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 pretty sure that excessive alcohol legally means a victim can't consent. If the victim can't actually remember what happened to her then she was to drunk to consent.

According to the CPS website:

"Sexual Offences Act 1956

The Sexual offences Act 1956 contains no statutory definition of 'consent'. Juries must be told that the word should be given its ordinary meaning, and that there is a difference between 'consent' and 'submission'.

Lack of consent may be demonstrated by:

• The complainant's assertion of force or threats;

• Evidence that by reason of drink, drugs, sleep, age or mental disability the complainant was unaware of what was occurring and/ or incapable of giving valid consent;"

www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/rape-and-sexual-offences-chapter-3-consent

@Erythronium

What's your interest in this mancliffe.
I work in the criminal justice system.

It's your personal opinion that the court system is working fine for victims and their testimony.
It’s working the way it was set up, sadly that isn’t the same as working well for victims

The fact that victims have described going to court as "the second rape" seems to have passed you by.

No, because I raised that very issue further up the thread!

That's interesting that juries must be told there's a difference between consent and submission. I wonder if that actually happens.

Excessive alcohol CAN mean they were unable to consent not that they’re always unable to.

I was on a rape trial a few years ago. He was charged with 2 x rape, sexual assault with various toys and sexual assault with fingers. All against one woman. it was horrific and lasted two weeks.

The woman was painted in a horrible way and to be honest, despite the defendants council clearly eggyinb her up to be worse, she wasn't a very nice person.

but it was quite clear from the evidence that she didn't consent and so found him guilty of everything via one rape, which couldn't be proved.

He got 15 years.

if it wasn't for the photographic evidence, he prob would have walked due to how the woman was portrayed.

It's supposed to be set up to work for justice. That would include convicting rapists which it routinely doesn't do at the moment.

Well if you wrote about the second rape then you'll know that the rape victim's experience is unique in the court process. No other victim is treated this way. It is anti-justice.

I've reread the thread manclife1. Could you point to where you raised the issue of the second rape the victim experiences when she goes to court?

Here

It is an evidential issue why rape convictions are low, not the system. Of course most of the women who's cases don't make it to court are telling the truth but we have decided that the state shouldn't lock people up unless we are sure they are guilty. That is the right system.

I think you would have a better argument for complex crime like fraud. A friend of my mum's was convicted of highly complex financial fraud. The trial lasted 8 months and I wonder for a case like that, how well someone with no experience in finance is following that.

Rape is not like that. Everyone understands what rape is and can follow the arguments. I don't really see the distinction from murder. It doesn't matter how many law qualifications you have, it is still a judgement on whether he did it or not. It is a question of fact, not law.

Nope, that talks about how a victim would feel at a not guilty verdict. The second rape is the process of being questioned by defense barristers where they use disgusting misogynistic stereotypes and attempt to paint the victim as a "slt and a liar.

Are you a barrister?

It is the wrong system when rapists are walking free on our streets.

Right system for whom? The rapists? Certainly not women, in particular, rape victims.

“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.

If she’s too drunk to actively give consent, to the extent she has no memory of it, it is rape.

Women are so used to not receiving justice, or just getting tiny crumbs of it, that we can actually believe the criminal justice system works in our interests when it comes to rape and sexual assault.

If we actually thought we mattered we would never tolerate this.

And they can obviously test that intercourse occurred.

@JessicaWakefieldSV confirmation that sex took place doesn’t proof disprove rape and how can you proof someone was so drunk they were unable to consent when all they’re saying is ‘I was too drunk to consent’. It comes back to one account versus another.

Judges are individuals with their own biases which is why it is fair to have randomly selected cross section of society deciding.

If it was for a panel to decide, that panel would come under intense political pressure to increase convictions. There would be websites keeping track of the statistics, calls for all female panels and so on. What conviction rate would people consider acceptable?

It is the wrong approach to say we want more men convicted so lets fix the process until we get there. And it would be fixing the process. As OP acknowledges, this would be overturning a principle as old as English law.

Do you mean "prove" manclife? You still haven't answered what was disingenuous or if you are a barrister.

100% of rapists going to prison. How many rapists do you think should get away with rape winebottle? What is your acceptable figure?

That's setting a much higher bar for convictions for rape than for any other crime

Is it though? We were burgled. The burglar stole my handbag and car. We got CCTV images of a woman using my bank cards in various shops shortly after the burglary had happened. She was then also caught driving our car.

There was huge doubt over whether there was sufficient evidence to charge her.

I think that's a high bar set for required evidence and higher than a witness statement.

100% of rapists going to prison. How many rapists do you think should get away with rape winebottle? What is your acceptable figure?

How many innocent people is it acceptable to convict in the quest of convicting 100% of rapists?

Why do you think innocent people would be convicted?

Anyway I asked the question first, so you answer it too. What's the acceptable level of number of rapists to get away with it? Esepcially that for most of them that's exactly what is happening at the moment.

A witness statement is classed as evidence. It's enough to convict if it's believed. People seem unaware of that.

Was the woman charged then?

Because that was the point that wine bottle was making - employ a panel to judge cases and they are going to be subject to pressures to increase conviction rates. That's very likely to lead to innocent people being wrongly convicted.

There is no acceptable level of rapists going free. As many as possible should be convicted.

Was the woman charged then?

Not for our burglary - insufficient evidence apparently. She was charged with others though. Apparently no proof that she had actually broken in, despite having and using my cards and driving my car.

I didn't say anything about a panel. We need experts in court to counteract rape myths. We also need training for the police, judges, barristers and the CPS to understand rape myths and how rape victims react during and after a rape. I also think that barristers and judges who resort to misogyny should be thrown out of their professions, I don't know how that would work though.

If you'd been a witness who'd seen the woman breaking into your house you'd have been believed. The same isn't true for rape victims, so the situations aren't comparable.