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.

[sawdustformypony]

Yes, It's not done in the way you have suggested.

For ordinary crown court trials, the defence can't cross-examine potential jurors to test for bias.

However, if a juror makes it known that they will not act impartially or is hostile and therefore cannot swear/ affirm the required oath than they can't become part of the jury.

The commonest cause of jurors being allowed to stand down is if they have a connection to the case. A friend of mine recently was allowed to stand down because he knew one of the police officers due to give evidence. He didn't have to say whether he liked or disliked the officer, the fact he knew him was deemed reason enough.

[user16395699]

But you are obliged to find guilt or innocence based on the evidence.

No, that's not correct and it's worrying that you came away from serving in a jury believing this.

Juries in criminal trials never find anybody innocent and nor are they asked to make findings about innocence. They are tasked with deciding whether the criminal standard of proof has been met to return a guilty verdict, or not.

"Not guilty" simply means that the criminal standard of evidence for a particular specified piece of law has not been met. It doesn't mean innocent. It could mean that they did something awful but that there is no law capturing the specific awful thing that they did.

Nobody is found innocent in our legal system and criminal trials are not about establishing truth either.

So either you received extremely poor instructions or you weren't paying adequate attention to what you had been asked to do. If the latter, I would stop advertising the fact if I were you.

[NiceGerbil]

I think that's a pretty rubbishy thing to say.

The whole point of a jury is that it's random people from your society. Ordinary people.

Ordinary people have massive variations in all sorts of things.

The fact is that loads of people won't get guidance they totally understand. Some get dodgy guidance (been in news). Some won't want to be there and won't give it their full attention. Some will be intimidated by the whole thing and that can mean not taking it all in. Others will be massivec fans of (true crime/ inspector Morse/ line of duty, ... Etc etc) and will think they know stuff they don't. Especially if fans of USA stuff.

Everyone has biases as well. The ones who think they don't often seem to be the worst.

So no I think telling someone not to talk about what they understood because it makes them sound... Whatever was implied. Is not on. Because common sense says that loads of ordinary people for a variety of reasons will misunderstand/ hear what they expect to hear/ get poor guidance etc

The fact is that LOADS of people. And reports in the press after cases. Equate not guilty with innocent.

[NiceGerbil]

Also just remembered something and had a look. 2020-

'judges have been urged to abandon the phrase “beyond all reasonable doubt” as it apparently confuses juries.

In new guidance for the judiciary they have been advised to tell jurors they should be “satisfied so that they are sure” a defendant is guilty before convicting.

The Crown Court Compendium, written by the Judicial College, tells judges they can drop the phrase.

“It is unwise to elaborate on the standard of proof, although if an advocate has referred to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’, the jury should be told that this means the same thing as being sure.”

The Judicial Office said: “Judges may adapt their language to avoid difficulties some juries have with the phrase ‘reasonable doubt’.”'

scottishlegal.com/article/are-you-sure-judges-in-england-told-to-abandon-beyond-all-reasonable-doubt

Other pieces in times etc but paywalled.

Sure is what I have read in other places as well. I think sure gives a totally different message tbh.

[IsItAllOverYetPlease]

I was on a jury before on a sexual assault case of a young girl, about 14 i think. she had drunk a couple of alcoholic drinks that night but wasn't fully drunk. She went home and straight up to her bedroom with a cup of coffee. One of the defence arguments was that she didn't tell her mum of the assault that night. Quite a few other jurors, older ladies, didnt believe that she wouldn't have told her mum straight away when she got home if she had been assaulted.
As a former young girl with a strict mum I would have avoided her at all costs if I'd come home after alcoholic drinks. As a young woman who was raped on a night out and didn't tell a single person for at least 5 years (then only to 1 friend), and in fact didn't actually process the incident for that 5 years, i couldn't agree with them. In fact I still haven't told my mum.

the whole idea of being on a jury is not to have preconceived notions however I think that's impossible to an extent as your opinion will be based on your life events. Just be aware of it.

[crapatthis1]

I was a juror in a rape case when I was 19-20. It was difficult and it's stuck with me 20 years on. We found him not guilty because there was no evidence and it was a he said, she said situation. I did feel that he was probably guilty but I just couldn't back it up (I just felt it in my heart) and it made me realise at a young age just how hard rape is to prove.

[sawdustformypony]

@IsItAllOverYetPlease

I was on a jury before on a sexual assault case of a young girl, about 14 i think. she had drunk a couple of alcoholic drinks that night but wasn't fully drunk. She went home and straight up to her bedroom with a cup of coffee. One of the defence arguments was that she didn't tell her mum of the assault that night. Quite a few other jurors, older ladies, didnt believe that she wouldn't have told her mum straight away when she got home if she had been assaulted.
As a former young girl with a strict mum I would have avoided her at all costs if I'd come home after alcoholic drinks. As a young woman who was raped on a night out and didn't tell a single person for at least 5 years (then only to 1 friend), and in fact didn't actually process the incident for that 5 years, i couldn't agree with them. In fact I still haven't told my mum.

the whole idea of being on a jury is not to have preconceived notions however I think that's impossible to an extent as your opinion will be based on your life events. Just be aware of it.

