Female judges only presiding over rape cases

[didihearthatright123456]

Not in the UK but based on this article is it time to stop male judges from presiding over rape cases as they are clearly incapable (in the examples given - I’m sure there are many more that are not in the public eye in the same way)

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/crime/drew-clinton-brock-turner-rape-b1993568.html

[Boood]

Sure have read female jurors less sympathetic in rape cases overall. Loads of women judge rape victims harshly. Loads victim blame.

The received wisdom is that female jurors look at the victim and think what they would have done to avoid being in her position- and therefore blame her for not doing that. And then look at the accused and imagine it was their son standing there- so make excuses for him. Whereas male jurors imagine that the victim was their daughter, so are more likely to find the accused guilty.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

Ah! But I haven't said I thought it would be a good idea. Or even doable.

My only point has been that maybe a female judge would have more to say when the defence was filed. Would be more likely to find "I fell and it slipped in" inadmissable, against the book etc.

Or maybe she would let in in and in summing up would point it out a lunacy.

But mainly I think that there is so much wrong with how rape cases are dealt with in this country and we need more people with the relevent voices to start speaking up, loudly! There is only so much the voices of ordinary women can effect.

[deydododatdodontdeydo]

And no. Not surely enough given the absolute scandal of the number of rape case that make it to court.

Well, as others have said, it's not the judge who makes the decision, so it seems unlikely there will be a correlation.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

@deydododatdodontdeydo

I doubt anyone has looked for such data. There may not be enough data to make meaningful analysis - given the relatie paucity of women judges in general

Government statistocs as at April 20201 39% of all judges (courts and tribunals combined) were women.

I wouldn't call 39% a paucity. OK, it's not 50% but that's a lot of female judges - surely enough for meaningful data.

Pity you chose to ignore the last part of that second para.

In the courts, there was a lower representation of women in the more senior posts (29% for the High Court and above).

And no. Not surely enough given the absolute scandal of the number of rape case that make it to court.

[RedCandyApple]

Loads of women still blame the victim, I was sexually assaulted on holiday and my own sister said “dress like a slut, get treated like one” I’m not convinced women are much better

[CorneliusVetch]

Sure have read female jurors less sympathetic in rape cases overall. Loads of women judge rape victims harshly. Loads victim blame. Loads say concern for male family members being falsely accused, seen a lot on here

Yeah, I don’t practice in crime but my colleagues who do say that for a rape trial, more women on the jury is good for the defence, not the prosecution.

[BigSandyBalls2015]

It prob wouldn't make any difference. I've heard loads of horrendous comments from female acquaintances/colleagues over the years about cases like this.

A 25 year old man accused of raping a 15 year old neighbour .... "well it wasn't her first, she's always got a fella on the go".

The case of the teacher and the 15 year old who went off to France ..."she threw herself at him, some of these girls go off to school dressed like hookers".

Even in the case of Sarah Everard ... we were discussing it at work and a female colleague piped up "Well, she shouldn't have even been out, with the covid restrictions that were in place at the time" ..... christ that was her first thought about that truly awful incident.

I could go on and on but It is truly depressing.j

[deydododatdodontdeydo]

I doubt anyone has looked for such data. There may not be enough data to make meaningful analysis - given the relatie paucity of women judges in general

Government statistocs as at April 20201 39% of all judges (courts and tribunals combined) were women.

I wouldn't call 39% a paucity. OK, it's not 50% but that's a lot of female judges - surely enough for meaningful data.

[Waitwhat23]

The concept of jury theory has rather tickled my interest as a layperson and I've ended up down quite a rabbit hole of jury theory research.

There's an interesting discussion regarding the judge's closing remarks to a jury and their comprehension of those remarks influencing which way the verdict goes.

The main studies I have found regarding juries are 'Are Juries Fair?' (2010)
www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf

More recent and focusing mainly on the uniquely Scottish verdict of 'not proven', there is the Scottish Government's Scottish Jury Research (2019) - www.gov.scot/news/scottish-jury-research/ which used mock juries in order to undertake the research.

Both studies do make the point about juror comprehension of the points made by the judge. In 'Are Juries Fair', it was noted that a written summary of the judge’s directions on the law given to jurors at the time of the judge’s oral instructions improved juror comprehension of the law. In the Scottish research,various methods are considered in increasing juror comprehension - www.gov.scot/publications/methods-conveying-information-jurors-evidence-review/pages/2/

This thesis is interesting in terms of assessing how introducing 'narrativism' might improve juror comprehension.
orca-mwe.cf.ac.uk/56293/1/Sally%20Nelson%20PhD%20Thesis%20final.pdf

My knowledge of the court system in England and Wales is limited so I found these two parts rather interesting in terms of the jury facing barriers in terms of asking questions or clarifying legal terminology -

'for example, jurors are not permitted
to ask questions directly to witnesses (though they may do so through a written note to the judge), they may not ask questions during the judge’s summing up of the law (though they may subsequently send notes from the jury room), they do not usually have access to a written transcript of the trial in the jury room, and they do not always hear evidence in a temporal, sequential order.'

