To think men shouldn’t serve on juries in sex trafficking and violence against women cases?

[ForBluntBronzeWren]

I’ve been following the Diddy verdict and one detail sticks in my throat: the jury was 8 men and 4 women. Given the charges - sex trafficking, violence, coercion, it’s hard not to think the gender balance shaped the outcome.

Yes, some charges stuck. But major ones didn’t and I can’t help but feel we wouldn’t have seen the same result with a jury that better reflected the gravity of gender-based violence.

AIBU to think there’s something fundamentally flawed when those most likely to downplay or rationalise male violence are the ones deciding the verdict? Or is that unfair?

I'm no legal eagle but would have thought the prosecution team would have had something to say about it if it was considered a problem.

Hmm I'm not convinced that a jury of mainly women would have got a much better result.

Plenty of women make excuses for men or would try to be compassionate to them over other women. Is it worse then men would do? Don't know, it would be a very interesting experiment in going to do some googling.

That’s a terrible idea, I think. The whole point of a jury is that they are chosen at random, not picked especially because they’re more likely to have a particular view. Sounds like a way to guarantee a mistrial.

I don't think any man can comprehend what it is to be a woman which includes living with the threat of / experience of sexual violence and exploitation.

The other side of that is that men would probably feel it unfair that they are being judged solely by women.

However, jury selection is used by both sides to try to remove anyone with a particular leaning either way. Which would leave you with women who have answered that they have not and do not know anyone who has been impacted by these issues. Making it less certain that they would fully be able to empathise with the victims.

Most men are decent human beings.

Although he is a despicable human being, you are suggesting jury selection should be based on those most likely to find a defendant guilty. Random selection is the only reasonable basis to run the courts,

Final selection of jurors in America are picked, it isn’t random. These rich lawyers will have selected them for a reason. Yes, I do think men should serve on sex trafficking and violent cases of women. Some women will only ever blame the women due to internalised misogyny. A father, however could have more empathy if they are persuaded to imagine their daughter as a victim. Jury selection is about manipulation.

They are picked after they are selected at random.

There is the ability to object to jury members. There are more potential members in situ before any case starts and changes can be made.

Not sure but there must be rules around it though.

Clearly the legal teams accepted the makeup of the jury.

Fair point, internalised bias isn’t exclusive to men. But I do think we underestimate how differently men and women tend to perceive coercion, power and threat in cases like this. When it comes to sex trafficking or systemic abuse of women, male jurors often just don’t carry the same instincts or lived understanding. That doesn’t make all women ‘better’ jurors but gender balance (or female-majority panels) can deeply shape the lens through which evidence is interpreted.

When my friend served on the jury of a rape case (in the UK), he said that more of the women on the jury were leaning towards a not guilty verdict than the men. (They found him guilty in the end.)

Just done some googling.

Studies are very varied. There is a US studies that suggests that a victim/defendant (eg in the case of a homeowner shooting a burgler) the woman shooter is judged way more harshly then a man shooter, and often this comes from the female jury members.

Obviously just one case but I'm not convinced that diddy would be any worse off with a jury of women.

The jury of woman are also likely to judge the victims based on their worthyness based on how much they 'deserved it'. Went willingly to a diddy party, you knew what he was like? We what did you expect (shrug). Hard to know if a UK jury without such an entrenched religious right would do similarly but who knows.

Victim blaming really.

I don’t think setting up jury with the intention of it being biased is a good starting point for justice.

Also I have seen that women are more likely to change their mind during the jury process. They begin by having a harsher rate of conviction then men and this reduced after discussion. I wonder if having male jury members influences the behaviour of women in the jury.

You wonder if havibg assertive men in a jury affects women’s things ? Wonder? Highly probable

I think the jury should be well vetted to make sure there is no history of anything that could cloud their mind in the case. I also think the jury should be well assessed for how they are intellectually, are they able to retain info, are they able to sit for long periods of time and maintain concentration….It would be hard to use an argument to remove all
men from a jury though, I just think they need to be competent but Im unsure if there is a competency test for jurors in the US…They should have that though and over here.

Studies have shown that female jurors are more likely to find a defendant not guilty of rape than male ones. The theory is that way they can mentally blame the woman for what happened rather than thinking "it could happen to anyone including me".

YABVU

Argue for an equal balance of sexes in jury’s who make decisions in sex based cases, but to have a jury being of all one sex would be discriminatory, horrible, and invalid.

This issue always interests me for a related personal reason.
I know my situation wasn’t identical but I really would doubt the notion that women are more inclined to be empathic to what it is like for other women who are victims of coercion/SA/rape/sexual humiliation/sexual harassment or fear of any of those.
I pursued civil action for SA - male judge, my barrister male, the defence barrister was female. She took every cliche known to humans about assault and used them forcibly in court.
it was evident it wasn’t just a tactic too - she believed what she was saying.
Of course I didn’t win - but I came close and that was about as good as I could get.
in a high profile case like Diddy you’d expect people to be “extra” careful in reaching a decision but I suspect a lot of “she exaggerated “/is looking for attention/money/sympathy type arguments in the jury room, if not at the very least in the unconscious bias of people who think “I wouldn’t go that in x scenario” or “that’s not what abused women act like”.
I imagine it’s very difficult to not be swayed by forceful arguments in a high pressure situation like a jury room. Sadly.

Of course he could have been acquitted of the charges that 'didn't stick' because he wasn't guilty 🙄

YABVVVU you cannot exclude 50% of the population just like that! Which kind of justice is this?
Many men have mothers, sisters, wives and daughters, so they do take this kind of issue very seriously.
It is the burden of proof what did not do well. Not the jury......

Well put.

The way that it works here in the US is through jury selection hearings.
Potential jurors are brought in, and questioned on matters of impartiality etc.

Both the prosecution and the defence have “challenges” they can use if and when they feel a prospective juror has answered a question and raised concerns of bias. It’s very common for both sides to enter numerous challenges during this process. Prospective jurors are really deeply scrutinised by both sides and jury selection can take a really long time.
So it’s not like it’s just 12 randoms been pulled in off the street and thrown into a court room. Those people have been vetted to the nth degree. If the prosecution get a sniff that a prospective male juror is unable to do his civic duty effectively in a case involving female victims and sexual abuse matters etc, it’s their job to enter challenges during jury selection.

I agree that justice should be fair and inclusive but I think it’s worth discussing how gendered experiences shape how we interpret harm, especially in cases like this. Having mothers, sisters, or daughters doesn’t automatically make someone empathetic - plenty of men still dismiss or downplay women’s experiences, consciously or not. My point was more about how deeply ingrained social biases can affect juror perception, not that every man is incapable of fairness.