Samuel Armstrong cleared of Rape.

[Londoner11]

twitter.com/SkyNewsBreak/status/943848247310934021

That example LangCleg gave ties in with what people who have sat on juries have told me. They can get very distressed by it, especially in rape cases and can be offered counselling afterwards (depending on area/funding).

No one wants innocent people jailed but as a pp said beyond reasonable doubt allows rape with impunity. So there's a conversation to be had about how conviction rates can be improved.

Also conversation to be had about police handling, incompetence? Malicious? Or just overstretched with not enough funding/resources?

I like the suggestion for legal aid for civil case, but again funding.

QuentinSummers are there ever successfull convictions for rape within marriage?

It is almost impossible to prove innocence in such a case or guilt beyond doubt which is why in a he said she said scenario in crimes like rape (excluding when people get dragged off the street when there tends to be physical evidence) that the conviction rape is low. I don’t think it should be 50:50 though. The only way around it is to change the definition of the crime or do what Sweden is proposing which is interesting and look forward to seeing what happens. I know rape convictions are a huge problem but haven’t seen a sensible or workable solution so far without it meaning more innocent people are convicted also. What do we say? It’s a fair price? Like the death penalty works and the very small amount of miscarriages of justice are just collateral damage

Looks like it
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/husband-rape-wife-filmed-jailed-13414648.amp

But this report suggests just two convictions in Ireland between 1990 and 2016
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marital-rape-remains-extremely-difficult-to-prosecute-1.2734172%3fmode=amp

QuentinSummers...I guess the simple answer would be it does not mean he did not commit the offences alleged.. HOWEVER....suspicion of a crime is not proof of a crime and there is the issue. To jail some for ten years + you have to be sure "beyond reasonable doubt" that what was alleged to have happened did in fact happen. Having sat on a jury (not a rape case hasten to add) the judge will be very clear that the jury be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the evidence supports the conviction. In the case discussed the jury took the view that the evidence did not support a conviction....not least I suspect as she chose to go the red tops either before or very soon after reporting to the police....not something I would imagine most rape victims would think of doing. Rape is, and probably always will be, difficult to prove in many cases where the parties concerned know each other and it is essentially the word of one against another. Sadly it will mean rapists going free. Is that preferable to innocent people spending years in jail for something they did not do?....for me...yes..although it is for society to decide I guess.

I think it might help to have a panel of judges hear the cases rather than a jury. Because hopefully then there would be less reliance on rape myths (such as the victims promiscuity/clothing) when considering the evidence

Maybe....but in this case I don't recall any suggestions regarding clothing. They were seen dancing and in seemingly high spirit beforehand. What happened in the office we shall probably never know but, based on the facts in the public domain, it is equally hard to imagine a jury of judges coming to a different conclusion. We need to jail rapists but not at the expense of locking up innocent people which is why the jury of twelve has served for the past thousand years. This jury, rightly in my view, did not find the defendant guilty. Perfect the jury system is not but I have yet to see a persuasive case for another option that is better in the round.

I think it's important to remember that the standard is beyond all reasonable doubt, not beyond all doubt whatsoever, in the sense of willing to accept the most ridiculous story imagineable. And I would argue that we have a problem with rape culture and attitudes of juries - for example the guy accused of rape who got off by claiming he tripped and fell, erect penis first, into his victim's vagina. That really should have hit the standard of "who do you think you're kidding?", but apparently in the minds of the jury it raised "reasonable doubt."

QuentinSummers How much do you think rape myths are still playing a part? People I've spoken to recently seem to think there is less problem with rape myths and more that people who have been convinced of guilt then can't convict once they've heard judges direction. None of the men I know in real life come out with rape myths, tbh I only really see people coming out with them online or from teenagers. So I don't know? Am I particularly lucky with the men I know? I thought outfit/previous relationship/behaviour was becoming dead and buried.

Shocking conviction rates from Ireland and Christ what a world we live in that you have to hope if you're raped there's video evidence.

Oh god PricklyBall I'd forgotten that case.