'This question of comprehensibility of jury instructions in England and Wales
might be more than simply speculative. In R v. Schofield [1993] after giving a verdict
of guilty for affray, one member of the jury told the court usher that the jury had not
understood the meaning of affray and had written a note to that effect but had not
felt able to hand it to the judge. This was to some extent confirmed by the finding of
a note in the jury room reading: ‘we would like a full definition of affray’. It seems
that there was, at least, a real risk that the jury convicted the defendant without
properly understanding the relevant law.'

One thing it mentions which I hadn't realised is that 'formulation of the judges’ instructions in England and Wales is considerably at the discretion of the judge, and regardless of how complex or time consuming it might potentially be, English judges are free to change the wording of their instructions within certain guidelines' - this is referring to the Crown Court Bench Book, which gives guidance rather than instruction and is less prescriptive than the system in US courts. However, I am unsure if the recent publication of the Crown Court Compendium replaces the Bench Book in it's entirety or simply the Specimen Directions of the previous publications.

I thought this was interesting in terms of the difficulties of undertaking research into juries - www.ucl.ac.uk/judicial-institute/sites/judicial-institute/files/myths_misunderstandings_mistakes_powerpoint.pptx

[greasyshoes]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46207304

In the trial, the defence lawyer told the jury: "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

That quote spread like wildfire across the internet. Many people however were completely oblivious to the fact that a woman said it.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

He was found not guilty by the jury; not the judge.

I am fully aware of that. I am not an idiot.

It is never the judge's role to believe or not believe what the accused or witnesses said

My point was that the defence was allowed by the judge who is the arbiter of what constitutes a legal defence. as per all the regs (ask a barrister for the numbers).

Defences are filed prior to the hearing. So the judge allowed this as a valid defence, the law allows this as a valid defence. THAT WAS MY POINT!

Did I really have to explain that?

[ProfessorSlocombe]

@KimikosNightmare

Say there is an unfair law passed by a corrupt government (it becomes a criminal offence to put food in your recycling bin punishable by 50 years in prison, for example), and someone is in court for it. The jury can refuse to convict even though that person might be demonstrably guilty

Recently seen happening. The Bristol 4 were demonstrably guilty of what they were charged with.

or their defence that the statue was causing distress was accepted.

UK juries don't need to explain their workings. Whether that's a good or a bad thing is another matter.

[Felix125]

I've said it before on here - some victims of rape don't want to take it to court. They don't want to re-live the the incident again and again six months down the line.

They are happy to report it to the police, but want to put themselves first and are not too bothered what happens to the suspect at the end.

This often skews the detection/conviction figures and presents the overview that the system isn't putting the victim first in all of this.

[CheeseMmmm]

General comment. Can't read article. Would be interested who by, who has called for this, how well known they are etc.

IME often pieces about rape trials and that sort of thing. Flagging a suggested change. Which is extreme/counterproductive/vv flawed/off the charts ludicrous.

Are published as clickbait. To get everyone nice and steamed up about how bonkers/man hating/detached from reality/etc feminists are.

Dunno in this example but invariably turns out suggestion was made by little known/ totally random person with no group behind idea, no clout, no one much listening to them.. But you know. Great stuff to stir the pot!

Always bear that in mind.

Yes things need to change.
How?
Fuck knows.

Certainly tweaks have been suggested which sound ok.
Change things so things like victim of CSE aged 14 or something being cross examined for 3 days IIRC by 12 different barristers. One for each defendant (IE in court charged with raping her etc). I remember some outrageous questions put to her.

Create specialist courts for sex offences?

Something around defendant history? Seems bizarre that can have been convicted of loads of sex offences over long period and that's not relevant. As each case on own merits.

I understand the theory but in practice seems bizarre when that sort of history.

Have read sex offences although not allowed to raise sex history victim etc. Need judge to allow. First thing defence goes for and if get ok then they know vv likely not guilty.

More evidence over video?

I mean I don't know.

And the whole process. Hardly any cases at all get as far as court. So unless that sorted out. Women girls feel obv report to police. Police do anything. CPS. Then what happens in court is in itself minimal improvement.

[CheeseMmmm]

Imo terrible idea.

The judges will be subject to extreme scrutiny from loads of different people/groups. Past judgements, personal background, any evidence of feminist leanings. Every decision challenged. Non stop attention, challenges, muck taking, efforts to undermine or smear.

Plus I'm sure endless threats and some genuine risk.
---

Sure have read female jurors less sympathetic in rape cases overall. Loads of women judge rape victims harshly. Loads victim blame. Loads say concern for male family members being falsely accused, seen a lot on here.

Idea women less biased doesn't hold.
And don't forget loads men know what men can be like. Worry about women girls they know or love. Find sexual attack revolting thing for man to do.

I would definitely not assume women less bias than men at all.
----

Law got to be male dominated. For female judge. Would they even want to do this?

Loads of attention etc as mentioned earlier. Could well be seen as negative to have what cases preside over being skewed in range. Might be sort of dumped long term as rape judge.
----

What about when men/boys are victims?
-

I think awful idea full stop.

