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.

I remember this program and from I recall a great deal of the jury discussion was based on their own personal feelings. That should never be used to convict a person. I can't actually remember how each set of actors voted, but it did worry me that a group of my peers could sentence me for a crime I was innocent of, just based on how I came across in court or interview.

You're thinking of the murder trial that was based on the real life case in Arminghall, of Angela Hulme. She was a real person and the facts presented were the same as those presented to the original jury.

Strongly disagree. If there is a chance of that one person 'Judge' making a wrongful decision of innocence or a conviction, that is entirely life ruining for both parties.

Without absolute evidence that pushes the case beyond all reasonable doubt to a cross section of our peers, then no way could a conviction be found safe.

The job of juries isn't to determine if a crime is serious.

Their job is to take in the evidence, deliberate on it, and come to an agreement on whether they are all certain that the defendant(s) did what is accused.

CPS agreeing to prosecute is great, but they also have the very very difficult job of proving the case so 12 people are certain, while we're under well documented shortage of barristers, not all of which prosecute, and many prosecutors aren't at a level or wanting to work on the level to take on rape cases.

I think if more people sat through rape trials (which any adult can do), they'd see why making these cases convincing is so difficult, rather than just going on the rates, many of which only give those found guilty on trial, erasing those convinced to plea guilty prior to that.

Also, remember that any stats on this will likely include so-called 'historical' rape cases - ones where it's said to have happened decades ago. I've seen cases involving events over 50 years ago. It is very hard for anyone to remember enough to be convincing on that, the evidence will be very slim, and the conclusion often reached is that something horrible happened to the victim, but left very uncertain if the person in the dock is the right perpetrator. I've seen convictions on these type, but they're very difficult.

That's also why I think the backlog impacts rape cases far more than many other crimes, and again has nothing to do with juries. Rape cases brought now if they go to trial with a defendant on bail likely won't be heard in much of the country until mid-2027 - we don't have enough barristers or judges who can do rape cases, it's strongly discouraged to do back to back rape trials for obvious reasons, and we don't have enough courts with a significant portion having been sold off in the last ten or so years. The more delays happen, the more 'I don't remember' gets heard, the harder it is to convince a jury.

A friend was on the jury for a rape trial. She thought the defendant was guilty, and was quite upset at some of the other jurists, who seemed to be deciding not on the basis of evidence but the cliches like, "Look at what she was wearing".

There are also some very good cheeses, maybe more than you might think.

Reasonable doubt isn't even mentioned nowadays. Juries are told they must be sure. They are definitely not told they must be "almost certain" which is not a standard of proof.

Trial by jury is not perfect, no system is. I think a lot of people generally do have prejudices about how they think women should behave which influences the outcome of rape trials.

I think in large part it’s the nature of the crime. There’s often little in the way of forensic evidence and it’s often a case of he said/she said. The jury need to convict Beyond reasonable doubt which is a very high bar

I would never agree to any crime being removed from these legal principles:

Trial by jury
Innocent until proven guilty
Guilt proved beyond reasonable doubt

Well in that case I hope you're content to continue to have rates of conviction for rape so low that as an act it is effectively endorsed by our justice system.

What do you suggest?

Just watched and am so impressed by the strength of the women in the programme. The cost to the people affected by this is so totally unjust. It's depressing.

Whatever the right system is it's not this.

I think there should be mandatory training for jurys about what does and does not count as consent. This isn't for people to have their own take on.

Funding to clear the backlog needs to be committed. Definitely feel sexism is behind this being the biggest backlog

What disturbs me most is that rapists are walking free and able to repeat offend. i get that wrongful imprisonment of someone not guilty would be horrendous. But rapists being able to repeat offend and ruin lives also is.

Maybe some sort of opaque register where if another case is raised against the same individual evidence from previous cases can be taken into account. Though can see the issues with this.

Maybe mandatory counselling and courses for all men accused even if innocent - about consent. It's not like that would ruin someone's life if innocent.

Who knows.

But think the documentary showed things are totally messed up. Well done to those women involved though. It takes a lot and they kept going. That's incredible.

Juries are guided by judges. They get training on the job. How do you think you would provide mandatory training to juries as you seem to be suggesting something different? They're 12 people chosen at random from the electoral roll.

On the case I was on, the judge had expertise in trying cases involving sexual offences. There was none of the making remarks about the complainant and the summing up and guidance was very clear. However we weren't being asked to decide on consent

Im not sure its that the jurys dont beleive the women but its proving it beyond all ressonable doubt.

As a general rule you aren’t told about previous convictions as Juries become very biased as if you did it once you’ll do it again. There is the odd exception and you aren’t allowed to mislead the jury so I’d expect defence to make song and dance about previous unblemished character if no convictions but not say anything if there are. There was a case where the bloke had gotten off in multiple cases when accused of rape as relied on defence of consent and jury had let him off. Judge allowed evidence about previous cases to come in on the basis he was a “bad egg” or some such.