Its quite believable, that is what happened.

However, for the defence, its absolutely consistent with their case. The assault didn't happen, there was nothing to tell.

Whereas, for the prosecution it is merely not inconsistent.

A lack of such evidence favours the defence.

[ColdTattyWaitingForSummer]

That rape victims then avoid sex. Some will want to be intimate with a partner as soon as possible, perhaps to overwrite the memories. Some may even be promiscuous, take an attitude that by saying yes, no one can ignore their no. Or for whatever their own personal reasons are.

[JaniceBattersby]

I sit through man rape trials. The majority are not guilty verdicts. I think that they were likely guilty in 99 per cent of them.

The major difficulty is that most people’s experience of courtrooms lies solely in TV dramas. They expect a key piece of evidence to emerge to make it obvious that the person is guilty, they expect nailed-on forensics and they expect to be 100% sure they know what has happened when they’re sent out to consider a verdict.

None of these things generally come to fruition and they are usually faced with her version and his version. Defence barristers always tell the jury in their closing arguments they should be sure of what happened. How can they ever be if there were only two people in the room, witnesses who didn’t actually see what happened and flimsy forensic evidence?

It’s often impossible for juries to return guilty verdicts.

[NiceGerbil]

Do cases with no evidence apart from testimony get to go court that often? Especially at the moment with the stats around it.

I always assumed tbh that if there was literally nothing- no injuries CCTV friends confirming she was paralytic and etc that it wouldn't get that far.

If they are, given the stats. Then that feels like just another layer of crap. Esp given that the CPS were widely reported to only be bringing cases they saw as very likely to get a guilty verdict (they denied it but it was reported from a lot of sources).

I mean when you put it all together. The whole system is just useless for these crimes. For a number of different reasons.

It's so depressing. Women die. And the man turns out to have been reported and reported. And yet there he is out there escalating and escalating. Until. Oh. These crimes are very rare. We got him though! Aren't we great.

I'm sick to the back teeth of it but I can't see that there's any appetite in society generally, govt, legal system and enforcement etc to even try to make things better.

In the end it's easier all round if women and girls (and boys and some men) think no point I'll not report. Then no one needs to know and all these conversations and stats etc and the pita for the police around it all just goes away.

[user16395699]

@NiceGerbil

I think that's a pretty rubbishy thing to say.

The whole point of a jury is that it's random people from your society. Ordinary people.

Ordinary people have massive variations in all sorts of things.

The fact is that loads of people won't get guidance they totally understand. Some get dodgy guidance (been in news). Some won't want to be there and won't give it their full attention. Some will be intimidated by the whole thing and that can mean not taking it all in. Others will be massivec fans of (true crime/ inspector Morse/ line of duty, ... Etc etc) and will think they know stuff they don't. Especially if fans of USA stuff.

Everyone has biases as well. The ones who think they don't often seem to be the worst.

So no I think telling someone not to talk about what they understood because it makes them sound... Whatever was implied. Is not on. Because common sense says that loads of ordinary people for a variety of reasons will misunderstand/ hear what they expect to hear/ get poor guidance etc

The fact is that LOADS of people. And reports in the press after cases. Equate not guilty with innocent.

Ordinary people fulfilling an important legal obligation under clear instructions about their role and responsibilities.

Some get dodgy guidance

A possibility I noted. Do you not find it worrying that someone could carry out jury service and still come away believing the misinformation they arrived with because they had not been properly instructed? Surely that's the point of this thread.

Some won't want to be there and won't give it their full attention.

That is misconduct, unjustifiable and not something to defend or be proud of. There are legal penalties for jurors who breach their obligations. Actions have consequences for jurors too. It is this misconduct that the final if clause in my post that so offended you was referring to, and I make no apologies for thinking misconduct is not something to be proud of.

If you have been given such a responsibility with the power to change the course of people's lives - both on the side of victim and perpetrator - then I think it is fair to expect to be challenged if you choose to spout off about neglecting those responsibilities afterwards.

If someone hasn't taken that huge power seriously I think it is even more inappropriate to use the weight of "I'm a former juror" to promote the kind of misinformation that leads to miscarriages of justice.

If someone has left jury service still believing falsehoods due to poor instructions then it is also important that is corrected rather than being allowed to mislead future jurors who will give comments from a former juror more weight.

Note the if clauses in both my posts. I made no comment on biases, merely the meaning of "guilty" vs "not guilty" in a criminal law context. I could observe that your comments towards me and your attempt to besmirch me is pretty rubbishy...

It is important that misinformation is corrected, not justified. Your comments just reinforce why juries lead to faulty justice.

[NiceGerbil]

Besmirch! Wow. Good word not heard that for ages!

On the other point. That poster is a stranger on the internet. She stated her experience. You said...