Cases I actually know about I'm more erring to legal problems with he said she said than juries disbelieving victims.

Most police I know are of the opinion if CPS let you anywhere near a court you're guilty.

Well I happen to believe him in this case though her behaviour seems to be partially mitigated by mental health issues which probably explains the running around crying. He would have never been found guilty anyway because of the emails about giving the story to the press

WTAF the ultimate in rape myth trial - Ched Evans. If you are a famous footballer, women are bound to want to have sex with you, no need to ask them.

Or this case www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.express.co.uk/news/uk/669777/student-aquitted-rape-woman-mistakes-him-for-friend/amp

There seems to be a lot of juries thinking a woman who's had sex with someone before must be up for it again, or with his friend.

Or I just found this gem where the older man asked a girl how old she was, she said 15, he said too young, she said oh sorry I'm 16 and he believed it. Apparently. Not guilty of statutory rape and unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl.

www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/not-guilty-bath-man-toby-309125.amp

Quentin Ched Evans was that the 15 year old or the woman who lost her handbag?

Men I know thought both of them were scumbags, but I do remember awful things written on here.

That second link you posted though Quentin under 16 how is that even up for discussion?

That was the woman who lost her handbag and went back to a hotel with a guy called Clayton MacDonald. He text Ched to say he'd "got a bird". Ched went to the hotel and had sex with the woman without exchanging one word with her. Some friends videod it through the window. When Clayton McDonald left he asked the receptionist to keep an eye on the woman because she was sick.
The next day she woke up with no idea where she was, no handbag and had wet the bed. Went to the police who figured out what had happened and charged Evans and MacDonald.
Evans got off on retrial because he said the victim had said "fuck me harder" during sex and the defence team had found a man prepared to testify that she had said "fuck me harder" to him during consensual sex.
There was suggestion of a financial inducement for him to come forward but the jury didn't get to hear that because the judge thought it was prejudicial.

Yeah, remember it now. So 12 people DID think he was guilty. I can see where you're coming from with your panel of judges idea.

There was some awful stuff said about that woman wasn't there when it was the police who had pursued the case not her.

I just googled "acquitted of rape" and am reading the results for the last year and I'm going to stop because it's upsetting me.
This guy was acquitted of rape after he was found with an unresponsive woman in a field at Glastonbury. Apparently it was consensual despite the fact she was unconscious when paramedics found her and can't remember anything
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/bristol-man-joshua-pigden-acquitted-61610.amp

This man thinks "the pendulum has swung too far" and defendants should be anonymous, after his trial collapsed when the CPS offered no evidence. The woman involved had killed herself before the trial due to suspected post traumatic stress
www.google.co.uk/amp/metro.co.uk/2017/03/20/student-acquitted-of-rape-says-accused-should-be-given-anonymity-6521980/amp/

There are always cases where one can wonder why the jury decide what they do. The evidence they hear is probably a lot more detailed than is published in the press and we should all be wary of criticism of jury decisions unless we have all the evidence to hand. The case I was on...nothing to do with sex...the judge at the very start went to great lengths to explain that we would be presented with evidence by both prosecution and defence. Some was witness and victim statements and some was documentary evidence. It was for us, the jury, to hear all the evidence presented in court and to decide based on that and that alone whether, in the round, the evidence supported the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. Reasonable is not defined so far as I know. I suspect that most of us jurors had decided the case within the first hours based on the documentary evidence alone although we listened to several days of witness evidence and cross examination before coming to our decision.
Sadly in many rape cases documentary evidence is lacking. It comes down to the word of one against another. In these cases evidence of circumstances in the hours or even minutes leading up to the alleged assault may be material to either the prosecution or defence case. Openly sexual text conversations suggesting willingness are likely to have a bearing on jury decisions although text conversation is a world away from saying yes at the time.....but then we are back to one word against another...all very tricky.

sparky here's some recent stats
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/only-one-rape-every-14-11323783.amp

One in 14 reported rapes ends in a conviction (7%). There were 41000 reported rapes.
Do you think 93% of men accused of rape are innocent?
If not that means there is a huge number of rapists walking free, and a huge number of victims who don't get justice. Plus an amount of people at risk of rape from men who should be in prison.

