To be angry about the Oritse Williams rape case?

[prettyinpink23x]

He's been found not guilty today by a Jury.

So many people on twitter are saying 'name and shame the woman, she's lied' 'she deserves a prison sentence'. This is infuriating! Do these people not realise that 'not guilty' does not equate with innocent and it doesn't mean she's lied?

Is it unreasonable for me to be angry about this?

I agree that rape is legal to all practical purposes. If you commit a rape anywhere other than in public, caught on CCTV and, ideally, with a virgin fresh from a field of puppies and daffodils, you are rather likely to get away with it.

It’s worse than that - less than 2% of reported cases are even prosecuted. Less than 1% of rapes end in a conviction.

It’s not hyperbole. If you rape someone you know, someone who’s agreed to go on a date with you or shares a flat with you or is in a relationship with you etc, behind closed doors, there is essentially 0% chance of conviction.

onefootinthegrave

Your post from earlier this morning - many of your criticisms of the police and the court system apply to all crimes - barely any crimes are properly investigated and there are huge holes when it comes to court. I know of a fair few crimes that haven't been properly investigated by the police, or where at some point during the process someone has dropped the ball meaning the case is dismissed. Why does this happen - is it a lack of money, a lack of training, poor processes? Make the entire system better and maybe this will improve the situation across the board.

We need to stop prosecuting women for so called false rape allegations. Would you come forward and report being raped if you though there was a chance that if you got one detail wrong, or the police decided they didn't believe you, that you could go to prison?

And yes, this is a huge dilemma. Prosecute women who make false allegations and you run a very real risk of genuine women not reporting rape for fear of being prosecuted if something goes wrong. Which is why I guess a lot of forces don't prosecute. Then that leads to situations seen in this post where people disbelieve that false allegations are made because no one is prosecuted for making them.

I would imagine that even if the investigation process was improved as much as possible that conviction rates for non stranger rape would still be quite low because inevitably it is going to boil down to one word against another. No one is disputing that sex took place it is just whether that sex was consensual. And how do you prove that? It's good to advocate for enthusiastic consent - but how does anyone prove that? Won't that always be the issue in these cases?

@herculepoirot2

I was a virgin and it was an alley by a stranger and caught on CCTV. My blood alcohol level was excessive I was 18 and I was described as the drunkest person a bouncer had seen all night. I also had a tear and was bleeding excessively. The rapist still got away with it sadly. Even in those circumstances seems like they are still immune.

prettyinpink23x

Thankyou I am not sharing for sympathy but just to show that even in that circumstance where I was told it was obvious and that evidence was really strong he still managed to get away with it so I really fear for any future women that end up in a position like me. I wish I could change the police and legal system.

I understand why you, having suffered so awfully and unjustly, want to change the system that, by your perception, put you through that. I do. But it really wouldn’t be right. The person who assaulted you is (presumably) walking the streets, but by reducing the burden of proof to probability, we would ensure that people who haven’t committed a crime are locked up. I can’t advocate that.

I'd say less about probability but just removing the beyond reasonable doubt aspect. I think it puts pressure on the jury that if they have any doubt they have to find people not guilty. I also agree that there should be professional jurors. People have all sorts of biases and perhaps a limited understanding of what victims go through to reach the court stage or how rare it is to reach the court stage and I think that they need to be more informed.

It is absolutely not true that men's lives are ruined because of rape allegations.

Most of them probably are. Maybe rightly so, and maybe wrongly so.

I honestly don't see much evidence for this. Certainly not for high profile men anyway. It doesn't stop them getting jobs, it doesn't make the public dislike them, except for a few feminists who others write off as bitter man haters.

A quick look at social media will show just how much public support these men have; people see them as the victims, even when their own words in court have shown them to have reprehensible attitudes towards women.

prettyinpink23x

Professional jurors is an interesting idea, but what sort of person would do that? Probably a biased person? I’d love to do it and I have all sorts of prejudices simmering away under there, as do we all.

Also, by removing the “reasonable doubt” clause, you would be introducing probability. No way round that.

Yes but theres a difference between 'oh yeah he probably did it lets convict him' compared to 'right I'm sure he did it there is a slight doubt because the victim has memory gaps but given the wealth of other evidence etc. I will convict him'. Professional jurors of course would have bias every human does. I would like professional jurors who know specifically in this instance about sexual crimes and the whole police process and court process and the definitions of consent.

