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!

You think rape is a misunderstanding.

OK.

Rape is not a misunderstanding. Fuck this shit.

I was on a jury in a sexual assault case (not rape, NB), and we couldn't reach a verdict. It wasn't so much that people had antediluvian attitudes, more that the threshold of proof is so high. It happened in a room with just two people in it and it is the very definition of he said, she said.

I mean, I believed her, because why would anyone make that up? But unfortunately it's not that simple.

I don't really trust the process of a jury trial in sexual assault cases after that, but I also don't quite know what the solution is.

This is a really good article by Julie Bindel. Interesting thing in here, the acquittals are higher for young men- people don’t want their life ruined.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/juries-rape-trials-myths-justice

There’s a catalog of issues in police around sexual offences investigations which include the recruitment, retention, training and experience of detectives (results in mistakes being made at basic levels). The increased scrutiny and awareness of disclosure rules (resulting in the contents of a victims phones at risk of being disclosed). So before it’s even got to court the case is on the back foot.

Add to that the burden of proof when in many cases the only evidence is one word against another’s and the failure rate is always going to be high. Personally, I think they’re should be a more inquisitorial style of trial but that’s unlikely to be the case.

The threshold of proof isn't so high. People set it up like that for rape because they want to let rapists off. If you find a witness's evidence credible and you believe it then there's no reason to find the rapist innocent.

What I wonder is, if you were just thinking in terms of how could you really prove a rape had taken place, what would be the ideal thing?

Start believing victims instead of using every tiny get-out to make out that somehow she's lying or doesn't know her own mind. Victim's evidence is witness evidence. If it's credible it can convict a rapist. The victim in the Belfast rape trial was credible yet the defense was able to argue successfully that her underwear somehow proved her consent, when she herself was saying otherwise. That's setting a much higher bar for convictions for rape than for any other crime. We don't say someone who wore a Rolex watch out in public wanted it stolen because it was appealling and they wore it visibly on their wrist so the robber could only interpret those actions one way, but we will do that for rape victims. It's all wrong.

People who are handwringing saying it's so difficult are missing the main point. It's misogyny, woman-hatred, that lets rapists get away with it again and again. Rapists know this too and manipulate it to their maximum advantage.

The victim who posted here recently who was sexually tortured and raped by a man who she had recently met, had severe injuries which corroborated her story. The police initially refused to pursue her case because apparently the existence of BDSM now means that male sexual predators can sexually torture women and simply claim consent to get away with their violent crimes. Once again, something completely outwith the victim and what she is saying and has witnessed, is used to discredit her own reports of what was done to her. The most worrying thing apart from her not being given justice was that this must be a highly dangerous man to hurt a woman so badly. He'll do it again, and the police would have let him do it.

All this he said she said blah

In both the cases in the articles there was evidence in addition to the victim (witness) statement.

Case on here recently a woman even had a video of the attack and it came to nothing.

There is something else going on here
Clearly.

We have the number 1 news paper in the UK (Daily Fail) making a huge song and dance every single time a woman is caught lying about rape. Never mind this only happens about 30x per year compared to the thousands of reported rapes.

So you have high profile people like Piers Morgan believing the Daily Fails rapey agenda and hamming it up on GMB about how often women lie about rape. And so people are much less likely to believe women. I’ve complained on Twitter to them about this but haven’t had a response.

@Erythronium

If you find a witness's evidence credible and you believe it then there's no reason to find the rapist innocent.
and what is a jury find that both are believable?

Let’s not forget it is the burden of proof for ALL crime including murder.

It’s also disingenuous

Yes there is usually corroborating evidence or consistency in the victim's statement.

"He said, she said" is another rape myth.

What is the burden of proof? I've already said that the bar for proving rape is set higher than for other crimes. Witness evidence in rape cases is routinely dismissed.

What is disingenous?

If you believe a rape victim by definition you know the rapist is lying (has there ever been a rapist who didn't lie?)

Don't answer "beyond reasonable doubt". Unreasonable doubt is the standard for rape cases.

Not unreasonable doubt

But definitely beyond any doubt

Someone posted a while back who had been on a jury and they were told to find not guilty if they had any doubt in their minds whatsoever.

That is not reasonable doubt.

And these days people seem to be willing to believe the most unlikely things eg young virgin decides to have sex in the mud in a field with a much older man that she only met that evening.

Another case in her mners DD, jury felt it likely that a young woman also a virgin would chose to have anal sex with a stranger that left her injured.

Girls and women these days eh.

I mean that she agreed to go to an alley with a man she met on the street.

