Rape Myths

[Situp]

So response from the MOJ is in on the petition re. Educating jurors on rape trials about the myths surrounding rapes.

The main concern seems to be that specifically educating jurors before a trial risks prejudicing them against the defendant which i can understand. Which has made me think, surely everyone should be educated on this.

Is there not scope for an advertising campaign to dispel these myths? To educate victims as well as potential jurors who may feel a rape is their fault?

There must be a way to get a fairer environment for women who have been raped to seek justice and to protect the rest of us from sexual predators?

educating jurors before a trial risks prejudicing them against the defendant

This is making me so angry. It's like some of the undisclosed evidence being deemed "prejudicial"
How is education prejudicial? How are facts and statistics about how people behave prejudicial? The whole point of the trial is establishing whether or not someone is guilty and discharging justice. If the jury don't understand the crime, how can that happen?
I'm pretty sure that in e.g. fraud trials the jury get guidance on what the implications are.

The whole system is totally stacked in favour of the men.

Well the conviction rate for rapes that reach court is approx 58%, which is higher than other reportable crimes, so I'd suggest that the MoJ are content with the level of education that juries have on the subject.

If your objection is that too few cases make it to court, then you are right, but that is a separate issue and one that has to be addressed outside the courtroom.

It's not a separate issue at all. The fact that mostly the police/CPS don't take trials to court is directly connected to the inability to get a conviction. Which is frequently influenced by rape myths.

But rape cases that get to court convict at a higher rate than other crimes?

educating jurors before a trial risks prejudicing them against the defendant

Jesus Christ - logically, that means that keeping the jurors ignorant means that they're biased against the victim!

Do people saying this stuff really hear their own words?

But rape cases that get to court convict at a higher rate than other crimes?

I don't think you understood my point.

But rape cases that get to court convict at a higher rate than other crimes?

Because they've already been filtered down to ones that have a 'realistic' chance of conviction, based on the CPS's experiences with how juries convict (which obviously includes rape myths). If you bias the sample going in, of course you bias the results going out.....

Ereshkigal

I don't think I'm getting what you are saying?

If rapes that do get to court convict at a higher rate than other crimes, how does that dissuade the police/CPS from going to court?

logically, that means that keeping the jurors ignorant means that they're biased against the victim

Ensuring men's freedom from responsibility for their actions is just way more important than ensuring women's freedom from sexual violence.

Disturblingly

Because they have already been filtered down to the one that have a 'realistic' chance of conviction

Which is what we do with nearly every other form of reportable crime due to the expense of court proceedings. It's not a conspiracy.

And educating juries won't change that, given that 'uneducated juries' seem to already convict at a rate similar to, or higher than all other types of crime.

I was here when MN set up "We Believe You" - which was set up after numerous threads of 1000 posts each, by hundreds/thousands of mumsnetters - to dispel rape myths, and encourage women to report.

MN then dealt with years of backlash from men's rights trolls - who deliberately misinterpreted the aims of the campaign.

Dispelling rape myths (which pervade our culture at every level) and encouraging rape victims to come forward isn't the same as saying every man accused is automatically guilty, or that due legal process shouldn't happen.

Just out of interest, does anyone know which other crimes have a 7% conviction rate from report to court?

The main concern seems to be that specifically educating jurors before a trial risks prejudicing them against the defendant which i can understand.

All jurors are given basic training points before a trail regarding assumptions.

Rape myths are specific to this crime because the prosecution statistics are so low and the reporting of the crime is also biased.

I would suggest that it is the barristers and judges who need to be educated on rape myths, they seem to peddle them.

Can I suggest a new petition? “Defence barristers to be forbidden from using rape myths as a defence.” Eg asking the victim why she didn’t put up a fight or scream to draw attention to the rape.
We need to keep the pressure up.

I totally agree @carroty0

@PatriarchyPersonified the issue is not that cases are filtered by the CPS, it is jow many are filtered out because the chamce of getting a conviction for any given rape case is less than 10%. Only a fraction of reported cases are taken to court.

Can I suggest a new petition? “Defence barristers to be forbidden from using rape myths as a defence.” Eg asking the victim why she didn’t put up a fight or scream to draw attention to the rape. We need to keep the pressure up.

YY. I think this would be a better thing to aim for.

How would you word the petition though?

Any feminist barristers or judges reading?

Can I suggest a new petition? “Defence barristers to be forbidden from using rape myths as a defence.”

Really good idea

Situp

But are rape cases shown to be filtered out pre trial at a disproportionatly higher rate when compared to other crimes? Because if they aren't then, again, what exactly can be done differently?

I'd expect some disparity of course because rapes often (usually?) come down to one persons word against another. The act itself often isn't up for dispute i.e both parties agree they had sex, it's just whether or not it was consensual. That is always going to be harder to prove than say burglary or driving offences where indisputable, physical evidence can play a much bigger part.

I don't know the answer to that.