Majority verdict FFS

[grimbletart]

www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/local/rapist-given-life-for-sex-attacks-on-barmaid-walking-home-1-6483784

Also reported by several national newspapers.

By all standards this was a sexual offence right at the top end of the scale of horrible. It has all the elements that even rape apologists might think would make it an open and shut case plus it had a racial aggravation element to it (even though some deny that black on white racism is not really racism - but that's an argument for another thread).

Yet he was found guilty only by a majority verdict. We know there are rape apologists out there who think what rapist Chad Evans did was not rape, so there are people inclined never to believe woman no matter what.

But that case I've linked to leaves me asking what the hell has a woman to do to get a rape conviction if even that nightmare attack only gets a majority verdict?

No. It's offensive.

And I think you are baby sitting someone more intelligent than you think.

I've reported it.

@ Cailin 'the OP isn't about helicopters'.

OK yussetec: I will type this very very slowly so that you can keep up.

How do you think there was only a majority (i.e. not unanimous) guilty verdict for an unprovoked sexual attack that involved the abduction by a stranger that led to a three hour ordeal for this young woman where she had clearly called for help?

I know logical thinking may be difficult for you but have a go at explaining why one (or more) jurors might have thought he was not guilty?

That would be so much more helpful than wondering whether a helicopter would be despatched to help a man in trouble. It would by the way (I volunteer for a helicopter rescue service so I can assure you it happens all the time).

yussetec since when was pushing the men's agenda unbiased? You keep using this term without posting considerations from both genders which is needed for an "unbiased" opinion. Correct?

I recently served on two juries and on both of them there was a single person who disagreed with the majority (they did change their mind after a while) for one of them it wasn't a matter of not believing the evidence, it was just that they thought it was unfair to the defendant ????

I've never been called for jury service, but aren't you meant to decide whether the evidence proves they're guilty of breaking a specific crime? Isn't it the judge's job to work out what is fair punishment if they've then been found guilty?

Sometimes I think there needs to be more research on how juries work, which I believe isn't currently allowed - I guess it would be a bit Schroedinger's cat, anyway - observing how a jury works will affect how it works.

I have, Ebear.

I think if all juries were subject to a "debate may be recorded for training purposes" warning, it wouldn't make a difference.

Yes, you have to consider the specific crime. Think the judge can direct if alternative outcomes are possible (for example, manslaughter and murder)

ebear

We all saw the evidence and it was a bit of a tricky case so not very clear cut

The person on the jury didn't care about the evidence she just thought the police were being very unfair...we did have a unanimous decision in the end and the judge was incredibly clear about what we should do

A policeman I spoke to later said that when he sat on a jury it had been a real eye opener and explained a lot

Since they were all majority verdicts I wonder if there was an "objector" if the "police are all liars so will acquit whatever" mould present.

I do not think enough guidance is given to juries. We wanted to understand a peripheral issue in our case, this led to the whole court being reconvened purely for the judge to tell us that he couldn't advise us. Then we felt quite silly.

I imagine it's like the problem with democracy is that everyone gets a vote...

I remember my mother saying she was glad that she hadn't got a difficult case like rape - and also that she basically made her mind up from the start, and was then listening to the evidence waiting for things that would show her instincts were right - but at least she recognised that was happening. Also - hers was a fairly straight-forward burglary case - she realised that while most of them thought that being out in a van at 3am with a load of tools like crowbars in the back, that could also describe my farmer father if he went out in his landrover because the cattle had got out in the night or something. Although my father didn't usually have a catapult there.

Anyway, back on topic - I don't know the details of the evidence, having not been in court, but going by the newspaper article, it's hard to see how that could have been anything other than a unanimous verdict.

In our case, we took so long to decide that the judge sent through to say he would accept a majority verdict. In the end he was surprised that it was unanimous.

(For us, there was more than one perpetrator and a lot of the discussion was around what was meant by beyond reasonable doubt with respect to who had done exactly which deed. We all agreed that the crime had happened and the defendants were involved)

We took a vote to see if we were over the majority number and we found we all agreed; had we not, we'd've gone back in with a majority verdict; but I think or wouldn't have been unanimous if we had been asked a bit earlier.

Interestingly, one juror thought the judge would change the verdict if we got it wrong- I had to explain that wasn't the case...

I wonder how many judges wish they could change the verdict, and want to slap their head when it's given...

On one of our cases the Judge told the defendent that he felt that we had been "very generous" to him

I did feel like I was being told off!!

Good god Yves those are depressing.

What's wrong with people? I remember thinking when a Warrington man was beaten to death by teenagers when he stopped them from scratching cars or some such, was there not one person on that street who at least would have called the coppers for him? Not to mention helped?

Off topic a bit, sorry.

Awful. That poor girl, how can anyone listen to that evidence and decide he's innocent. What else do they need ffs.

Lemon, one juror may have felt that guilt wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt. That's slightly different to thinking the perpetrator innocent.

Well at least the verdict was a majority and he's been locked away now.