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?

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.

Completely off topic but this is exactly what happens in education. School governors make every strategic decision about a school - they are not professional educators.

Hercule yes, professionals can be misogynistic, that is all too true. That is not news to anyone.
Not my point at all. I could be obtuse in return and suggest that because people in power can be misogynistic, then there is nothing wrong with the current system as misogyny is everywhere anyway in all sections of society. I would much rather the people making life-changing decisions be educated in the law and have specialist knowledge on the subject.

@DecomposingComposers Okay I have limited knowledge of the teaching profession perhaps a wrong example haha! You see what I mean though.

Sagradafamiliar

I just don’t think it would secure the outcome anybody hopes for, even if the “professionals” were randomly selected. It would render the convictions unsafe. I don’t want to see that, so I am suggesting we don’t do it.

herculepoirot2

Why would it make convictions unsafe?

No one accuses someone of sexual assault or rape for shits and giggles.

A woman did this to DS. She followed him home and began performing a sex act, he froze. She claimed he'd raped her and she'd left his flat in tears. CCTV showed her laughing with a smug smile on her face. She also had previous for the same thing. It does happen. DS was arrested, fingerprinted and held while CCTV was explored. Harrowing experience for him.

prettyinpink2

Because the defendant would be able to argue - with some credibility, in my opinion - that the whole purpose of selecting a jury of X type of people was to enhance the chance that they would be convicted. That’s not a fair trial.

SimplySteveRedux

Yes people do lie but it doesn't usually reach the court stage like in the example you've mentioned.

herculepoirot2

Arguably it is not a fair trial now. I could argue with a lot of credibility that the system was biased against me. Ignorant jurors with no knowledge of consent could set a rapist free. We need a balance. If the defendant is worried about a court of people who know about consent and sexual crimes surely that would reveal their guilt? I don't see any downside of people being more educated or informed. If you know you have gained consent why worry if the juror knows what consent is?

"Its possible but unlikely he didn't rape her"How would you know if he raped her or not? Or do we just automatically assume women don't lie about rape now? If it is true deep down that he didn't then this women is in fact disgusting for putting him through it all.

prettyinpink23x

I’m so sorry but you are not on an equal footing with the defendant in a criminal trial. THEY have the right to a fair trial. The outcome of a deliberately biased jury might be that a few people were convicted who would otherwise have been acquitted, but those convictions would be unjust and unsafe.

I disagree, Hercule but you're much more invested in arguing your points than I am this evening so I'll leave you to it.
Pretty I'm sure the last thing you want is to feel patronised or given sympathy but having read all your posts by god, you are one strong woman. Huge respect.

Of course they have the right to a fair trial. Using professional jurors does not make it unfair. They are not biased they are informed that is the difference.

And worse, the whole edifice would in worse shape than it is now. Not only would most of the convicted rapists get out, they would eventually be compensated, and victims would be even more screwed.

@Sagradafamiliar

Thankyou that means a lot. I am only 21 but I am learning to be a strong woman. I appreciate it.

@prettyinpink23x

I really do see what you are saying.

Why isn't this whole topic discussed more? I know it's starting to happen with eg the me too movement but I think as a society we need to really look at our attitudes around sex and sexual assaults in a whole different light.

I remember seeing a programme on TV a while back where they showed a group of men and a group of women the same dramatisation of a possible "date rape". They were asked to judge what had happened and whether it constituted assault. Interestingly, the men over whelmingly said it was rape while the women were far more divided. This case, with the majority of women jurors, brought that to mind.

Maybe we need to look at what women accept to be assault and why as much as we need to address it with men. Are we, possibly wrongly, assuming that women are able to determine what is an assault maybe because they have a higher threshold due to their own experiences or judge other women's behaviour more?

I don't know the answers. It is a hugely complex area.

prettyinpink23x

The bias is inherent in choosing jurors on the basis that you want a higher rate of convictions, OP. I wish I could think otherwise but I don’t.

herculepoirot2

It is not because I want higher convictions. What I want, which shouldn't be a big ask by any stretch of the imagination, is that the jurors who make these big legal decisions to be fully informed about consent and sexual crimes so that they feel confident in their decision making. If this results in higher convictions then so be it.

prettyinpink23x

That might be what you say you want, OP, but it doesn’t square with anything else you have said here. In practice, choosing people who are “fully informed” means what, in your mind? Who would be eligible? People working in healthcare, police officers, people who have been accused of rape, psychologists who have treated victims and the accused? Can you really see no potential biases there?

I know you have the best of intentions here, but what a can of worms that would be.

@prettyinpink23x

I think what Hercule is saying is that selecting a jury comprised of say experts in rape, they might be much more likely to think that the accused is guilty only by dint that he is there in the dock - a "no smoke without fire" scenario. For example, who would these experts be? Unlikely to be lawyers and more likely to be victim support or advocates who will, because of what they've seen, be biased.

And to be honest, in a case where no other evidence exists, so no other witnesses, no injury or trauma, how is knowing what consent means going to help? No doubt the victim will say they didn't give consent, the accused that they did. What expert is going to be able to judge that?

By sitting and accepting the current system you are already inadvertently accepting a biased flawed system that you hope to avoid. I am not talking about a specific profession necessarily. Perhaps in the educational video about court there could be a special video speaking specifically about what consent actually means the laws surrounding it and the steps from the reporting of the crime to the court process to give a more well rounded view. What would be the harm in that?

Perhaps in the educational video about court there could be a special video speaking specifically about what consent actually means the laws surrounding it and the steps from the reporting of the crime to the court process to give a more well rounded view. What would be the harm in that?

No harm. It sounds like what I suggested earlier.

By sitting and accepting the current system you are already inadvertently accepting a biased flawed system that you hope to avoid.

But at least the convictions we get are secure, and I know I am very unlikely to be sending innocent people to prison.

@DecomposingComposers I am not talking about those instances of where there is no evidence or witnesses, there is no way to prove either way. I am saying that being told things like: if the victim is extremely drunk they can't consent or flirting or wearing a short skirt etc. is not consent to challenge jury members who may be ignorant about it. Or those like in this thread who think that false allegations are really high.

@herculepoirot2

This system is setting rapists free who then go on to cause more harm. They are both awful.