s job to prove it wasn’t given. And how is a person to do that without evidence stronger enough to overturn a presumption of innocence? It would take CCTV footage, horrific physical evidence (and even then not necessarily), secret recordings, a third party witness willing to speak up, or an inability to consent (minor, profound disability, lack of consciousness etc).

But I don’t k ow what the alternative could be. We must all be presumed innocent, the burden of proof should always be on the accuser. Perhaps the threshold should be lower in these cases, balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt…but in light of the penalties at stake I’m not sure that’s right either.

It’s why, partly, so many cases are never reported or investigated properly, let alone come to trial let alone result in conviction.

I think balance of probabilities for rape cases makes more sense. It is awful how hard it is to convict. It’s not even a case of better ten men go free, than one innocent not - that figure is hugely magnified for rape. Huge numbers already go free without ever facing a police officer, let alone a court.

OP, it sounds really harrowing. I hope you find some support. Thank you for serving.

Thanks

In the past eg in France the king could send you a 'lettre de cachet' and lock you up for life with no trial, evidence, appeal. (Knowing this you can begin to understand why they had a revolution.)

I’ve been on a jury for sex crimes. The behavior of the defence was fucking sickening. Made up all sorts of disgraceful fanciful shit to provide doubt. I know that’s his job, but can’t imagine how anyone can sleep at night having devised such packs of fiction to ensure that a rapist can carry on raping. Great job.

The prosecutor was silly - despite being experienced, must have thought the case was a slam dunk and was lazy.

The attacker got off most of the charges. I don’t have any trust in any state systems. Our society is gross. I retreat to my own house and garden and keep away from people as much as I can.

Watching a victim shaking behind a curtain whilst a creepy motherfucker sits as though he’s done nothing. Just sick. No point in reporting sex crimes.

You are right, but you can't get compensation from the state for a rapist walking free, whereas you will get compensation for a miscarriage of justice. Putting the morality of it aside, it would be uneconomical and extremely expensive if the system were to change.

I think the official term for that is “jury nullification”.