Yes but theres a difference between 'oh yeah he probably did it lets convict him' compared to 'right I'm sure he did it there is a slight doubt because the victim has memory gaps but given the wealth of other evidence etc. I will convict him'.

That’s what they should be doing anyway. A wealth of other evidence that removes the element of doubt? That should mean a conviction. Unfortunately, as has now been pointed out quite a few times, there rarely is a wealth of evidence that removes doubt.

By going through the court process I found out many things that I didn't know before about sexual crimes. I didn't know the victim gets her phone taken away, I didn't know she was going into the courtroom blind, I didn't know that if you are drunk you are not legally able to consent etc. I could go on. People are ignorant. What if the jury members are biased and think a short skirt and a flirt means consent? This information is important I think we need education before making huge decisions.

I don't think they do do that. I think beyond reasonable doubt is taken too literally. The girl could be bleeding, bruised, high drunk alcohol level and described as a zombie. She is observed by his friend saying she didn't look like she was into it. However, the victim cannot be sure how she responded to the rape due to memory lapses. She doesn't know if she pushed him off or froze. Now, that would introduce doubt. Did she make it explicit she didn't want to consent? Perhaps not. So we can't convict. However, if that reasonable doubt aspect was removed the jury could look at how excessively drunk she was, the injuries that suggest it was rough and the friend's statement and go yep thats enough for a conviction which it should be.

I didn't know the victim gets her phone taken away, I didn't know she was going into the courtroom blind, I didn't know that if you are drunk you are not legally able to consent etc. I could go on. People are ignorant. What if the jury members are biased and think a short skirt and a flirt means consent? This information is important I think we need education before making huge decisions.

But as a juror, the fact that the alleged victim had their phone removed shouldn’t change my appreciation of the facts, should it? Not sure what you mean by “went into the courtroom blind”? A person’s testimony is limited to what they personally can remember. The prosecution will have access to other evidence.

Whether or not a person can consent while drunk is - of course - vital information, but it is actually not true that you cannot consent when you are drunk. If you consent when you are drunk, that consent usually counts. You have to be drunk to the extent that the other person can’t reasonably believe you are consenting - in other words, virtually incapacitated. I agree that jurors need to know this and it is the job of the judge to tell them. I’m not sure experience of other rape cases would do anything more than bias people further?

I'm not saying the phone thing is important. What I'm saying is people should be aware about the sacrifices victims go through to reach the court stage and how biased the system is. They only have their statement to go off so they go into the cross examination blind and defence lawyers want the element of surprise to 'catch them out' and make them look bad to the jury. Meanwhile the defendant has seen all of the evidence and knows what to expect and therefore prepares accordingly therefore looking better.

prettyinpink23x

Well, unfortunately it is the right of a defendant - in any case - to see the evidence against them. That’s our legal system.

Yes and I'm saying clearly we can't change that. What we can change is the jurors knowing about this and being more informed.

Rape is legal in this country. The only thing stopping men is their moral compass.

I do believe though they should stop naming the accused unless he is found guilty. Many of society are uneducated and it just gives the sexists more ammo to use against women.

prettyinpink23x

I really don’t see how it would change my perception, pretty. The evidence is what it is, whether you as the accuser have seen it or not.

Say theres a circumstance where the victim answers 'I don't know' to everything which I had to do. I had a very small piece of the night. They used this against me by showing me CCTV etc. and trying to catch me out 'Do you remember this happening' etc. Now the defendant follows. He answers in great detail smoothly. He is not surprised by any of it and therefore looks better on the stand. Now the victim comes across worse. Who's going to look like the liar? The guy who answers in full detail or the girl who has huge memory blanks and says I don't know to everything. This also works in the defence's favour. I was asked 'I know you don't remember so is it possible you could have lead him on/ gave consent etc.'. Now if I don't remember I can't say yes or no can I. I have to entertain the idea that this is a possibility because otherwise I would be lying. This then enables them to plant seeds of doubt and 'possibilities' into the account in front of the jury thus weakening the victims statement compared to the polished defendant. People believe they are impartial and objective they are not. They judge humans subconsciously in many different ways. That can impose subjective biases in their decision making.

