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?

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

I would completely do away with juries for all but the most minor offences and replace them with expert panels, with their time funded by the state just as jurors are now (except funded properly). The experts involved would be dictated by the type of case and could include forensic scientists, pathologists, sexual health nurses, psychologists etc etc. People who can’t be tricked by defence lawyer bullshit. If you watch many documentaries centred about rape and murder cases, you’ll see that the wealthier the client and the more expensive the lawyers, the more likely they are to get relevant evidence thrown out, and bamboozle a jury. Let’s not pretend that juries get to hear all relevant evidence, or that the defence don’t manage to get misogynistic bullshit masquerading as evidence admitted, or that the effort to communicate evidence to the jury is always as strong from the prosecution side as it is from the defence, or indeed vice versa.

Deathgrip

Everyone has biases. Ram the jury benches with professional people and you also (as a know unfortunate natural consequence) ram them with middle class white men. That’s not going to work, is it?

prettyinpink23x

But again, you cannot do that because the accused is entitled to an informed defence. It’s a fundamental precept of our legal system. If you undermine it, all that is going to happen is, people are going to say, “Oh well, it’s a rape conviction, innit? You know what they’re like: not worth the paper they’re written in.” If you can say nothing better about the

Completely agree with OP. In particular, I think a panel of professional jurors for sexual offence cases as described by pretty, is the only way forward. Current system doesn't work. Ignorance and ingrained misogyny are still prolific among the general public, you only have to have a scroll through any social media platform to see this. Victim blaming rape culture.

I've been on jury service on a completely different kind of case and the attitudes of some of the other jurors were frightening. They were coming out with things like, 'I knew as soon as I clapped eyes on them, they're guilty' and wouldn't be swayed by listening to the evidence.
In cases where the victim will feel doubly violated by the process, they should at least feel safe in the knowledge that they being heard by professionals who know their stuff.

Deathgrip

But experts aren't infallible nor above lying even. How many trials have later been overturned due to "bad" evidence given by experts. Look at some of the "shaken baby" cases where mothers have been wrongly convicted by so called expert testimony.

As for the OP describing being asked if she had initiated contact - as a juror that would not have even been relevant to me. Why does what you did in the lead up mean that you had then consented to anything? The evidence from the actual assault would have been more relevant to me, I think

Completely agree with OP. In particular, I think a panel of professional jurors for sexual offence cases as described by pretty, is the only way forward.

Professionals are misogynists, too. They really are.

Why does what you did in the lead up mean that you had then consented to anything?

Because it speaks to a reasonable belief in consent?

There are plenty of women who have expertise in sexual assault cases from a variety of angles, so I don’t think that’s an inevitability in this scenario. It would certainly be a risk that needs mitigating.

Of course everyone has biases. It’s certainly a better option than a jury of people with biases AND no knowledge of this type of crime beyond what’s reported in the mainstream media and the myths we all know.

There are plenty of women who have expertise in sexual assault cases from a variety of angles, so I don’t think that’s an inevitability in this scenario. It would certainly be a risk that needs mitigating.

You cannot staff a jury with people you KNOW to be biased. You just can’t. The convictions would be unsafe and would be overturned.

But experts aren't infallible nor above lying even. How many trials have later been overturned due to "bad" evidence given by experts. Look at some of the "shaken baby" cases where mothers have been wrongly convicted by so called expert testimony.

This wouldn’t be independent witness testimony. This would be a panel of experts from a variety of backgrounds, just like a jury, but with relevant knowledge.

Is it perfect? No. Is it better? Yes. People are asking for ways to make things better - this is one. Many are needed.

@DecomposingComposers Yes of course even if I had touched his jeans it doesn't warrant sexual contact but me and you know that because we are educated about consent and we are informed. As seen on twitter etc. some people are not they are ignorant and some of these people could be part of a jury on a rape case. And by asking me questions like that and knowing I have to entertain it the defence are able to weaken my statement thats how they operate, they try and pick holes even if there aren't any.

Every single juror has biases, every person does. You’ve already stated as much: “everyone has biases”.

You’re happy for juries with biases and with no relevant training or expertise to decide, but not those with relevant knowledge because that knowledge may bias them? Give over.

hercule

The point I am making is I didn't do that. But they asked me about it and entertained the possibility because they played on the fact I couldn't remember thus instilling doubt.

And the risk I was talking about that needs mitigation is having all Male expert panels, not bias - since as you stated, everyone has those.

Because it speaks to a reasonable belief in consent?

Maybe, possibly depending on how long in advance it had happened. Immediately before, then yes, I would consider that as one aspect of assuming consent. Hours before, when the possibility of having sex wasn't even on the table? Then I wouldn't consider it, I don't think.

Deathgrip

There is a world of difference between the risk of bias (at random) and selecting for bias. Obviously back this as a solution if you like, but the convictions wouldn’t stand up to appeal.

DecomposingComposers

Yes, of course, unless, again, it was part of a longer pattern of action.

herculepoirot2

You wouldn't select for bias. You would understand every human has biases but these people are aware of consent, the police and court process of sexual crimes therefore would make much more informed decisions.

You think having knowledge of rape means selecting for bias? How telling.

Say you are a teacher. You wouldn't let a random person with no knowledge of teaching come in and dictate huge decisions in a school. This applies to any profession. So why do we assume a random jury with perhaps no knowledge about sexual crimes is able to make huge legal decisions? You do realise that by acquitting a rapist they will do it again like they did in my case. If the jury were professional in the case before mine it wouldn't have happened to me thats a huge impact not to be taken lightly.

prettyinpink23x

And I know that is awful. The solution is for a defence barrister who asks questions of that nature (to which they know the answer and solely in the interests of discrediting the accuser) to be held accountable. The problem is that - however much I don’t like saying this - being very drunk undermines a witness’ credibility. It does. I have been there. I have been sexually assaulted (to my mind) whilst very drunk. The fact that I was very drunk makes me a poor witness. It is the job of a defending barrister to make it clear to a jury when someone is a poor witness.

Deathgrip

Yes, I do. What do you mean, telling?

prettyinpink23x

Because in the system we have - a democracy - we assume responsibility as a whole society for judging our peers. You can do away with the jury system if you like (I don’t think this would help), but changing the system only for rape cases would do nothing more than undermine those convictions.

@prettyinpink23x

I honestly understand what you are saying. Thankfully, I haven't ever been in your position. I have given evidence in court though. In a case where I knew exactly what I was saying was correct and by the end of it I was starting to doubt myself because of how the questions are asked.

Truly I don't know the answer. I guess any way to address the imbalance skews the process against the defendant and most systems accept that it's preferable to let a guilty man go free than to wrongly convict an innocent man.

Of course that ignores the injury that the system does to the victim.

I would be really interested to hear this debated by experts who understand the judicial system and who could suggest ways to improve it without endangering the right to a fair trial.

Not surprised, DDs rapist walked free despite extensive physical evidence and character reports from school headteacher in court. Solicitor called the case a "slam dunk". Yet the rapist walked free, laughs and jokes about it and hasn't suffered one iota. DD on the other hand suffers psychological symptoms daily. And don't get me started on the ludicrous sentences rapists get.