Good article calling out the legal system for failing rape/sexual assault victims

[PlectrumElectrum]

[[https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/no-legal-system-isn-t-biased-against-men-it-allows-them-rape-near-impunity Newstatesman article by QC Jolyon Maugham on the legal system failing rape/sexual assault victims & allowing rapists to rape with effective impunity.

It's a great article. Would love to see some momentum behind this - I won't hold my breath though.

Clicky link;
www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2018/05/no-legal-system-isn-t-biased-against-men-it-allows-them-rape-near-impunity

That is a good article, its a must read.

(But I'm a bit baffled as I'm pretty sure that's the author who recently spoke up for Jennifer James' campaign on Twitter. - then quickly backed down. It was actually unnerving, as if he'd had a phone call from Higher Ups behind the scenes.)

didn't check I'd done the click link

It is the same QC Upstart, he's stayed well away from anything to do with trans issues since.

The most senior judge in Scotland made some interesting comments recently too.

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Rape victims 'should not attend court' says Scotland's top judge - www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-43879455

And the backlash from so called impartial legal professionals begins
ffgqc.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/rape-trials-juries/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

I promised myself I’d stick to trans threads and avoid everything else, but I had to chime in on this one.

I know jury duty is a ballache and expensive as it is, but couldn’t we send all jurors on a weeklong course to educate them on issues surrounding consent and rape myths? Also taking the opportunity to screen out any with biases either way?

I reckon Jolyon is still a closet TERF but won't be exiting the closet any time soon. I lost a lot of respect for him over that furore. But this is an excellent article.

Good idea. Juries need to bit 'fit' .

The case of the girl in Belfast shows that juries are fucking idiots imo.

and many in the senior judiciary think that defendants should lose the right to choose jury trials in cases that are too simple, such as shoplifting

Not directly related to rape trials but this comment highlights there are perfectly valid reasons for looking at the efficacy of jury trials. Whether a crime in Scotland is tried before a jury is a matter for the prosecution . No one gets to choose a jury trial and juries are used for serious offences. The criminal justice system in Scotland is generally thought of as working better than in England.

His pretending all is well with the jury system and citing the example he gives shows a closed mind.

For me a jury is a final check on wether the law itself is just or applicable in a specific case, I’d be loathe to see them go. However I do accept that rapists too often get away with it.

The QC who wrote the piece is getting a bit of a pile on from 'the guild' calling his comments/knowledge/expertise etc. into question. He's standing up for his views well though.

I think the Spanish gang rape trial is a perfect example of how jury trials are flawed. Because the judges had to explain their reasoning for Verdict. Spanish government knows exactly what led to rape acquittal i.e that if there is no physical violence and intimidation than it is not rape. It can now specifically change the law on this. That can never happen in UK where everyone has to speculate.
Speculation is something the legal profession doesn't like doing in court but is happy for people to do when it comes to thinking why a jury reaches particular verdict

Trans "for me a jury is a final check whether a law itself is just''
You just made the case why juries should be abolished. Juries are there to enforce the law as it is not to try and change it. That is what why we have a democratically elected parliament for.
I have seen comments from members of the public on newspaper websites after a rape acquittals how they will always find a man not guilty because they don't think women can be raped by their husband or they can't be raped if they are drunk.
Week long courses and directions from the judge cannot overcome decades of prejudice from family, friends and media otherwise we would be sending all sorts of people with all sorts of views to courses and we would have a much better society.

That’s not strictly speaking true. Look up Jury Nullification. If I find a law morally unjustifiable like say the old guy who killed the burgaler recently if that had ended up in court and all the evidence directed to an incontrovertible guilty position, I can still find it morally unconscionable to convict him and indeed cannot be forced to do so. I couldn’t argue for a not guilty verdict but I could argue to nullify that the law in this case/circumstance is unjust and nullify.

In short the last bastion of what justice is/means is we the people. Take that principle away and we live in a literal tyranny. No thank you.

QC Derek Ogg talking about a humane trial is beyond a joke.

I think you're right not to hold your breathe Plectrum, as long as there are those such as Ogg playing their games there will be victims left without any fair trial or justice.

There needs to be special sexual assault courts (open) with a judge plus 2 expert witnesses with all female juries. Men, on the whole (what a phrase ) just don't get this stuff and while ever we try to uphold their rights to be on juries, it will be at the expense of women. Someone needs to confront that entitlement, when men have blatantly demonstrated by their past behaviour on juries to be unsympathetic to women who are targets of sexual assault and rape.

