Anne Coffey - rape myths and juries

[UpstartCrow]

''The number of men charged with rape in England and Wales has fallen to its lowest level in a decade—a 23% decline in 2017-18, according to the Crown Prosecution Service’s annual “Violence against Women and Girls Report”. Yet at the same time, the number of rapes reported to the police soared to more than 41,000 in 2016-17, with a massive 150% increase in the last five years. Despite fewer charges, there was a 13% fall in prosecutions and a 12% decrease in convictions.''

parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/55146a39-db05-4cb8-b256-41ddbc47f2bc

Short UTL;
goo.gl/ntS8Q1

Transcript;
www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2018-11-21a.343.1

This came straight after the discussion on self ID.

Julie Bindel's related article:

The conviction rates for rape have long been shockingly low. This is what has led one Labour MP, Ann Coffey, today to suggest doing away with juries in rape trials.

I support this. Prevailing rape myths, such as “she was asking for it”, “he’s handsome, and does not ‘need’ to rape”, and “if she didn’t want it she would close her legs”, can poison the mind of a juror against the complainant, whatever the evidence against the defendant. Women and girls are routinely blamed for being raped, which means the perpetrator, even when it is abundantly clear that he is guilty, is too often absolved. That is how patriarchy works: keep females in a constant state of fear of male violence, and then put the responsibility for it firmly on their shoulders

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/juries-rape-trials-myths-justice

Horrendous. I really don’t think they knew what to do with the aftermath of Yewtree and metoo. It seems the cps’s approach is to make it worse for people who report a rape. It really feels as if we’re going backwards.

I wonder how much of the fall in charges and convictions is due to hardcore porn becoming mainstream now and the defendant's assertion that "She wanted it, and she wanted it rough" to explain evidence away. Torn underwear, vaginal bruising, bleeding and tearing used to be fairly good evidence for the prosecution but not any more.
The young woman in the Ulster rugby rape case said of one of the defendants, "It felt like he was trying to put his whole hand up there". So according to her he was fisting her, or trying to. She had significant vaginal injuries. But he said that she had consented, and he was acquitted, because juries believe beyond reasonable doubt that women consent to actions like this, that lead to this type of injury. Porn says we love it.

Thanks for the links Upstart.
I don't have the words to express how I feel about the whole fucked up process of rape prosecutions and trials. We've seen so many horrendous examples of the system working against the victim. It's weighted against them throughout, even with evidence of injury. I'm in awe of the women who have the strength to go through it.
When you look at those stats - a 150% increase in reported rapes over 5 years - how is it that the outcome for victims is simultaneously getting worse with more chance that the perpetrator will go unpunished? Those stats indicate a wider cultural problem that no one appears to be addressing.
What more do women have to do, beyond being brave enough to report the assault, to be believed?
Feels like a cultural shift has been steadily creeping in along with the normalisation of porn and erosion of womens rights, one that disregards the rights of women to give consent and our expectation to feel safe and protected by law. It's coming from all sides.
As usual, it seems that it's still about what we do or don't do as women, rather than the actions of men.
And the porn culture and all the pomo crap makes me so fearful for young women, their safety and self-worth.
God, that young womans' testimony from the Ulster rape trial is absolutely heartbreaking and rage inducing. How did we get to this point, where a woman endures that and the perpetrators walk away free?
Sorry, rambling post. Bit angry

I have wondered about juries in this context. I was not selected for jury duty, from a larger pool, due to experience of sexual assault. A decade later a friend was on a jury in a child abuse trial but was upset so they switched her for someone else.

Given the high rate of sexual assault and how upsetting such a trial can be to a woman, who is the population the resultant jury is sampled from? Will every jury contain only people who have never been sexually assaulted nor find the topic very upsetting?

That's a good point. I don't know how juries are selected. Do they discuss the type of trial with you and give you a chance to opt out? Do you have to publicly give a reason?

I did jury duty many years ago (and I don't think it has changed since). You don't get a chance to opt out - you take what you're given.

www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/jury-selection-process/

And yes, I am angry beyond belief at the way abusive sex has been normalised by the porn industry to the extent that women can suffer the most appalling injuries during rapes and the guy still gets acquitted because he claims "she liked it that way."

I think I'd be in favour of three judges, who had passed a course on rape myths, making the decision.

There are a lot of misogynistic judges, but it is still worth a try because it quite honestly could not get any worse.

I'd be interested in a trial of this (meaning like a clinical or social policy trial).

Would it be possible for there to be trials involving both parties (panel of judges v. jury) independent of each other? And then assess the verdicts/decisions?

I didn't get to choose, but there was around 30-35 of us of which 12 went to the next stage. Those of us who answered certain "bias" questions, I assume, we're not asked back the next day. I was only 24, didn't give it much thought at the time. However, the friend who got upset and was switched was only a few weeks ago, which is when I got thinking how unrepresentative it could be.

I'm in Scotland, if it could be different.

Jury trials are not fit for purpose for crimes against women and children- they require trained experts plus those not steeped in rape myths and excusing men's violence. That can't be achieved with juries unless psychological testing of potential jurors is carried out.

There's some research where rape trials were re-run in test conditions, and jurors were psychologically tested before and after them. It turns out a significant number of jurors have immovable beliefs concerning rape myths (in other words misogynistic) that don't change despite any weight of evidence presented to them. So they go in believing women asked for it and their attitudes don't change, despite evidence presented to the contrary. So they are not fit jurors but the current system doesn't recognise that fact.

Sorry I didn’t see if anyone has posted the interim recommendations of John Gillen in Northern Ireland post the Ulster rape case? He’s leading an official review of how rape is handled in the province.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/nov/20/northern-ireland-rape-case-review-sir-john-gillen

Thank you for that Tripping.

Fucking hell, I'd completely forgotten that people were taking day trips to Belfast to watch the matinee performance of woman having to describe a violent sex attack by several men that left her with internal injuries, but was apparently totally consensual.