Rape cases in front of a jury.

[MsMarvellous]

I have just read this bbc article about the case being brought against the CPS for its failure to bring rape cases to trial (that's the essence, there's more detail in there):

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48574813

One comment that got me is that they would t bring a case as messages from the victim to defendant would be misinterpreted by the jury. Messages sent to placate him presumably in an effort to reduce the violence.

Surely it's time to look at whether a jury trial is the right way to run a rape case.

I come from a legal background. I know the notion of removing the jury of peers from a criminal prosecution cuts deep into the history, tradition and criminal justice framework. But how is it fair to women that violence almost exclusively against us a sex cannot be punished in part because of a lack of understanding.

It's different to murder/manslaughter to me. Either way with those crimes someone has died and it's usually, if not always, fairly easy to determine if it was natural or not. Then you are digging into how, who, why and when.

With rape the basic concept of consent is so skewed by individual and societal expectation and judgment of women, E.g. "She was wearing a mini skirt so was asking for it", that it's almost impossible to determine if a crime was committed just on the fact if the act of sexual intercourse taking place.

Wouldn't a panel of specially trained judges and medical and psychological experts be better to decide these cases. It still wouldn't be perfect but it might give women a fighting chance.
I would also remove cross examination in a public court. Examine the witnesses just with legal representation in a hope of removing the showboating character assassination of victims, though removal of a jury should do that too.

I wondered what others thought. Would it even be feasible? I'm so outraged at how dismissed women are. Just always, every day. And today I'm really grumpy anyway!

I'm not sure. I've been on a jury for fraud/criminals trials. Do you think it could result in more convictions?

I see the value of the jury but it seems inevitable that the victim ends up being tried as well. I'd be thrilled to see an end to that! Do you think on balance, juries believe the rapist more than the victim or is it lack of evidence, a case if he/she said? I've never understood why only 2% end up in prosecutions.

Do you think it could result in more convictions?
Statistically cases put to a jury are more likely to find the defendant "not guilty".

Surely it's time to look at whether a jury trial is the right way to run a rape case.

Julie Bindel wrote about this last year I think, it was a good article with a proposal for a better system. Rape trials should not be heard by a jury of ordinary people.

@JessicaWakefieldSV interesting I'll look up the article.

@OhHolyJesus I'm not sure about more convictions but possibly. The issue being raised by the case against the CPS is that they aren't even being taken forward to trial.

Having recently served on a jury on something complex other than rape I was very mindful to be absolutely 100% convinced that the defendant did the deed. We weren’t & he was acquitted. I’m not saying I didn’t think he hadn’t done it but there was doubt in my mind. I would have given the same consideration whether it was rape charge.

And I used to be a solicitor in a previous life! So goodness knows how confused the other jurors were.

Jury cases also have to start from an "innocent until proven guilty" standpoint, and it is reinforced that defendants must be found guilty "beyond all reasonable doubt". It is nigh on impossible to do this in a rape trial.

Also it’s for the prosecution to prove their case. On the case I was on I don’t think they did rather than the defendant was guilty. He may have done the deed but I couldn’t be certain.

Regardless of whether a jury trial is appropriate, it's still important for the CPS to find ways of getting justice for raped women.

I'm in support of the case being brought by women's groups and the redoubtable Centre for Women's Justice through Crowdjustice. There was a thread, if you all remember - What Does It Take To Get A Rape Case Through - which the OP has now taken down as Centre for Women's Justice helped her to get the police to look again and it now may become sub judice . It wasn't unrelated to this case.

Anyway. Even though we are not allowed to post fund raising links on here, I will be supporting and you can too if you have a little internet rummage.

As a former solicitor I agree it’s woefully wrong, however, I wanted to put my view forward of someone who had performed jury service recently on something unrelated about how difficult it can be too convict.

It really is difficult (I worked in barristers chambers for many years). I also know we have a high burden of proof for exceptional reasons and I believe it holds up as an excellent standard in the majority of matters.

Rape is a very particular sort of crime. I am doubting whether the way we do things for everything else works in the case of serious sexual assault.

It makes me deeply deeply unhappy that something so intimate ultimately ends up trying the victim for their culpability as if men are incapable of saying "ok I'll stop" when asked to if the woman is anything less than a paragon of virtue as deemed by society. I haven't even suffered a serious sexual assault and I'm furious. I can only imagine how exponentially harder it is if you are actually working within the framework we have.

It needs a lot, lot more than tinkering with the Jury system.

Frankly, it needs something like a Royal Commission or an Enquiry (along the lines of Stephen Lawrence's) looking at whether the law and the Criminal Justice system is fit for purpose when it comes to male violence on women.

In the meantime, I would want to see the Ministry of Justice, Home Office and Women's & Equality Department commissioning a piece of research into the 'discontinued' rape cases of the past 10 -15 years.

What did they have in common? What were the barriers to prosecution? What measures are needed to dismantle those barriers? Are new offences needed?

It took decades for the law to catch up with the nature of domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. It is taking even longer to for the law (and juries) to recognise that rape is not a 'sexual encounter with two sides to the story'.

It will be difficult to move forward, restore women's confidence in the law, and secure convictions, without examining the meaning and nature of rape in the 21st century.