I think there is a really interesting discussion about reminder divide in Jury opinion and we have to think carefully about the biases a male may have on a rape jury. How do we know a juror isn't a full on Andrew Tate fanatic or at least prone to toxic masculinity himslef? A lot of men use pornography so this may have over time given a deep innate acceptance of rape being just sex. A male up for May have possibly assaulted a woman and never been arrested. A man may be horrendous to not impacting a contact's life severely as in the jurors mind the crime isn't as severe as the law sets out.

All the above I think merits a disproportionate number of women of rape jurys? A women's court for a women's crime? I think women discussing the intimate details of assault on a jury room would be a lot more forthcoming with a just women there possibly (or a majority). The presence of male jurors may in fact be an inhibitory factor to a full discussion with women not wanting a debate over the nature of a very male crime with a obviously a great deal of sensitivity.

Poor female jurors cannot by the nature of the system simply say a male juror was arguing she was asking for it and so bringing the legitimacy of the trial into question. With a unanimous jury it only takes one male with the attitude that rape only happens in darkened alleys by strangers and women near responsibility of everything that happens within a shared private venue to bring the whole thing down.

Bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer or have any professional knowledge here...

I think juries should have a professional advisor who can guide them through what is relevant and what isn't. And any legal language. The jury will still have the final decision but they would have input.

So if a suspect has a position or responsibility and trust they get added protection for crimes ie a
jury just won’t hear about previous convictions and will think well he’s trustworthy. How many convictions are they allowed to have before being classed as of ill repute happens?

Similar to the TV programme someone mentioned earlier they were shown different scenarios, invited to debate and then told what the law classed. More in depth (and consistent) than what judges do.

Interested in your ideas of what would work though? I think we are all agreed that a 2% conviction rate is not right.

Then there should be gay men on juries too if it’s a gay man that has been raped.

I absolutely think age should be a factor on juries( maybe it is). Elderly jurors will have very different views on consent,etc.

I agree with Julie Bindel.
Rapists, especially those known to their victim, can basically rape safe in the knowledge they will get away with it even if the woman reports it to the police.
If a woman as much as has a friendly chat with a man they can and will use that to argue sex was consensual.
I also strongly agree with a pp about porn and the anti kink shaming crowd normalising strangulation etc which leads young people to believe normal sex is boring being as it is now derided by the stupid term “vanilla”.
There are some things you actually should be ashamed of so keep your horrible and dangerous fantasises to yourself and get professional help to understand why violence is a sexual turn on for you.
I also agree that rape verdicts should not be decided by a jury.

I’m really not sure in the case I was thinking of it was three previous cases that had gotten to trial ( who knows how many actual victims there were) but I don’t think there is a hard and fast rule.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldjudgmt/jd000622/z-1.htm

I'm sorry, I just can't understand this post. For example, what is "reminder divide"?

While I'm sympathetic to what you're saying about the make up of juries, I don't think it would be at all fair (and against the principle on which jury trial is based) to pre-selected juries so that they are more sympathetic to one side or the other

While a unanimous verdict is desirable, it isn't always required. If the jury can't agree the judge is allowed to accept a majority verdict, so there is, within this system, an allowance made for the possibility of one or two jury members who just can't agree

I've sat on two juries for quite large trials and I was impressed by how seriously all the jurors took their case and their role in it. In one case we came to a majority verdict, which was reached by serious and respectful discussion which resulted in a disagreement with one juror unable to agree with the rest of us - which is quite a principled stand to take, while 11 people argue with you

I hate that I believe this, but I don’t think it’s true to say that all women jurors would side with a female victim. There will be some that think, “That could be my son, brother, husband.” I can understand that to a certain extent.

What I will never understand is misogynistic women. Those who believe that women whose lifestyle - clothes, social habits, sexuality etc. is a green light for predators. Women with those views can be jurors too.

I will admit I don’t know much about the legal system but I am being to wonder if trial by jury is outdated. Evidence generally has become way more complex and sophisticated than it was when the system was first implemented. As the bottom line is beyond reasonable doubt, I think it’s a lot to ask inexperienced people to be entirely sure.

I also agree that juries should be random, otherwise we start going down a slope like the USA where jurors are asked questions pre-selection which raises all sorts of issues around fairness and bias. It's easy to think women will be more likely to convict in rape cases, but women also have their own biases. I think some of this comes from a almost trying to reassure themselves eg I won't be raped because I don't walk home on my own or because I don't dress like that or I'd never get in that situation. I don't agree with any of those things, but it's easier to think that than accept that anyone of us could be in a situation where we are raped. It's a way of feeling like you have some control over it whereas in reality that's not true. I think in the documentary (I've not watched it all properly yet) one jury which was 9 females still found the defendant not guilty.