Courts and sexism

[BillStickersIsInnocent]

Anyone want to talk about this with me?

I was on a jury recently, sexual assault case.

I was really surprised by the split of men and women - in the jury waiting area only 20% were women. Only 2 women were then selected on to the jury - me included.

In the court, the judge was male, as were both barristers. Some of the language used to describe the female prosecution witnesses was sexist - a fusspot, a gossip etc. This wasn’t challenged by the judge.

I feel angry about it and want to do something - but I don’t know what!

Some of the limited research I’ve read suggests women are more likely to convict in rape cases than men. But for other sexual assault cases I can’t find anything.

I’ve also tried to find out whether there are more male than female potential jurors - because caring responsibilities can excuse you, and women are more likely to be carers. But haven’t found anything on this.

I've lived with a minor dread of being called for jury duty and its not something I know much about.
I know you cant talk about specifics, but generally did you and the other jurors have to talk over the evidence? How did that go?

You've made a lot of really interesting points, and I also have no idea who you could contact about this.

I suppose you could do a freedom of information request to the Ministry Of Justice to ask them for those statistics, if they aren't available.

User yes, you are dismissed to discuss the evidence.
I can’t discuss what we discussed.
But perhaps I can say imagine how it might have gone with 10 men and 2 women.

Perhaps I should read this www.amazon.co.uk/Eve-Was-Shamed-British-Justice/dp/1784742228/ref=nodl_?tag=mumsnetforum-21

I think that you have taken one trail and extrapolated unfairly. There are many women in law these days. Many female judges, barristers and, solicitors. In some firms trainee intakes are majority female. When it comes to trail it’s often just luck of the draw, especially where juries are concerned (in which case it is often a case of who is too stupid to come up with an excuse or for some bizarre reason actually wants to sit). I also think that the implication that men are inherently misogynistic and women aren’t starts from a false premise.

''imagine how it might have gone with 10 men and 2 women.''

That's one of my concerns about jury service. Its too easy for one person to dominate a group, and for others to go along with them for fear of speaking out of turn.

Thank fuck this was a hearing which was adjourned but I had a lucky escape

One of my hearings (fact finding for rape, SA and serious DV) it was a new judge, a man who is never had before.

I've never got upset in court before but I went in that room, me, my ex, male barrister, male usher and male judge

He then proceeded to (bear in mind the nature of what had happened, it was on record I had ptsd, had had to flee the area etc) and he starts talking about 'bad breakups', 'regrettable things happening', how maybe some counselling would help me (after over a year of counselling and medication!!!) and how my ex was due some 'respect'

I was absolutely spitting angry. How dare he. I had a panic attack in the court, I felt so vulnerable and upset and full of rage that after what me and my children had been through he could talk about it like that

He was trying to get me to drop the most serious allegations to make it a summary hearing

Well thank god I stood my ground and said I wanted the full schedule so it had to be adjourned. Next time round, my usual (female) judge. I did the hearing and every allegation was found to be true.

I wish I could have twenty minutes in a room with that disgusting excuse of a judge because I'd love to give him a piece of my mind!!!

30% female judges in England and Wales, 24% in Scotland

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/law/2016/oct/06/proportion-of-women-judges-in-uk-among-lowest-in-europe

Might have gone off on a tangent there but that's my experience on the matter

Thanks Ode, that sounds awful.
I really felt for the prosecution witnesses facing the defendant and a room full of men.
It’s a horrible ordeal.

I did jury duty a couple of years ago, also had a sexual assault case. My experience was the opposite, our jury was split 9 women and 3 men, in the main very respectful discussion and a few feminists among us. I'm under no illusions that is the norm though, I got very lucky with my group. I did another trial too for burglary with a different jury group and it was a different experience, mocking comments, some not taking it seriously. I dread to think if the juries were switched. It really is luck of the draw.

Just to add the judge and barristers were male, but very well behaved- maybe because the victim was a minor.

And yet if you look at the Magistrates Courts, we regularly have an entirely female courtroom: it's not unusual to have an all-female bench (3 women), female Legal Advisor (Clerk), female prosecutor and female defence solicitor. It is interesting to consider why this doesn't continue further up the legal system.

When I did jury service, a few years ago now, the judge and the barristers were male. The mix on the jury was majority men but I think there were 3 other women apart from me. I felt very aware when having discussions that I felt everyone should have the opportunity to contribute and have their say. Thankfully I was foreperson and was able to facilitate that!

Court system is misogynistic, judiciary are pale, male and stale, and the unspeakable truth about grooming before the public mood changed was that a jury was an almost guarantee that a girl wouldnt be believed or if she was, what happened wouldnt be a problem. A friend of mine was on jury duty a few years ago, and was appalled at some of the things that were said. There are some great legal academics who look at this, and challenge this and keeping an eye on what Lady Hale says but doesnt say is quite interesting.

I've been a (female) barrister for 20-odd years. It isn't perfect, but it's improving. When I started, there was a LOT of casual sexism in the robing room, which extended to the courtroom. That is far less frequent now, although it does happen. Their perception amongst the profession is that women are harder on female victims and more likely to acquit of sexual crimes.
The female:male ratio at my level is theoretically 1:2, but I think there are fewer women than that in the areas where I work. It is virtually impossible to do this job unless one parent is at home, and society so far expects that will be the woman.

Lisa that was my experience too. I felt so angry that it’s so bloody difficult to get sexual assault cases to court in the first place, and then when these brave women do it it’s a terrible environment and no one believes them anyway.
But Catsize glad it’s changing, if slowly.

The OP is implying that there is sexism in the way people are selected for jury service.

This is nonsense.

The system does not deliberately select more men than women.

In the room you were in there may have been more men than women I'm sure but to suggest this is sexism and that the system selects more men than women for rape cases is just paranoid.

OP please clarify what point you are making about jury selection.

TeeJay I’m merely thinking about the sex split of the potential juror pool - as in my OP.

I was wondering whether fewer women than men, across the piece, were available for jury service because of caring responsibilities might limit women’s ability to serve.

My experience of the sex split made me wonder about whether any research had carried out into this and also what impact an unequal jury had on conviction rates of sexual assault cases.

My experience of the language used in the court room by barristers made me wonder more broadly about sexism and representation and the impact on female victims.

It seems Helena Kennedy has written a book about it, so I don’t think I’m being paranoid. I’m not suggesting a conspiracy - more systemic issues.

TeeJay I understood her to mean that even if the random selection produces 50:50 sex representation, the exemptions are generally related to activities females are more likely to be involved in, and so the 50:50 ratio is not carried forward in to the actual jury. Perhaps it would be better to select 40:60 in favour of women, knowing that a portion of them will be exempt and you're more likely to end up with 50:50 on the actual jury.

The title says 'Courts and Sexism' and the first point you make is about more men than women. Either your post is badly written you or think jury selection is sexist.

Honey

Your ideas is even worse! You activrlt promote sexism!

Well yes it is sexist if the potential juror pool isn’t representative. But I haven’t been able to find any research into this, hence my questions.

Why so aggressive?

No, that would be positive action to correct the disadvantages women face.

If the end result is fewer women are involved, its not paranoia, it is sexism. The system is biased and produces an uneven result.

If that is a problem then its perfectly reasonably to want an adjustment.

When I did jury service, not that long ago, there were more women than men.