Stacey Dooley: Rape on trial

[HappyStep1]

Just finished watching this, seems to me the issue isn't police believing women and the CPS agreeing to prosecute but jurys not wanting to find these men guilty.

What is going on in our society that women are either not believed by jurys or is it juries don't believe the crime is serious?

Just having more prosecutions doesn't seem to be changing either behaviour or attitudes.

There was a very interesting programme a few years ago which showed the trial of a man charged with the rape and murder of his ex.

It was in two parts, the first part was the time leading up to the murder and the second showed the actual crime.

What was interesting was the jury's debate. There was a very opinionated man who had decided the plaintiff wasn't guilty and wouldn't hear of any argument against that.

All the men voted not guilty and all the women voted guilty. Rape myths and misogyny are still embedded in our culture and people on a jury are brought up in that culture.

Julie Bindel did a great piece a few years ago about how rape is basically legal now because the conviction rates are so low and how juries should be exempt from rape cases because they’re too biased. I would agree with her.

Did the act happen
Did the victim consent
Did the perpetrator reasonably believe that the victim consented
The third is very hard to prove if the perp is persuasive. You need a good prosecutor, a good judge and good police.You actually also need a good jury.

And there are some very good men and maybe more than you might think.

I think the Bias is the thing on both sides. It's wrapped in fear for both men and women.

So many rape cases rely on 'he said, she said' there's often little forensic evidence that a defendant can't try to explain away by saying it consensual or rough sex.

Men probably think ', what he's telling the truth, that could happen to me and no one would believe me' (however small we know the likelihood of false accusations is)

Women know so easily could be them/ or has been them/or was nearly them. And we all know how likely the reality of not getting justice, or being believed is.

I imagine most jurors think that he probably did commit the rape but when a great prosecution barrister stresses how you must be sure beyond reasonable doubt and anything less means a not guilty verdict.

Reasonable doubt is explained as being almost certain. How is that possible in a he said / she said trial?

Jurors can form an opinion but how can they be certain??

The burden of proof is so high that most rapists get off.

I'm not sure if we are talking about the same thing but no remember a programme showing a similar thing: two juries and one went guilty, the other not guilty and in the not guilty one, one man basically steamrolled over the rest of the team and ground them down into a not guilty verdict.

A lot of people are of the mindset that there are always two sides, you weren't there etc etc.

What's interesting is that when you read/hear judges sentencing and comments, there are often heavy penalties and comments that make it obvious the judge supports a strong sentence due to the atrocious nature of the crimes, so it shows the judge was convinced, even if juries aren't unanimous.

Reading forums is always eye opening. So often I read a post and think WTAF, HOW can anyone think this poster is unreasonable when they are clearly experiencing abuse... and yet the poll will inevitably show 10% of people/60 actual humans think she is wrong. So I cam only assume some juries are made up of vulnerable people whompotentially have experienced abuse themselves and therefore have a lower bar of what rape is.

Edited to add: It does feel a bit perverse that a jury need to agree in discussion on one version of the truth whereas it's a right that everyone has the freedom to vote privately.

What is going on in our society that women are either not believed by jurys or is it juries don't believe the crime is serious?

This isn’t what happens though. You don’t convict someone because you “believe” the victim said something, nor do you go for not guilty because you believe the defendant. You convict because the evidence says that beyond a reasonable doubt they committed the crime. The problem with rape is that it’s very very difficult for that reasonable doubt to not be there because there is rarely any evidence or witnesses.
I would find it very hard to give a guilty verdict to any crime with no evidence other than an accusation, and that should be the case.

How is this even remotely relevant to the fact that rape is essentially legalised in our supposedly civilised country?

When I tried to get help about my father at 8, I was told I couldn't be telling the truth because he was a good man with a good job (conveniently worked alongside the police).

When my best friend got raped on a date and the man confessed it to her when she confronted him via WhatsApp the female police officer took her aside and told her it would cause her a lot of emotional stress to proceed and with a conviction rate being so hard to get she would be better off just getting therapy and trying to move on.

I was roofied by a bartender who it was later found out had roofied many other girls. I was saved by the fact that I had only had one drink and my friends immediately knew something was wrong. It was all caught on security cameras.

He served no jail time.

I'm sorry, but statements like yours are a slap in the face for anyone who has actually gone through these things and been let down by the law.

I sat on a jury in a sexual abuse case (incest). The evidence presented relied (as it often does), on the testimony of both of the parties. The jury is told nothing about the background of the parties and at that time (i believe this has now changed), was told nothing about prior convictions. The jury room was split with three women not believing the girl Two eventually moved, the last being adamant the girl had made it up. We convicted on a majority verdict. Only then were we told that the man had a string of sexual convictions including incest.