Say theres a circumstance where the victim answers 'I don't know' to everything which I had to do. I had a very small piece of the night. They used this against me by showing me CCTV etc. and trying to catch me out 'Do you remember this happening' etc. Now the defendant follows. He answers in great detail smoothly. He is not surprised by any of it and therefore looks better on the stand. Now the victim comes across worse. Who's going to look like the liar? The guy who answers in full detail or the girl who has huge memory blanks and says I don't know to everything.

Neither. If one remembers and the other doesn’t, I would assume one was very drunk and the other wasn’t. All you can do as the accuser is relate what happened to the best of your ability.

I was asked 'I know you don't remember so is it possible you could have lead him on/ gave consent etc.'. Now if I don't remember I can't say yes or no can I. I have to entertain the idea that this is a possibility because otherwise I would be lying. This then enables them to plant seeds of doubt and 'possibilities' into the account in front of the jury thus weakening the victims statement compared to the polished defendant. People believe they are impartial and objective they are not. They judge humans subconsciously in many different ways. That can impose subjective biases in their decision making.

Huge problem here. It is in fact possible that the person who can’t remember did these things. They can’t remember. As you say, they have to answer “Yes, it’s possible”, and the defence has to explore opportunities for reasonable doubt.

Wouldn’t it be even worse if the accuser was given access to all the evidence, and their superior knowledge of what happened completely undermined their claim that they were too drunk to consent? Surely the fact that they don’t remember is the basis of their argument that they were so drunk, the other person should not have taken advantage of that? If they can suddenly relate the whole evening, what is the jury going to think?

The problem with professional jurors is that they won't be unbiased, due to the fact that they are employed by the system. Once that relationship exists who are they beholden to - their employer or justice? Who knows what subtle pressures might be employed to increase conviction rates?

The same as with confiscating mobile phones. On one hand it seems like an intrusion and possible victim blaming. On the other hand, in our justice system, the accused has the right to a defence. And that's maybe part of what is wrong in crimes against the person. The victim is totally unrepresented and is relegated almost to a witness or even evidence. The focus is on the defendant and the prosecution proving his guilt. The onus isn't on the defendant to prove he is innocent.

I wonder if one issue amongst jurors in relation to consent is that they use their own experiences to frame it? So, I am struggling to think of anytime that I have given consent before or during sex. It has just evolved. I might have said that I didn't want to do something, but if I was ok to do something then it just carried on. If I was a juror on a trial where that situation was presented, I would struggle to say that it definitely wasn't consensual because that isn't my own experience.

Maybe we do need to have a cultural shift whereby the need to get proper consent becomes the norm just so that the vast majority of people do it and recognise it as the norm?

I’ve been through the process of reporting a serious sexual assault; my DSis and I reported historical SA from throughout our childhood and one particular assault. It was the only case where one of the perpetrators was alive. The police were convinced they had their man, but there wasn’t enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute. This was because he was a stranger to us, who joined in an assault after we’d been groomed by another man who was sadly dead. (If he’d been alive, there would undoubtedly have been a prosecution, as no one disputed that the assault had taken place.)

It was a horrible process reporting the assault and then having to wait whilst the police investigated. And yet, according to the law, the man wasn’t guilty!

Are you really going to tell me that 98% of women are lying about being raped, just because there wasn’t enough evidence for there to be a conviction? Isn’t it far more likely that far too many rapists are getting away with their crimes??

Heres an example. In my case, the defendant had said I had initiated sexual contact by touching his jeans. Now, I don't remember anything leading up to the act. So I get asked 'did you initiate sexual contact and touch his jeans'. I know this is very unlikely I hadn't done anything sexual before but still I don't remember I have to say 'I don't know and yes it might be possible that I did that'. That undermines me completely. I look like I don't know what I'm talking about and that I probably did instigate it. Then when I saw the CCTV I hadn't done that at all. But I couldn't deny this completely because of the memory gaps whereas he was able to prepare for questioning due to his wealth of information meaning he came across as confident and certain. I am not saying I should have been given access to all of the information but I'm saying we both shouldn't. His perspective should be as small as mine was to make it fair on both sides.