Men don’t get justice and the right to a fair trial? Hmmm so far so feminist....

Trans thank you for letting me know about jury nullification, I didn't know about this.
But it seems this law was mostly a safeguard for most of history for men (as only they could serve on juries) against the tyranny of governments in the past who were not democratically elected and ruled on behalf of a wealthy aristocratic elite. And yes it did protect some abolishinists in America as well whistleblowers against government in uk.
But on the negative side white jurors also refused to convict white men of lynching black children like emmett till as well of refusing to indict white men for raping black women like Recy Taylor despite two of them confessing.
In short if you are a member of a unpopular social group jury trials where the majority of jurors if not all will most probably be a member of the popular social group you are stuffed. You will probably be slightly better off if your the accused than accuser as defendant can appeal guilty verdicts or judge can throw out guilty verdict. But if your the victim forget about justice that's just a pipe dream.
Trans you are probably thinking I'm never going to be a member of a unpopular group but just take the case of Maria maclaclan who was attacked by trans activist. If the assault on her was more serious than case would have gone to crown court with a jury. Today I still think with video evidence a jury would convict but in 10 or 20 years time people like Maria may be seen the same way as racists and the jury may refuse to convict despite the evidence.
What's needed for a householder to defend themselves against intruders is a change in the law that says they should only be prosecuted if they used excessive force not that they can only use reasonable force in a very unreasonable fast moving and dangerous situation.
Womanformallyknownaswoman - some of the biggest rape apologists I know are female so don't think all women juries are gonna work

in 10 or 20 years time people like Maria may be seen the same way as racists and the jury may refuse to convict despite the evidence.

Bit of a leap that, totally? On what basis do you conclude it's going to be acceptable for a 60 yr old woman to be assaulted with no conviction against the perp, due to perceived views akin to racism? Is that your own view of feminism there or is there a movement Maria is involved in that I'm unaware of, akin to racism?

What I'm trying to say is that jury nullification is fine as long as you are not part of an unpopular social group.
What is an unpopular social group can change rapidly.
20 years ago it would have been unthinkable what happened to Maria to be justified by anyone but now there are plenty of ppl who think she was partly to blame because she in their eyes is discriminating against a marginalised group - transgenders.
It's possible with time more and more people will think what activists like Maria are doing is wrong especially as voices opposing policies like self ID are beings silenced. Women meeting just to discuss these matters are being harassed and arrested for voicing a different opinion.
Some of these people will go on to sit on juries.
Just to make it clear I don't think what happened to Maria was acceptable in anyway.
But going back to what the thread was originally about I do think the legal system as it currently stands is failing rape victims and a big part of that maybe due to our current jury trials system.
It's never come up before because the legal system has never had to deal with so many rape cases especially those that don't fit the stereotypical stranger danger.
Of course transgenderism may fall out of favour with the public and this may never happen, it was only a scenario I put to try and make people think you may yourself be in a unpopular social group one day without ever thinking it could happen to you

Totallymyownperson I still disagree with you, but I would like to thank you for an incredibly thoughtful and well written rebuttal. You do highlight extremely important problems/concerns about our criminal justice system, and I don’t think your position is at all unreasonable to be perfectly honest.

However I think the issue is a cultural one as it becomes dangerous when the levers of power, law & government are massively disconnected from the general view of the population. Jury nullification rightly or wrongly (and you have made the case eloquently that it can be wrongly!) is one way to lessen that disconnect as it reinforces that power lies with the people within our society and not just with our lords and masters.

Fwiw rape culture is an avenue I’m willing to cross the aisle as it were from my usual MRA position. I’ve pulled a rapist off a woman I heard screaming one night, I’ve known countless women this has happened to, and I don’t think rape jokes are funny in the least. so I’ll do my level best to engage on this issue as sensitively as I can.

just to give people more food for thought whether jury trials are doing justice to rape cases here is an actual study. I do remember reading some other articles from American websites about juries and rape trials but cannot find them now.
If anyone does find them please post.
boothybarrister.co.uk/2018/05/08/rape-cases-and-juries-the-evidence-base-suggests-that-jolyon-maugham-is-right-to-be-concerned/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
What's really disappointing is that the the criminal bar association which retweeted the Sunday times article twice and claims to be impartial has not retweeted either this study or Jo maughan's article