'So either you received extremely poor instructions or you weren't paying adequate attention to what you had been asked to do. If the latter, I would stop advertising the fact if I were you.'

She's not advertising anything. She's on one thread on one board on one site, who posted to honestly share her experience.

Why shouldn't she do that? If the judge instructed poorly then why can't that be posted?

And your idea that the whole of the general public are going to understand it all, not be distracted by the strangeness of the situation, not get bored, not be pissed off they've had to rearrange stuff and miss work etc to do it. Not be a bit dodgy themselves. I mean all sorts of stuff.

Really? You've not met a very wide range of people then I'd guess.

Bottom line is why are you reacting so strongly to what was a couple of words in a longer post.

'But you are obliged to find guilt or innocence based on the evidence.'

I mean pointing out it's not guilty, rather than innocent yeah sure. But I don't get why you went for her so much with this stop advertising business.

If that was what she took away from it that was what she took away. And of course she can mention it on here. And it's been corrected. And so not a problem

There's been other misinformation on this thread. Corrected, move on.

[NiceGerbil]

And I'm sure you're aware as well that loads of people see a not guilty verdict as innocent.

I've seen reports in decent media outlets quoting people saying they've been proven innocent or similar, with no correction in the piece.

Anyway you corrected job done. No besmirching.

[NumberTheory]

@NiceGerbil

Do cases with no evidence apart from testimony get to go court that often? Especially at the moment with the stats around it.

I always assumed tbh that if there was literally nothing- no injuries CCTV friends confirming she was paralytic and etc that it wouldn't get that far.

If they are, given the stats. Then that feels like just another layer of crap. Esp given that the CPS were widely reported to only be bringing cases they saw as very likely to get a guilty verdict (they denied it but it was reported from a lot of sources).

I mean when you put it all together. The whole system is just useless for these crimes. For a number of different reasons.

It's so depressing. Women die. And the man turns out to have been reported and reported. And yet there he is out there escalating and escalating. Until. Oh. These crimes are very rare. We got him though! Aren't we great.

I'm sick to the back teeth of it but I can't see that there's any appetite in society generally, govt, legal system and enforcement etc to even try to make things better.

In the end it's easier all round if women and girls (and boys and some men) think no point I'll not report. Then no one needs to know and all these conversations and stats etc and the pita for the police around it all just goes away.

On the - no evidence apart from testimony - issue. I think it's rarely the case in any trial, including rape trials, that there is literally no evidence entered other than witness testimony. There will be photos of the scene, or the victim after the assault. Etc. But many, many cases come down to the jury working out who they believe, especially in violence against the person cases, but also property crimes.

[NiceGerbil]

I must admit it was unlikely to get to court without more than testimony.

I think it was Janice who said that she sees a lot of rape trials and that's the case.

Given the stats and the CPS stuff I'm very surprised that testimony only is getting to court.

[Ajl46]

@sawdustformypony

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.

But, in order to be sure, there has to be no doubt at all?

[JoanOgden]

"Given the stats and the CPS stuff I'm very surprised that testimony only is getting to court."

The CPS are in a difficult situation, of course, because they are criticised for dropping too many rape cases but also criticised if lots of cases get a not guilty verdict. I don't think testimony-only cases should automatically be dropped pre trial, but I do think juries need better guidance on how to consider them. Testimony IS evidence.

Generally though I think the jury system should be abolished and replaced by a bench of experienced, diverse judges who actually understand how to weigh evidence to make decisions about guilt.

[daretodenim]

@Dervel You might find some useful info on this site www.victimfocus.org.uk/ and also Dr Jessica Taylor's Insta/tiktok/Facebook feeds.

There's also her book "Why Women are blamed for Everything" which has information about women needing to be "the perfect victim" in order to be believed. There's probably a blog post on it too though.

One very clear area of concern is discrediting the sanity of the victim.

There was also a programme on R4 recently detailing what women go through when reporting rape to the police and how they have their entire histories (some women had primary school report cards included!) combed through. I think it's important for some jury members to understand what she (usually) has gone through with the legal process before getting to court. I'm afraid I can't remember the programme (and can't find it), but maybe someone else remembers.

[Felix125]

I don't think police go through their histories like that - it may have happened a few times, but i don't think its a trend as such.

The police will gather evidence of that specific incident (CCTV, forensics, scenes, witness accounts etc)

I think the 'discreditation' of the victim will take place by the defence solicitor - but there will be rules to this that the judge will over see.

[NiceGerbil]

The mobile phones thing did a huge amount of damage. For reporting, confidence, length of time, and the sort of stuff dug up.

That was off the back of some high profile collapsed rape cases

What pissed me off at the time was that a few articles had one line at the bottom saying the % of rape cases collapsed due to this was the same as other crimes. But the papers all went on about the rape cases. And many didn't put that footnote..
The press and society in general are so terribly biased/ irrational on this issue.

Iirc one of the men whose case collapsed said he'd been proved innocent in the papers etc. Even though no trial. So who knows. I mean it's just shit whichever way you look at it.