I don't think that's fair, no.

I think it might help to have a panel of judges hear the cases rather than a jury.

Bench trials are one way of avoiding cultural attitudes affecting jury decisions. South Africa instituted bench trials to cope with racist juries - they have assessors to assist the judge.

I think we all agree that our criminal justice system does not cope well with intimate crimes. Beyond a reasonable doubt is an almost impossible standard for crimes that take place in private. And the adversarial system is too brutal for victims, who often withdraw before a trial has even taken place.

But I think most of us acknowledge that bench trials or a lower standard of proof in criminal trials create as many problems as they solve.

I don't know what the answer is. But we have to do better.

No QuentinSummers. I do not. The conviction rates are lamentable. The person who raped my partner was never even arrested much less prosecuted or found guilty. Undoubtedly the challenge is to improve the conviction rate. It may well be that the definition of consent needs changing somehow to make clearer that those who are unable to give genuinely informed consent are seen in the eyes of the law having not consented even if the word yes was said at some point in those many cases where their assailant was known and the event happened in some sort of social situation. A jury will always realise no consent was obtained if someone is snatched off the street and raped. However most rapes do not happen that way....rapists prowling the streets are actually very rare fortunately. The majority happen in social situations that, for what ever reason, get out of control. It does not make it right but it does make it harder for a jury to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that no consent was given, or maybe implied. We need to remove the defence of implied consent somehow although getting a solution that works will not be easy. However do we want to move to a situation where anyone accused of rape is automatically locked up for many years just because someone makes the accusation. Putting innocent men in jail in order to increase the number of genuine rapists jailed cannot be the solution in my view at least...

I don't know what the answer is.

Here, in Scotland, we have a Not Proven verdict (which to me reads as "we know you did it but the Prosecution hasn't proved their case").

I think that, plus much more use of Sexual Harm Prevention Orders - eg where the Not-Innocent-but-Not-Guilty person has to comply with certain requirements, like notifying the police of any new relationship that may become sexual.

I don't see why they aren't used more often to be honest. I think they're a great thing to have as an option when someone has behaved in such a way, but the case doesn't meet the impossible standards of Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

And very important that brave women do come forward. Predatory men will repeat offend. Even if a person cannot be prosecuted or convicted for once particular incident it may help the police in indicating a trend.
In most criminal trials the jury are not permitted to know the previous criminal history of the accused. I think in cases of sexual assault and rape an exception might be made. A defendant with a history of previous accusations of sexual assault or rape, even if not criminally proven, would suggest to me as a juror that he might well be less than innocent at the very least on the latest charge...possibly controversial but maybe a way to finally convict repeat offenders. The conviction rates must be improved but we should take care to ensure it is not at the expense of the liberty of the genuinely innocent.

And very important that brave women do come forward.
Why on earth would women come forward if they were raped by someone they know? They have to go through intrusive forensic testing and interviews with the police. Their sexual history can be investigated, their private messages pawed through and evidence of consent on a regular basis obviously means consent every time. They will get hounded on social media. If theyve ever had sex before this will be evidence of their promiscuity. If they have a boyfriend, they will have been lying to protect their relationship. If it's their partner they will be being vindictive due to a bad break up. If their rapist is one of the 93% who's acquitted, there will be calls for them to be named and shamed, and imprisoned for the maximum sentence. People will make vile and derogatory comments about them on social media and in the papers.

In my opinion women who report rape are incredibly brave and doing a huge service to all women. However if their rapist is found not guilty, he's deemed to be the one who's life has been ruined. Because he had to go through due process and be found not guilty. Yeah right.

sparky I am not angry at you by the way. I am unspeakably angry at the whole situation though.

Could you do an experiment for me? Could you read comments on articles where men have been accused of rape and then comments where they have been acquitted? And see if the level of vitriol accused men get is the same or more than women when the man has been acquitted?