Rape Myths and Juries

[Dervel]

I’m being called for Jury Service this year, and whilst I would dearly love to not be called onto a rape trial I’d like to be armed appropriately with accurate information.

I’ve often heard it said on here that things would be better if Juries were educated onto the myths that surround this crime, so I’d figure I’d be proactive about it.

There is some research suggesting that rape myths are not so important in juries, see rozenberg.substack.com/p/belief-by-juries-in-rape-myths-is

I hope you don't get a rape trial, or a child molestation trial.

The only thing you can do is decide on the evidence presented to you.

Many years ago I was on a jury for a rape trial. We found him not guilty. It was difficult for me/us. But you are obliged to find guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

Now, my DD is set to be the witness in an attempted rape (if the person pleads not guilty). I hope they find him guilty, if it comes to that.

But evidence, or lack of it, has to be the deciding factor.

The only thing you can do is decide on the evidence presented to you.

But sometimes the evidence is 'she seemed fine with him afterwards'. Knowing that this is common in survivors means you won't interpret the evidence as meaning something it doesn't.

I feel this is relevant:

Its a ted talk on youtube about perceived arousal in women being taken as consent for sex.

Actually I think most men need to watch this. There should definitely be better awareness generally.

I was on the jury for a case involving various serious crimes (not rape).

You decide on the evidence in front of you and you have to be absolutely sure they are guilty.

The way we interpreted it, it would have meant that if anything came down to “he said, she said” we would have always ruled not guilty - unless there was damning evidence to back up one side. It was chilling at the time because I realised it’s almost impossible to get firm evidence in a rape.

Maybe my bunch of jurors were too strict. For one of the charges we had CCTV footage of the suspect and two policeman saying it was him, but still agonised over whether it was OK to say he was guilty or not as we couldn’t see his face and the police could be lying...

I do wonder if we took “beyond reasonable doubt” it a bit too literally because we basically suspended our human common sense and did everything based on concrete evidence. We did still find all suspects guilty on most charges though.

If it comes down to it, you can ask the judge for guidance and instructions if you need to. We should have probably asked if it’s ok to use logic and common sense!

@user1471453601

I hope you don't get a rape trial, or a child molestation trial.

The only thing you can do is decide on the evidence presented to you.

Many years ago I was on a jury for a rape trial. We found him not guilty. It was difficult for me/us. But you are obliged to find guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

Now, my DD is set to be the witness in an attempted rape (if the person pleads not guilty). I hope they find him guilty, if it comes to that.

But evidence, or lack of it, has to be the deciding factor.

Being educated on rape myths has nothing to do with whether the evidence is the deciding factor or not.

Being educated on rape myths means not falling for some of the techniques lawyers use to try and sway your interpretation of the evidence - especially your interpretation of the truthfulness of the victim.

Yes that’s kind of what I’m talking about @NumberTheory I would of course attempt to do my duty to the best of my ability.

@Mallowmazing I think there is a worrying tendency to interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as "beyond all doubt". Not the same at all.

The duty of the jury is to decide on the evidence presented and nothing else.

If the defence tries to advance what some would consider 'rape myths' in an attempt to get their client acquitted, it will be up the prosecution and to a lesser extent the judge to put the jury straight.

This upsets me so much. I was raped by a man I had previously had a FWB situation with. Afterwards I told myself over and over that I had wanted it, enjoyed it, because I wasn't ready to confront what he had done. Based on the objective evidence, he would NEVER had been convicted. Only now, years later, do I realise fully that it was rape and on those horrible sleepless nights you sometimes get, I remember it so so clearly.
I would HATE to sit on a rape trial.

I’m sorry @GnomeOrMistAndIceGuy I wish you all the healing and peace.

[quote OhamIreally]@Mallowmazing I think there is a worrying tendency to interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as "beyond all doubt". Not the same at all.[/quote]
I totally agree with this. Especially for more serious crime.

There also seems to be a tendency to think witness evidence is not, by itself, enough. As though witnesses’, especially victims’, accounts are not really evidence unless there’s something else verifying them.

Dervel I think I've seen you around on here for a long time. What sort of info are you looking for that you don't have?

Be cautious though. I read a while ago that in sex offence cases the jurors sometimes were asked if they had been victim of a sex offence and if so were excused on these grounds-

'Challenge for cause
Either prosecution or defence can "challenge for cause" as many individual jurors as they wish on the grounds that the juror is:[37]

Ineligible or disqualified; or
Reasonably suspected of being biased.'

If you get asked ??? questions and you answer you've looked into this it could get you booted?

I mean I don't know it's not my area. But the defence will try to get anyone who might have sympathy with the victim off the jury. If given the opportunity. And anyone who's a bit of a feminist will be dangerous. Not because they are biased. But because they may well be less biased than the others.

You're unlikely to get CSA/ sex offence etc

Fuck all of them get to court.

NiceGerbil. I don’t known which Jurisdiction you are thinking about, but it’s not England & Wales. Challenges to jurors as you’ve described doesn’t happen here. Scotland & NI may be different but I doubt it.

@NiceGerbil well I haven’t been a victim of a sex crime. I’m a man, and don’t especially identify as a feminist. I believe in the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial, and I follow the news and read around it like everyone else. I would probably if directly asked say I’d prefer not to sit on such a case, but can’t think of an especially compelling reason why I shouldn’t.