In reality many of these cases are very hard and the standard is beyond reasonable doubt which as explained to us, is very high.

Oh and porn and the pressure on women to do porn acts and the normalising of such acts.

Strangulation. Consensual. Women love. It.
Asphyxiation. Consensual. Women love it.
Rough sex. Consensual. Women love it.
Tied up. Consensual. Women love it.
Rape fantasy. Consensual. Women love it.
Group sex. Consensual. Women love it.
Being degraded. Consensual. Women love it.

Im not the thought police but some fantasies should stay in the head and not make their way onto videos, the proliferation of which normalise and increase the prevalence and acceptance of them.

I'm desperately sad that by the time my daughters can legally have sex, the lads her age will have seen all this and more. Smartphones and access doesn't help.

@CheesePlantBoxes No, it's a shame I can't remember the name of the programme. It was fictitious using real barristers and members of the public for the jury.The defendant was an actor.

What was interesting was the discussion after the first part. Men all thought he was innocent as did the men in the jury.

Mine was this one:

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-jury-murder-trial

If you remember yours please let me know, I'd love to watch it.

I think when it comes down to it, other than in the most heinous cases of violent stranger rape, many people see the harm to a woman of not receiving justice as lesser than the harm to a man of 'having his life ruined' for a 'mistake'. Which is all sorts of wrong of course.

Yes, this.

No it wasn't that one but thanks for the link, I'll check it out. I'll try and find it.

Cant even get to comment 3 on a rape thread without someone saying “what about the menz”

@CheesePlantBoxes I found it! It's called The Trial: A murder in the family

I was a jury member recently, not for a rape case, but it was stressed repeatedly that you must be sure they have done what they are accused of if you vote guilty.

There was a suspect who we all thought did commit the crime, but because we had no concrete evidence we couldn’t be sure, as there was a small possibility they could be innocent we voted not guilty. The defence team stress this over and over again to you, that it doesn’t matter if you think they did it, you have to be sure they did, and with often no evidence other than his and her testimonies, I’m don’t know if you could ever be sure of someone’s guilt.

I was shocked with the one case on the show where they had three separate witness testimonies from unrelated women and still said not guilty though, I don’t know how they came to that conclusion other than having a belief that what he did wasn’t actually rape to begin with, because I would find it completely implausible that three different ex partners of the same man would accuse him of the same crime and it not be true.

I think it shows up the limitations of our criminal justice system.

For crimes against property, crimes against the person with physical evidence, murder and so on, two barristers arguing in front of a jury is fine. A jury is able to reach a decision based on what they see.

But for rape and sexual assault, the combative style of justice doesn't work. The only evidence is what the two witnesses say, and the jury has to reach a decision based on who they believe. The victim is the evidence, her testimony is an item that the defence has to discredit, otherwise there would be no trial.

Combine that with juries being selected from a cross section of society, and that society being patriarchal, and there is little chance of conviction.

I really do think that for rape and sexual assault cases, we shouldn't have jury trials and we shouldn't have for and against arguing. I think that a judge should hear the evidence from both sides and investigate for him/herself, and decide, with oversight and transparency, and with any decision able to be appealed first to a further, unconnected panel of judges and then further finally to a jury.

There are other crimes that this would also work well for, like complex financial crimes involving multi layering, obfuscatory practices and arcane tax laws. Also for things like blackmail.

Having all trials before a jury of one's peers is an admirable system and a lot of the time it is fine, but there are some circumstances where it falls short.

Thank you so much!!

Ok well I’m going to say what about the menz too.

My son was raped by somebody who had a previous conviction. The police and CPS were amazing particularly the female CID officer investigating his case. They had a lot of very good evidence, a good barrister arguing my son’s case and some strong witnesses. The jury deliberated for a long time.

The perpetrator got off. The police said the jury will feel like shit when they google the perpetrator’s name. One of the jury cried. They weren’t told of his previous conviction.

I think it is a jury thing( older jury and potential homophobia at play in our case). The police work bloody hard on these cases. It’s shit. My son has been hugely let down. He didn’t even get any rape therapy because he’s a boy( there’s next to nothing for men and he wasn’t allowed access to rape centres).

So rest assured men and boys aren’t getting special treatment with this and are equally let down.

@S1ttenfeld I'm sorry about your son. He can get specialist help at Survivors UK.

It will be the burden of proof. Satisfied so that you are sure is a tough one to overcome with an offence like rape especially where the circumstances are capable of being made to look like a grey area surrounding consent.