Something needs to change but not this.

Final note. In the case mentioned in article with USA swimmer. It was passing blokes who noticed something, went to have a look, and acted. Stopping the attack. Just a thought.

PS article couldn't read all didn't want to register.

[KimikosNightmare]

Say there is an unfair law passed by a corrupt government (it becomes a criminal offence to put food in your recycling bin punishable by 50 years in prison, for example), and someone is in court for it. The jury can refuse to convict even though that person might be demonstrably guilty

Recently seen happening. The Bristol 4 were demonstrably guilty of what they were charged with.

[KimikosNightmare]

[quote CuriousaboutSamphire]Oh, and it worked. He was cleared

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3361640/Saudi-millionaire-cleared-raping-teenager-telling-court-accidentally-penetrated-18-year-old-tripped-fell-her.html[/quote]
He was found not guilty by the jury; not the judge.

It is never the judge's role to believe or not believe what the accused or witnesses said

[SantaClawsServiette]

[quote EmpressCixi]@CuriousaboutSamphire

Exactly. If defence was lies wrapped in tissue paper as we suspect and the jury was too intellectually challenged to understand that, then perhaps a better solution would be for U.K. to move to having professional, trained and certified jurors instead of the random lottery system where citizens are selected and receive zero training that we have now?

So many cases have baffling outcomes. And usually it’s down to a jury going rogue.[/quote]
That sounds like an awful idea to me, you might as well get rid of the whole idea of a jury. Who would get to decide what a jury should be taught, who gets credentialed?

The random selection of people who reflect society as a whole is kind of the whole point.

[Lockheart]

Judges don't convict people. Accused citizens are tried by a jury of their peers. The judge passes a sentence in accordance with the verdicts returned by the jury (which has an absolute right to hand down any verdict it chooses) and judges are, for the most part, bound by sentencing guidelines.

It is important that those accused are tried by a jury of their peers - it is a key principle of our law that allows people to express dissatisfaction with the laws as they stand, for example if they are too harsh. Say there is an unfair law passed by a corrupt government (it becomes a criminal offence to put food in your recycling bin punishable by 50 years in prison, for example), and someone is in court for it. The jury can refuse to convict even though that person might be demonstrably guilty. The judge might just convict them on the facts of the case, if there was no jury.

This is why we have trial by jury. The citizens of the land collectively decide who is guilty of crimes - not one person. It's a really, really important element of our legal system.

So the sex of the judge is unlikely to result in an increase of successful rape convictions.

One suggestion I have seen, which I think would be extremely useful, would be to provide juries with verbatim transcripts of the court proceedings. Then there can be little room for debate when the jury retires to consider their verdict. It is so easy to misremember what someone said, especially when there is so much information to take in: counselofperfection.blogspot.com/2018/10/word-for-word-measure-for-measure-more.html?m=1

[EmpressCixi]

@CuriousaboutSamphire

I haven’t read much either on it. But I do visualise training courses where any citizen would go to say a weeks training in general jury knowledge and then could go on and get a separate juror certificate for the different types of crime. So, to be on a jury for rape, you’d need to have a certificate showing you’d been trained specifically on rape- on the statutory law, case law, rape myths, types of evidence and how strong or weak they are and so on. The same for say, fraud. So that all the jurors would have a decent knowledge base and also not prone to going with “gut feeling” and deciding guilty/not guilty based on how much they like or dislike the defendant or plaintiff.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

I haven't read much about the theory of juries @EmpressCixi but, having been on a couple (including one quite long and compliacted case of fraud) , I don't think there would be much difference in outcomes. There are as many opinions and ways of fucking up a verdict as there are people.

I did read one sad piece of anecdata many years ago. That a juror is likely to make up their mind before all / any of the evidence is heard based on their initial response to the sight of the plaintiff.

Given what I heard during my jury experience I have often wondered if it would be possible to do any meaningful research on that around UK juries.

[EmpressCixi]

@CuriousaboutSamphire

Exactly. If defence was lies wrapped in tissue paper as we suspect and the jury was too intellectually challenged to understand that, then perhaps a better solution would be for U.K. to move to having professional, trained and certified jurors instead of the random lottery system where citizens are selected and receive zero training that we have now?

So many cases have baffling outcomes. And usually it’s down to a jury going rogue.

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

I don't think it would actually work @GreenWheat

Mainly because of the paucity of female judges.

But also because, here in the UK, England, at least, justice is supposed to be blind. The individual judge is almost meaningless in law, if not in reality. Just as the individual jurors are - connection/bias towards the case excepted.

But it is an interesting discussion point.

[GreenWheat]

Where would you draw the line on what this (massively impractical and presumptive) idea is getting at? Namely that it suggests there are some cases whereby a judge who is more likely to sympathise with the defendant should be replaced by one more likely to sympathise with the plaintiff?

[CuriousaboutSamphire]

I learnd from some of the best. most now sadly banned for being too 'FWR'. And am still a novice. Some of the reams of data some regular FWR posters provide at the drop of a hat is absolutely mind blowing.