Is this why domestic abusers walk free?

[ThedaBara]

A friend was just on a jury for a DV case. She said that there were two 'mens rights activist' types on the jury who just would not agree that the man was guilty, would not listen to reason, disregarded all the evidence. After days of being stuck in a room with them the other jurors changed their vote just to go home. They'd all missed a couple of weeks of work already and couldn't afford to keep sitting there. The judge was disappointed and gave the man a restraining order (why would an innocent man need a restraining order!).
Apparently the perpetrators defense regularly asks for a jury trial rather than a magistrates court trial because they know their chances are better. How can women get a fair trial in front of a jury made up of members of an increasingly misogynistic society?

Yes, this is absolutely why. The whole justice system is complicit. From juries to judges - misogyny is baked right in.

Unfortunately this is the world we live in

This is on the other jurors surely. Stubborn men is not any reason to change your decision. Why didn’t they take explain the predicament to the judge?

It's an excellent question. I was watching a documentary on rape and the UK and there was a case where a man was accused by three separate women of the same type of offence and he was found not guilty.

There's a really good series which enacts a murder trial, the accused was an actor but everyone else wasn't. You could see the jury deliberate and it was dominated by a man, firmly of the belief that the defendant was innocent. All the women voted guilty and the men innocent.

Rape trials are often skewed by rape myths and victim blaming. When I was on a jury, the deliberation was a joke.

That’s horrific. I’ve recently finished jury service and I was selected for two DV trials. The first one collapsed due to the complainant themselves becoming an unreliable witness. The second was successful. I can hand on heart say everyone of us was invested in giving a fair outcome. I wish that was the same for everyone.

Unfortunately jury selection is random, and you get what you get from the pool on the day.

But unfortunately the reality is that people need to go to work to pay their bills and a lot of employers won't pay your salary while you're on a jury, you only get expenses. How long would you be prepared to take off work?
And it's not like they could have gone to the judge and said - we correctly thing the man is guilty, but these two don't

What do you mean predicament? That's the fundamental basis of jury trials. You deliberate until you all agree, or at least a majority that the judge will accept. They won't just accept a majority unless it's absolutely unavoidable. If you tell the judge that 2 say not guilty and 10 say guilty you get sent back to deliberate further.

It's too difficult to say without having been there. There are some vile men but also plenty of individuals that will call somebody an MRA for arguing that men should get fair treatment.

Look at out current rape conviction statistics. It's not men who are being treated unfairly.

This goes alongside a huge problem with who is eligible for a jury trial for VAWG or sexual.assault. My friend was on a rape trial and a large chunk of potential female jurors were excused as they had experienced either sexual assault or domestic violence. Then she herself was swapped out when she found the images distressing.

So the juries are disproportionately male and have the opposite background a victim would want, not being upset or triggered by rape. Who does that leave?

For something as common as male sexual abuse of women, jury trials are not the best solution.

The threshold for evidence for a crime to be brought before a court is very high, so much so that prosecutors will only bother when they have enough to prove their case, which in a DV case would be horrific injuries.
You really don't need to be the devils advocate, the devil has enough advocates

It's truly shocking. I don't know what the alternative is but the jury system is clearly not delivering justice in many scenarios.

A good friend of mine was left deeply troubled following his experience as a juror in a CSA case. Ten of the 12 jurors immediately decided that the defendant guilty, essentially based on the fact that he looked the type. There was zero understanding of objectivity or interest in properly deliberating the evidence.

My friend and the other guy who actually took the responsibility seriously did also eventually come to the conclusion that he was guilty, but only after carefully following the process that they had been instructed on. Everyone else was just gleefully saying "I knew it! You can always tell!".

As I said it really shook his confidence in our justice system.

The jury system does not work. Why the U.K. is so wedded to it I do not understand. I have some (limited) experience of the Scandinavian justice system where most trials are a professional judge sitting with two ‘jurors’.

if I was innocent the last people I’d want deciding my case would be 12 random people - give me a professional judge anytime. However if I was guilty …….

The other tricky part is that by law you are not allowed to discuss anything that goes on in the deliberation room. So your friend has effectively broken the law by disclosing that.

The jury system is supposed to be the best system but like anything random, it will have good and bad days.

I suppose AI will be deciding cases in the not too distant future.

I think we have gone past the point where the jury system is safe/effective. The level of stupidity, ignorance, prejudice, misogyny and the amount of awful stuff on social media has rendered a huge proportion of the public unsuitable to serve on a jury.

Juries were a brilliant idea in the Middle Ages, an important safeguard against tyrannical kings and lords. That doesn't mean we can't improve on them in the twenty-first century.

I used to work on rape cases and found that the harshest critics of rape victims were other women, as much as men. It was very disturbing.

I was on the jury for a rape trial. Everybody took the trial very seriously.indeed and there was no division of opinion along the lines of sex. The defendant was heading for jail until the complainant burst out with information which she had withheld before. In the end she cast doubt on her own credibility and the.verdict was Not Proven.

So you have just described my case

There was so much evidence against him

Hospital reports
His sister even spoke out about what he did !!!!

His ex partner was called he tried ti kill her

Tried to kill me
Attacked a police man

You name it

Well he walked off
Free as a bird

He did get. 20 year restraining order though
Fck these abusers

Misogynist judge too

DH did jury service when I first knew him, it was a long 3 week case of a complex fraud. One was sent down and the other who had been coerced was let off.

Dh is well educated and can critically think, also a fair and equitable person. The fact anyone can be called for service is both its strength and weakness.

I watched 12 Angry Men when I was a teenager and that sums it all up really though in that case justice was done,

I always remember conversations about how people who had experienced sexual assault should be excluded from juries on SA cases as they couldn't be impartial - but there was never a corresponding suggestion that anyone who had ever committed SA be excluded. Same for domestic abuse I guess.

Exactly. Sounds like an excuse to me and a judge can take a 10 -2 majority verdict if they think that's fair.

I am so so sorry you experienced this! I can't believe where we are as a society. I don't think people who haven't personally been touched by something like this appreciate just how little the judicial system will do to help them

I worked for the police and found the same, I'd be very wary of some of the women I worked with. I found it really uncomfortable. In my 17 years there I only heard one male officer say something unpleasant about a rape case snd the DCI went ballistic.

@ThedaBara it's odd because when I weigh up the evidence
The texts where he said sorry for hitting me
The hospital reports

I felt good this is it
Justice will be served

Even the barrister said he will need to pack a case for jail soon

When I got the verdict I was like someone is tricking me
Not possible

But now when I look at the system
The system is built to let these losers off

And the judge was a vile mysogonist

I have no doubt about it

But what can I do
Nothing

We have a good restraining order to at least that much
Plus he had to stand on a dock and explain what he did and why

Anyone know if these losers in good jobs have to pay for their barrister?
No doubt he got it all free even though he earns above 60k

Mmmmmmmm