I wouldn’t go in assuming guilt or innocence, but I do think the number of false accusations are vanishingly rare. I don’t see how what a woman wears or what her past sexual history is can be anyway relevant.

I’m also not sure how consent can be consent without genuine affirmation and enthusiastic participation.

There is no predictive way a rape victim may behave, responses to trauma can be many and varied. I am just wondering if there are anymore I may have missed.

@NiceGerbil

Dervel I think I've seen you around on here for a long time. What sort of info are you looking for that you don't have?

Be cautious though. I read a while ago that in sex offence cases the jurors sometimes were asked if they had been victim of a sex offence and if so were excused on these grounds-

'Challenge for cause
Either prosecution or defence can "challenge for cause" as many individual jurors as they wish on the grounds that the juror is:[37]

Ineligible or disqualified; or
Reasonably suspected of being biased.'

If you get asked ??? questions and you answer you've looked into this it could get you booted?

I mean I don't know it's not my area. But the defence will try to get anyone who might have sympathy with the victim off the jury. If given the opportunity. And anyone who's a bit of a feminist will be dangerous. Not because they are biased. But because they may well be less biased than the others.

Really? That would exclude a large percentage of women!

[quote OhamIreally]@Mallowmazing I think there is a worrying tendency to interpret "beyond reasonable doubt" as "beyond all doubt". Not the same at all.[/quote]
Yes, this was my experience as a juror in a domestic abuse case. I wanted to convict but the rest of the jury wouldn't as there was no cast-iron external proof. So the defendant was acquitted (and we were then told, not at all to my surprise, about his wider record of domestic abuse).

It was a really upsetting experience. Look after yourself.

I was a victim in a rape trial - the total and utter BS that the defendants lawyer spun to the jury was shocking - so yes I think it’s great you’re looking into this now.

Things that were used against me, to win the trial:
Not immediately reporting to police
Going out the following weekend
Said I ‘imagined’ it because I had PTSD from a previous trauma - which they added in support a note taken 5 years BEFORE the rape by a CBT therapist who noted ‘she has flashes / visions of being attacked’.

As a victim your life is torn apart and twisted and manipulated by the defence team, it really shouldn’t be allowed as it doesn't serve the truth - it just gives them something to ‘spin a story’ into.

@Mallowmazing

I was on the jury for a case involving various serious crimes (not rape).

You decide on the evidence in front of you and you have to be absolutely sure they are guilty.

The way we interpreted it, it would have meant that if anything came down to “he said, she said” we would have always ruled not guilty - unless there was damning evidence to back up one side. It was chilling at the time because I realised it’s almost impossible to get firm evidence in a rape.

Maybe my bunch of jurors were too strict. For one of the charges we had CCTV footage of the suspect and two policeman saying it was him, but still agonised over whether it was OK to say he was guilty or not as we couldn’t see his face and the police could be lying...

I do wonder if we took “beyond reasonable doubt” it a bit too literally because we basically suspended our human common sense and did everything based on concrete evidence. We did still find all suspects guilty on most charges though.

If it comes down to it, you can ask the judge for guidance and instructions if you need to. We should have probably asked if it’s ok to use logic and common sense!

Exactly this, it’s meant to be beyond REASONABLE doubt, not any possible shadow of a doubt, which is sadly how some juries seem to judge rape cases.

The Courts are worried that jurors struggle with what is meant by the exact meaning of 'reasonable doubt'. It it is an issue with a particular jury, they will be told that it means the same 'as being sure'. So if you are not sure, don't convict.

@Arabelladrinkstea thank you for that. I am so sorry you went through all this. Personally I think you are incredibly brave for standing up in court and even making the attempt to get justice. I’m so sorry you we (society in general I mean by that), let you down.

@sawdustformypony

NiceGerbil. I don’t known which Jurisdiction you are thinking about, but it’s not England & Wales. Challenges to jurors as you’ve described doesn’t happen here. Scotland & NI may be different but I doubt it.

Well I googled the law last night. That's what it says. You're saying it's not the case?

Just checked again-

The CPS says this (England Wales)-

'Challenges for Cause
This can be made by either the prosecution or defence and may either be a challenge to the whole panel of jurors (challenges to the array) or to an individual juror (challenges to the polls).

Whilst the common law power of challenges to the array is preserved by the Juries Act 1974, it is now almost inoperative and is of historical significance only.

With regards to challenges to the polls, a juror can be challenged on the grounds of bias, which would cause him to be unsuitable to try the case. For example, where he has expressed hostility to one side or connected to one side in some way.

Procedure:

Any challenges for cause shall be tried by the judge before whom the accused is to be tried. See Section 12(1)(b) of the Juries Act 1974.
The challenge must be lodged before the juror is sworn (Rule 25.8 of the Criminal Procedure Rules) and cannot be exercised during the course of the trial. See the case of Morris (1991) 93 Cr App R 102.
The burden of proof is on the challenging party and the judge may order that the hearing shall be in camera or in chambers. See Section 118(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
The challenging party must provide prima facie evidence at the time that the challenge is made. This approach was confirmed in the case of Chandler(No 2) [1964] 2 QB 322.'