"consent" on channe 4 last night -am stunned there isnt a thread

[CODNoMore]

werent the JUry terrible?
theri deliberations were POINT Less and not based onevidence at all
if we deliberated like that in cout we'd be chucked out
intersting how the women were (with one guardian reader excepetion- hooray to her)the most veneomous and unforgiving. God that lot would haev been shaving heads of collaberators in ww2

and hte Indian woman was useless as she coudltn get away fromt eh fact that the woman had had sex full stop.

Well I am on 'the list' at the moment prettybird so if I get called I'll let you know if I agree.

scares me!

i didnt see this myself but thought those of you that did might be inrterested in this rapist changes plea after C4 programme

thats the first time ive done a link and it's worked

He knew he would get potted more like - and was hoping for a lesser sentence.

oh dont get me started...

This is one of the few crimes where the victim is put on trial alongside the defendant.

Would like to see it though. Will check out More4, see if its being replayed.

As for the guy that changed his plea....

Im fascinated by the psychology behind a rapist and his actions. Was particularly intrigued by this young man's assertion that he didnt want to put this woman through the trauma of a trial.

I videoed it and watched last night. It seemed clear to me that he was guilty - couldn't work out why she'd lie when she didn't really stand to gain anything at work and stood to lose a lot - and, like the rest of you, was appalled by the jury and their so-called deliberations. How can those women honestly believe it's ok to think 'Well, I wouldn't have reacted like that to rape and so she must be lying'?! Agree with earlier poster - if I ever found myself in a similar situation, I would not report it after seeing this. What would be the point?

It reminded me of when I was much much younger and was in a similar situation with a guy (both been drinking, etc) but changed my mind; he just accepted it and backed off instantly. I didn't realise at the time how lucky I was - it never occurred to me that he wouldn't. Feel a bit naive and stupid now...

yes mp that line about whats done is done for her its HIM we need to think about

Im not sure I want to watch it reading that...I mean, they are real people, right? Not actors?

How many women were on the jury?

Didn't watch it Cod. I should have but knew it would just male me furious to the point of madness.

What about the celebrity jury to come too? The world is mad - bring back crown court

It was about half and half, VVV - but the really offensive women were the hard-faced ones who seemed to be in their mid-thirties and decided that the woman was making it up because she a) didn't report the rape straight away and b) wasn't injured enough or hadn't injured the rapist enough or something...They weren't making much sense tbh.

so about 6 women then?

You'd think, based on the statistics of abuse and rape, that those women would know someone pretty close at hand (if not themselves) who has been in a similar situation.

This lack of empathy is stunning.

Women are generally less sympathetic than men on jury service. we judge other women more harshly than men do. Unfortunately.

The scary thing is that one of the women claimed she had been in a similar situation and didn't believe the victim of the rape in the programme because she hadn't reacted like this jury woman had. Sorry for confusing sentence there. Apparently, all women have to react the same or they're lying - according to this woman anyway.

I thought he was guilty throughout, there was something about him that just looked wrong and was disappointed by the jury and their pathetic deliberation.

BUT

It really got me thinking! From a legal point of view was enough evidence to convict him?? You can only convict someone of a crime if you are certain of their guilt. The summation of the defence barrister was correct, you can't base your decision on "probably did it"... what if he hadn't done it, and my gut instinct was wrong... what then?

Well, either you believe one's version of events or the other Ready. So, as such, if you dont believe his version of events, then you must believe the victim's version. Or vice versa.

The point is, not to assume what may or may not have happened, or what could or should have happened. You go by the evidence presented. Witness statement or testimony is classed as evidence both for and against.

Thats the theory, anyway.....

When I did jury service there was whisper of a case involving child abuse. Most jurors didnt want to sit on it. Mostly because they felt they may be compelled to convict "just in case". It's utterly the reverse in rape cases. People seem to want to scrutinise the trustworthyness of the victim so much more.

It seems awful that the woman had to stand trial even though she was the victim. I got terribly upset for her (and she was only acting!) that she had to describe things in front of everyone. DH kept saying to me that the defence were just doing their job, but it felt awful. Like they were trying to catch her out.

I would be terrified to sit on a jury for any case, because I would always worry that I would get it wrong.

Not sure that was terribly clear - the woman was being treated as if she was on trial... iyswim?? being interogated like that.

the jury were awful, but imo utterly believable. loved the greek (?) guy and the brunette. the two blondes seemed to be coming from a place of 'i've been raped and dealt with it...this bitch should have fought him off better'.

awful.

seemed to me that the 'system' in terms of the police treating it seriously and CPS more willing to prosecute has got better....but society has not moved an iota.

really really depressing telly.