Crimes against women

I hope you dont mind a bloke commenting on a feminism topic but i can relate to your jury service experience. back in 1997 i was on jury sevice, we had a case where a foster parent had been accused of sexual assault of a girl in his care. It was pretty much his word against hers, and he had good character references so we (reluctantly) aquitted him. after the verdict he burst into tears and hugged his wife, we were then read out additional information that this girl had track record of making dozens of such accusations against foster families and hence kept getting moved on.

at the time i thought it was wonderful that they let each case be tried on its own merits without previous incidents prejudicing it. ive since done a 180. both in that case and yours.

Ah, awkward wording at the end there. what i mean is that i now believe peoples previous track records should totally be relevant in any new proceedings. i think the justice system gets it wrong

I've done jury duty twice and I'm amazed that anyone is convicted of anything. The other jurors kept focusing on the fact that the defendant 'looked like a nice boy' and was wearing a suit.

Leave aside he had a machete in a public place and was clearly a gang member. We did find him guilty in the end.

Well done for doing it though op - I'm not sure I could do a sexual offences trial.

I know someone who was a juror on a rape/kidnapping case.

The jury was instructed to return a not guilty verdict due to an error in how a piece of evidence had been handled. Had the jury found the rapist guilty, he would have successfully won an appeal under that specific loophole.

The juror in question now has so little faith in the legal system when it comes to survivors. He's seen first hand just how easy it is for someone to "get away with it."

When it comes to sex offences committed by men against women, girls. And men who have sex with men. It's a different thing to any other crime.

The person assaulted/ dead is looked at for reasons it happened. Multiple examples of serial rapists carrying on for ages. Serial killers being missed because of who their victims were. The police just... Not giving a fuck.

Of course for those lucky enough to live in London, for the last few decades the met themselves have been keen rapists, murderers etc..

I too find it odd that a woman who has been raped has been having her phone confiscated by police for them to trawl through whatever they want, to whatever level of detail they want, they can ask for her medical and psychological therapy notes and even school reports from 10 years ago. She can be questioned in courts on all of that and on intimate details of her life prior to the assault and about how she dealt with it afterwards. All to put together a case about whether she's believable. And from what I've been led to understand, this isn't done with the same tenacity for male victims.

But it's not possible to state that the accused has a conviction for the same or similar crimes.

I can see the benefit in not tarnishing one claim with another: it makes a guilty verdict stronger. I can see that if wouldn't be relevant in most cases to bring up a conviction for petty theft in a rape case, for example. But if they actively look and use against the accuser/victim at her patterns of behaviour since childhood, then there can be no real reason to ignore proven patterns of behaviour in the case of the accused.

Classic misogyny embedded in action. Women complainants are questioned about every aspect of their past lives, as if consenting to sex with one male once is consenting to sex with every male always. Men are not so questioned, and their rights to privacy are sooo much more valued. As are their rights in general, in fact.

But it's not possible to state that the accused has a conviction for the same or similar crimes

The Criminal Justice System in this country is in tatters in many ways - but I don't see how making stuff up, like the above, helps.

Sawdust well I believe that the jury is not supposed to be told of prior convictions for the same/similar crime - such as happened in this case (otherwise why wouldn't a jury be told that the defendant has multiple convictions for similar crimes?). I'm not "making it up", it's what I understood to be true.

If that's not true, please correct. It would be far more helpful in helping people understand than a snarky comment.

The law is contained in s101 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003

Defendant’s bad character
(1)In criminal proceedings evidence of the defendant’s bad character is admissible if, but only if—
(a) all parties to the proceedings agree to the evidence being admissible,
(b) the evidence is adduced by the defendant himself or is given in answer to a question asked by him in cross-examination and intended to elicit it,
(c) it is important explanatory evidence,
(d) it is relevant to an important matter in issue between the defendant and the prosecution,
(e)it has substantial probative value in relation to an important matter in issue between the defendant and a co-defendant,
(f)it is evidence to correct a false impression given by the defendant, or
(g)the defendant has made an attack on another person’s character.
(2)Sections 102 to 106 contain provision supplementing subsection (1).
(3)The court must not admit evidence under subsection (1)(d) or (g) if, on an application by the defendant to exclude it, it appears to the court that the admission of the evidence would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings that the court ought not to admit it.
(4)On an application to exclude evidence under subsection (3) the court must have regard, in particular, to the length of time between the matters to which that evidence relates and the matters which form the subject of the offence charged.

I've been pre-hearing applications in Court under subsection(3) to exclude defendant's previous convictions, sometimes successfully sometimes not - so I know that it is possible to have such history disclosed at the trial of the defendant's past.

While I agree our criminal justice system is somewhat broken, especially when it comes to sexual crimes, I think there is a huge risk with prior convictions being allowed in that someone who had been convicted once would become a scapegoat for any similar crime they were in the vicinity of. We’d end up convicting the wrong person a lot and the right person would not be pursued at all.

There are situations where this would be less of a risk - cases where the accused can’t be the wrong person, it’s a question of were the actions a crime or was it an accident/the other person lying/a misunderstanding, etc. - though many convicts are somewhat vulnerable (abuse victims/low IQ/brought up in care/etc.) and could be targeted and set up by someone twisted.

I think there are a lot of steps that could be taken to improve the criminal justice system that don’t create such a fundamental weakness. A better handle on what it is reasonable to ask victims would be a good start. But I also think, especially with sexual crimes, police could do more in investigations by putting significantly more resources into it and treating almost all such crimes as serial ones from the start so they go in with the intent of finding other victims and building a case on a pattern of behaviour rather than a one off incident.

It feels frustrating, but I think it's important to remember that these kinds of rules are put in place because they are protective in very important ways.

Think about the past when it was quite common for people to convict or arrest based mainly on their perception that the accused was in fact a bad person, had done this kind of thing before.

When it comes right down to it, that kind of knowledge can't tell us that an individual was responsible for a particular crime. A guy could be a horrible known abuser, rapist, whatever, and still not be the person who commited a particular rape that happened around the corner from his house. Not only would it be unjust to convict in that case, it would mean the real perpetrator would go unpunished.

In general, people need to be convicted on the evidence, not because of what they did before.

Perhaps we need some lawyers (barristers?) in cases that aren't sex-crimes to question the victims in a similar way to the (victim blaming) way women are questioned in rape trials?

"but you bought a shiny red sports car, you must have known it would be come the target of thieves? Why didn't you buy a grey station wagon instead?"

To show the ridiculousness of it all.