This apparently seems pretty like something that would happen.

See also all the dead women who were appatently into being treated extremely violently during sex, as claimed by the men who killed them, with their versions repeated all over the papers.

People really don't understand witness evidence. If it can't be undermined, it stands. Which is why defense barristers go after rape victims so hard when they come to court. They try and undermine their credibility and character and try to take apart their testimony.

I think those two are classic examples of unreasonable doubts MenuPlant. We're forced to believe the most unlikely scenarios and then when the victim says otherwise and tells a story which is highly likely to be true we're supposed to believe she's lying. Who is most likely to be lying in both those situations, but somehow the rapist's credibility is never ever up for discussion. He's automatically assumed to be telling the truth even when he's blatantly lying.

Very few rape cases have ‘corroborating’ evidence which couldn’t be argued as supporting the defences position too. Pretty much cancels it’s self out leaving it to “he said-she said”. It’s not a myth but something I’ve seen played out in court over a 100 times.

The burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt and is the same for every crime. It’s only your personal view that’s thinks the burden is higher. The difference between sexual offences over other crimes is the outcome is such a ‘high stakes’ for all involved. If a burglary is found not guilty the victim would be disappointed, but a rape victim would feel violated twice if their rapist is found it guilty.

The other issue is when alcohol/drugs have been taken. I’ve seen tens of cases where the only account the victim can give is “I went out drinking and woke up and feel like I’ve been raped but I’m not sure”. It’s hard to get a successful conviction when the victim can’t even remember what happened. And before any accuses me of victim blaming I’m not, just pointing out some of the difficulties with getting best evidence to court.

Haha at I got pissed and can't remember anything maybe I was raped getting to court.

Did you even bother to read read the article in the op?

Honestly this thread makes me scared to go out. Rape is basically legal at this point. This country must be a rapists dream. I imagine a country much tougher on crime (the US for example) has a much higher percentage of convictions than we do.

"I imagine a country much tougher on crime (the US for example) has a much higher percentage of convictions than we do."

Google unprocessed rape kits USA and think again.

What's your interest in this mancliffe. It's your personal opinion that the court system is working fine for victims and their testimony. The fact that victims have described going to court as "the second rape" seems to have passed you by. Are there other crimes where the victims are so routinely abused and attacked by defense barristers as they are in rape cases. Rape victims have to be anonymous because of the attacks they would receive if their names were made public.

If I was burgled or mugged I wouldn't have a problem going to court about it. If I was raped, that would be a completely different matter.

The Home Office report "A Gap or a Chasm?" outlines how the criminal justice system fails rape victims at every stage, including the trial, if the case ever gets to court. It's not a recent report, but it doesn't appear that anything has changed since it was written:

www.researchgate.net/publication/238713283_Home_Office_Research_Study_293_A_gap_or_a_chasm_Attrition_in_reported_rape_cases

Echoing pp I believe the legal system cannot effectively deal with rape/sexual assault. Most cases are not the stranger in the lane with the woman screaming and kicking. They may be friends, dates, someone your attracted to on a night out or even a husband. You may even initially consent to sex but you can withdraw that consent at anytime.
I’ve been sexually assaulted twice- took me a long time to recognise this. The first time I was underage I thought I wanted sex- he put his fingers in me so hard despite my cries of how painful it was. I thought this was normal. The second time the sex started consensually but it started to become painful and he just wouldn’t stop. I cannot adequately describe the feeling of being in pain, out of control and violated. However I learnt in both those cases the preservation of both the males reputation was the most important thing. My pain didn’t matter, I was fair game for slut shaming.

I know I could never report these incidents to anyone because being a sexually active female = negative credibility . Yet it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, doesn’t mean I don’t immediately panic when my very gentle partner touches me intimately.

I can’t believe that the UK legal system still allows these sexist narratives around women to form the basis of a defence. The only way forward is a serious legal? review of procedures. I would agree that for most sex crimes a less adversial approach be taken, maybe this would result in more convictions. This should also be done alongside serious sex education surrounding consent.

Oh and the reported attitudes of the police in it are absolutely appalling. They don't believe victims.

@MenuPlant yes I read the article. My opinion is based on dealing with over 100 rape/sexual offences, being unable to remember what happened is a frequent account. Whether it’s through drinking too much or spiked drink we rarely find out.

So, an offender gets the victim blind drunk, rapes them and then claims it was consensual. Due to alcohol/drugs the victims account is hazy and disjointed. A jury’s always going to find the offender ‘not guilty’ in those circumstances.