Scot: Lawyer boycott of juryless rape trials 'to be unanimous'

As I understand it , there is no trial by jury in South Africa in any circumstances - trained judge in all cases.
Is this correct?
Is this a more just system? If it is let's hear the reasons.

The theory is that the general public is so bought into rape myths that they can't fairly judge the evidence so rapists are getting off.

I have a lot of sympathy with that view having followed various trials (e.g. the Ulster rugby trial, Ched Evans).

In other countries cases are heard by a trained judge. A good example was the Oscar Pistorius trial in S Africa

I actually think this is a good pilot - I want to see more rapists convicted.

Yup.

It always sounds like, "we aren't getting the results we want by following the most well established principles of the justice system, so we will ignore them when we want to."

If gender ideology has done nothing else, it should have shown us that this kind of approach will totally destroy important protections and institutions.

I started following this thread because I was quite shocked at the idea of abolishing the right to trial by jury in any circumstances. But I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about it and I thought there might read some arguments I'd missed.

Well so far I haven't seen any. I still think it's a) flat out wrong and b) sets a very dangerous precedent - the idea that it wouldn't be applied to other situations once the pilot was completed is delusional in my opinion.

And c) I've yet to be persuaded that it would even improve the prosecution rate.

I don't know what the right answers are here. But this might not just be a smokescreen for low prosecution rates. One reason crimes of this sort don't get prosecuted is because the chance of conviction is often thought to be too low. If this shifts the chance of conviction higher, then more prosecutions may result.

I wouldn't necessarily trust majority-female juries over majority-male ones to be more likely to convict. A lot of women are very inclined to give men the benefit of the doubt, whereas a lot of men know just how bad other men really can be.

This is tricky though. Prosecuting more doesn't mean more will be successful, so then all of a sudden the conviction stats go down.

IwantToRetire
As women's groups have been campaigning for this for years it is a bit ironic to say the system isn't listening to women.

But is the proposed system what women's groups have been campaigning for? They haven't asked to just get rid of juries. They've asked to replace jury trials with a specific system which includes specially trained judges. Part of the problem with the current system is not just bias in juries, its also biased judges.

I was never happy with juryless trials in Northern Ireland though understood why they were introduced, albeit never intended to be for ever.

Nothing on this thread convinces me that jury less trials are right in this case, the issue comes with those not getting to trial in the first place, in my opinion.

I've sat on a jury in Scotland where the defendant was accused of rape. We found him guilty but it wasn't straight forward because of the need for corroboration and to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. These are issues in most rape trials. I'm not sure about getting rid of juries but I would like to see more of the reported rapes being prosecuted. I think that's where we should concentrate our efforts.

NC for this.

A few years ago I was on the jury for a rape trial in Scotland. At the beginning of the trial I thought OMG I'm sitting a X feet from a rapist. As the trial went on it became apparent to the majority female jurors that sex had been consensual but, due to circumstances, the alleged victim had got stuck on a rollercoaster she couldn't get off and admit that events were not as she'd initially made out.

The male jurors, 5 or 6 out of 15 I can't remember, were looking at it from the perspective of it happening to their daughter or granddaughter so were more lnclined to find the defendant guilty. The female jurors were more like 'Yeh, he's a dick, but he's not a rapist"

We found him Not Guilty and 10 or so years later I still think that was the right decision. We as a jury did our job.

I have massive reservations about these proposed changes, not least the proposal to reduce a jury from 15 to 12.

MissLucyEyelesbarrow · Today 14:30

Juries convict 75% of rape defendants (2021 figures) - way higher than the conviction rates for most violent crimes.

Juries aren’t the problem - the failure to investigate and charge effectively is the issue.

Are you sure about the statistics? This article says:

In the most recent figures, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape were 51%, compared with 91% for all other crimes.

another thread here https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4793261-scottish-law-shake-up-project-to-scrap-juried-rape-trials

Yet again you are trying to pick a quarrel.

On another thread and on here it has been explained to you that the supposed rise in rape convictions is because the CPS is block so may cases from going to court.

So the stats are meaningless because it doesn't show how many cases dont get to court because the CPS know how hard it is to get a jury to convict.

I dont have an opinion. I give you the facts from experts and you shoot off on some tangent.

So although boring for everyone else to have to repeat stats that dont fit what you want to argue.

