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?

Yes but there are alot of women out there who have no empathy for abuse victims at all. Because they haven't personally experienced it, they've got no clue how it is. Women can be far harsher than men towards other women

I've often had more empathy from men than from women. Women are often other women's worst judges

Sadly in the USA juries can be selected and made biased towards anything. It is a massive business to have jury consultants who will do a huge amount of work on finding everything they can about potential jurors, and they use this to sway the jury their way. With the money Diddy has, I can guarantee theu used very expensive jury consultants to try and get the results they wanted. If you are rich you can escape justice.

It wouldn’t be fair to have an entire jury of women and no men. That’s ridiculous

The majority female OJ jury (10 women, 2 men) didn't convict.

There’s a great movie which shows how pliable the system can be. “Runaway Jury” with Dustin Hoffman and Gene Hackman.

Also the tv series Bull which was based on Dr Phil before he became famous and he created one of the biggest jury selection companies.

This.
I have heard women - work colleagues, friends, family, people I like and usually respect - say some really dismissive things about women and sexual violence. How some women 'ask for it', are there to 'shark' and 'trap' men, how they exaggerate for attention etc etc. I think it's sometimes about women worrying about and over-empathising with / making excuses for people who remind them of the men and boys in their own lives. Sometimes it seems to be about wanting to champion male celebrities who they like and fancy. I also wonder whether it's sometimes a defense mechanism - if only women who are blameworthy get hurt from their perspective, it allows them to sustain the illusion that they can keep themselves and their daughters safe by taking the right precautions (which is of course very naive).
Maybe it's also worth saying that women can fall prey to biases too, including misogynistic ones, and that women can be cruel, petty and lacking in empathy for others as much as men can be.

I completely disagree. The men on the case I was on were reasonable, measured and supportive. Some of the women were vile, with old fashioned views on women asking for it (this was from a woman in her 20s!)

Lord no, you can't make massive sweeping assumptions about who is more likely to convict the defendant based solely on their gender, and you certainly can't set up the jury that way. YABVU

My experience of serving on a jury was that there were people of both genders who didn’t conform to the traditional gender stereotypes. Women are just as likely to victim blame other women and some men expect other men to maintain decent standards of behaviour and were fairly judgmental when they didn’t.
So no, your statement is a generalisation and single gender juries are not more likely to return a favourable verdict.

They very much are. In this case they did written questionnaires of hundreds of people first. Especially for sensitive issues like sex trafficking anyone with personal experience is typically dismissed. Also the lawyers then do verbal questioning as well, that what the first week before the 12th of May (when opening statements occurred) was for. Yes the people who get the letters are randomly selected but then they may not even be on the jury.

Also, they're are alternate jurors just in case they get rid of someone later on. Juror number 4, I think, was asked to leave last week for inconsistent statements about his living situation and an alternate stepped in. They are vetted throughly by both prosecution and defence. Although, in the U.S there's more leeway to strike jurors, both prosecution and defence have a limit of ones they can strike just out of preference for not liking them, (without needing a specific reason - called a peremptory challenge) which is not allowed in England and Wales without cause e.g someone who has experienced sex trafficking in this case or is employed in a profession that disqualifies them, or tampering etc. As someone earlier said this is why jury consultants exist, (often very expensive), they research jurors and find things out for the legal teams to try and figure out who they want to keep or get rid of, (they research their lives and social media etc).

Furthermore, as its obviously a popular case they check social media etc to try and make sure people don't already have strong views on the defendant or even know much about them. I do think the more diversity on juries the better to try and make sure you have a wide range of people with different life experiences.

What about the officers who investigate? @ForBluntBronzeWren

It should be mixed, although I believe a competency test should be passed.

Why don't we just say his eyes are too close together, or he looks like a wrong 'un?

Said on another thread but repeated here. Let us not call this inadéquate abomination of a man by his stupid stage name. His name is Sean Coombs.

That’s an absolutely shit idea. Firstly, the whole point of a jury selection is that justice is blind. Secondly, in the US legal system, both the prosecution and the defence are involved in jury selection. Thirdly, women have been persistently shown to be more lenient in legal proceedings so you’d actually be making it worse.

That’s a fair point, I do agree that competency and training should be the baseline across the board. But even with training, our lived experiences shape how we interpret things like credibility, fear or harm. That’s why gender balance isn’t just about fairness, it’s about ensuring a wide range of perspectives in cases that disproportionately affect women. Officers, jurors, judges, all of it matters.

I guess that is the problem with jury selection process in the US. I appreciate it is supposed to identify and remove bias and prejudice but it appears to be used by defence to place sympathetic jurors.

I also think it’s wrong that profiles of the jurors are published. Makes them easier to target.

A lot of women thankfully don't have lived experience of abuse or trafficking.

I have served on a jury of a rape case in the UK (male accused of raping a female) and the male jury members' opinions on the case were as valid and important as the females' opinions. The males on the jury were just as concerned about the victim as the females. There are so many good guys out there who don't want to see women come to any harm and are just as shocked at the crimes that take place as us women are.

Well I would want my husband or son on a jury so yabu.

Every jury should be selected to give the defendant a fair trail without bias that's the cornerstone of justice

I’ve heard “well they would have got raped anyway” from a woman in her 30’s (I actually couldn’t respond because I was so shocked). Fairly sure DH would be trying to encourage hanging for sexual crimes against women.

I’m not sure that women are any better tbh, how many people on mumsnet have found out that some woman in their family has knowingly shacked up with a paedo (that one crops up time to time). Some women seem to allow violent crimes against their own children as well.

Women are still less likely to commit crime but women sometimes prop up violent offenders in their own families. I remember the wives of some of the grooming gang members blaming the children.

Toxic feminity at its best. Why not just ban men from society bar handing over a pay packet and procreation other then that they should not be seen or heard

We can call him what we like?