I have been on a jury in a rape trial, and we found him guilty , which was clearly a great surprise to everyone. I think sometimes public expectations are more advanced than those of the judiciary.

Surely, given how few rapes end up in court, the fact that the CPS has decided to prosecute should be a good indicator that the guy has done it?

A friend of mine was on a jury for a so-called date rape, where her fellow jurors were saying "He didn't seem the type." Unfortunately he was the type and had done this before, but of course the jury wasn't allowed to know that.

And "he doesn't seem the type" is exactly how some men will be able to get a woman back to their house/hotel room.

Thanks for posting op

Read this earlier on BBC, really awful stories

I wouldnt be surprised if things have quietly been changed, whether across board or at force level on this

Remember cressida duck's comments that met weren't going to bother with he said she said / days rape for stuff or where they thought they wouldnt get a conviction

It's not supposed to be up to the police to decide that but there you are

I think that there is little appetite in the authorities or wider society to do anything about sexual violence against women and girls except in extreme cases. Even then we see increasingly flimsy defenses being presented and sometimes accepted eg dead woman was bang up for being strangled mlud, OK well then, women these days eh what can you do.

In other counties some have an investigative type system rather than adversarial so it's not exactly unheard of and yes or could work but I just don't think there's real appetite anywhere for it apart from amongst some women's groups. The idea that women lie because women are spiteful, that 'good' men can't do bad things or should be allowed 1 mistake, ideas about women and girls and men and sex with women and girls being temptresses and men unable to control themselves, it's a big old mess. Loads of people say in theory rape is bad but when it's in the news it's all, well who can say, he seems like a good sort /talented /young/valuable to society etc so hmmmmm yeah he shoulx be left alone poor chap.

Dick

Not duck

The crucial issue here, though, is that there has been a sharp drop in convictions in the past 18 months, a 44% drop I believe, and a simultaneous increase in accusations of rape. So there has been a change in orientation by the police away from prosecution for some reason.

Added to that, we are increasingly seeing cases like Natalie Connolly, where guys are getting away with the lightest of sentences despite inflicting stomach churning injuries on their female victims.

We need the lid blown off on this, Justice is not serving women.

Someone who knows a lot more than me about the issue told me juries believe rape myths and one of the most pernicious is that if it was rape then why didn't the victim at least try to fight him off?

But the most common reaction to rape is to freeze, not fight or flee. It seems to me that giving a lecture about what we know about rape to each jury before the trial would be at least some help.

@DrG how do we do that. I would love to be part of the change.

If we could make a change so fundamental as to how the law and courts perceive and handle rape then over time that would filter through to wider society. How things are now is just unacceptable.

Hi MsMarvellous, I think we can help by supporting the End Violence against Women Coalition, either financially, there is a crowdfunding campaign, or by offering our support to them as letter writers, lobbyists on the issue. We have to be focused and organised.
This drop in rape convictions is part of the war on women, the CPS is completely failing us.

I think there might be a few avenues to make rape prosecutions more effective, and it should be looked into very carefully. I am not sure whether juries are a big part of the problem or no. I can see why that might be the case, but I would like to see some statistics or examination of it.

I think there are some problems that can be very inherent in rape cases that may need special approaches to overcome. One might be that sometimes they can be very technical, and perhaps that is an area where juries might really struggle.
The other is simply that it can be difficult to have good evidence in a rape trial. If there isn't violence that can be seen, it very often comes down to two stories with no evidence of which is true. It then comes down to who seems most credible, and that isn't really very reliably connected to what actually happened. People who are liars, or drunk, or sex workers, get raped too, but those things all affect either reliability or perception of it.
If you have a presumption of innocence, even with the best of intent for justice, it becomes very difficult to find the defendant guilty if that is the best you can do for evidence. In a case like that I suspect a jury is better for the defendant if the victim seems unreliable, but might be better for the victim if she seems credible and he seems dodgy.

I have wondered if the best approach might be figuring out better ways to prove what happened. What I'm not willing to consider is reducing the burden of proof or changes to the basic rights of defendants. I think they are too important to the underpinnings of the justice system as a whole.

I have wondered if the best approach might be figuring out better ways to prove what happened

Recently, a man was acquitted in a rape trial despite the victim having videotaped it. It was written about in an article and the newspaper, might be the Telegraph, had seen the tapes and her saying No, crying, in pain and so on was confirmed by them in the article.

Even the Belfast Ulster rape trial had pretty compelling evidence and they were acquitted.

I don’t think the problem is evidence. I think it’s our rape culture. I think a jury of those who have worked in this area, both with rapists and with victims, would be a step forward.

I think it’s rape culture, stupid policies within the police force, they appear to have been influenced by new thinking/ a new policy to have such a jackknife change in their statistics, and plain old sexism.

Juries and judges just can’t get behind the idea of punishing rapists, they seem to feel more sorry for them than their victims.

I agree with you op and I have thought this for some time. It’s too easy to sway juries with rape myths. Judges at least have heard it all before and bring a level of cynicism to the defence case which can only be helpful.

This is so difficult. Everyone must be presumed innocent.
I always thought it must be impossible to decide who’s telling the truth.
Forensics and witnesses obviously but other than that it’s someones word against another.