Only 5.5% of reported rapes lead to a conviction while the conviction rate for those cases that reach court is 43% compared to 88% for all crimes.

The link to this is above. If you have a problem with these stats contact the woman researcher who compiled the report.

Please do contact the various Rape charities who have argued for non jury trials.

I wonder how the SNP would feel about juryless fraud and corruption trials to raise conviction rates.

Given the previous allegations of political interference with the judicial system, I imagine they'd be fucking thrilled.

Except that the objective data doesn't support any of that.

For the last 15 years in E&W, juries have convicted in rape trials at a substantially higher rate than for other serious violent crimes. This is despite rape having the highest prevalence of no guilty pleas.

It's convenient for the police and judicial systems that they have somehow convinced campaigners - in the teeth of the evidence - that the bedrock of UK justice, the jury, is the problem, and not the police/CPS/COPFS, who only manage to bring 1.5% of reported rapes to court.

So juries convict in 75% of cases at present (58% over the last 15 years)
And the police/CPS/COPFS bring 1.5% of reported rapes to court.

And you think the problem is juries?

Only 5.5% of reported rapes lead to a conviction while the conviction rate for those cases that reach court is 43% compared to 88% for all crimes.

https://www.sundaypost.com/fp/judge-only-trials/

As women's groups have been campaigning for this for years it is a bit ironic to say the system isn't listening to women.

Another suggestion had been that if there were jury trials the jurists should undergo special training before hearing any cases to counter rape myths. But I would think that would be far more likely to look like biasing outcomes (although of course social biases are influencing outcomes ie she was asking for it, its not worth ruining a man's life for one little error and all the other anti woman concepts) Does anyone remember that recent tv show following rape victims trying to get their case to court, and the one that did get there was so clearly the rape of a woman in a hotel by a man who followed her to her room, and the jury didn't convict. The woman was devasted, and the police who worked to put together all the evidence, CTV etc., were totally taken aback.

And again you can see from various women's groups that have been campaigning on this issue for years, that because so many juries wouldn't take a woman's word over a man's, and the CPS was set targets for sucessful trials, it meant that the CPS set a far higher bar before considering taking a case for court. Because they have to hit their targets so they just drop cases.

The BBC doesn't link to the source of these figures, so it's difficult to know what baseline they are using, but the numbers look odd. There is no way that the conviction rate for other major crimes is 91%, so I think they must be including magistrates courts and possibly also cautions etc.

This is a comprehensive review of rape convictions in E&W. It found no evidence that juries are inappropriately acquitting, or that they are prejudiced against women. It's hard to believe that jury behaviour in Scotland would be significantly different.

Thanks for the link. For me the most shocking figure in that report is the first one:
'55,259 rapes reported last year; but only 2,102 prosecutions'

OK I'm no expert and I know these women are, but I don't understand how taking away the right to trial by jury would improve the rate of prosecutions?
If anything, I could see it driving the figure even lower, as I can imagine it could lead to an even greater reluctance to press charges.

I wouldn't allow my client to go in front of a trial without a jury either.

As far as conviction rates - I think before comparing to other kinds of crimes, we need to ask if we should expect all types of crimes to have similar conviction rates. In an idea worl we'd always get a conviction if the person was guilty, and there would only be a charge is someone was guilty. In reality, not all crimes are equally easy to investigate or prove.

IDK what is going on. But I do find it annoying that they aren't liaising with women who have been talking about this issue for years.

https://www.centreforwomensjustice.org.uk/news/2020/11/30/rape-prosecutions-new-report-finds-system-collapse-and-calls-for-political-intervention-on-juries-police-and-prosecutors

I'm not in Scotland but it's s something of an understatement to say I'm deeply uncomfortable with this. As I understand it, the right in the UK to be tried in front of a jury of your peers is centuries old. What is going on?

From the link I posted;

''Justice Secretary Angela Constance has claimed that low conviction rates for rape and attempted rape are hampered by the "prevalence of preconceptions".
In the most recent figures, conviction rates for rape and attempted rape were 51%, compared with 91% for all other crimes.''

Salmon was found not guilty by a (majority female) jury. THAT is what's pushing this particular obscenity. As other posters have pointed out, juries are not the problem here

I wonder how the SNP would feel about juryless fraud and corruption trials to raise conviction rates.