Just finished jury service on terrible DV / rape case

[TheMoistWorldOfSeptimusQuench]

And we managed to convict on only 7 of 17 counts of rape and sexual assualt.

This is "good enough" in that he will serve a (probably quite lengthy) custodial sentence. In fact the judge said that he was considering an 'indefinite sentence'.

The psych report (that we heard after the verdict had been delivered) confirmed that he is a "very dangerous man", who probably won't respond to therapy (because he can't cope with anyone directing him - whole of the evidence pointed to him being a total control freak who managed every move his girlfriends attempted to make).

My question is this: This was an extreme case, with piles of evidence pointing to a guilty verdict. But still we could only convict on a minority of the counts. Seeing what this man's victims went through, how lives have been destroyed, how horrific it was for them just to get this to court, how even then, some people still didn't believe them, and of course, knowing how few rape cases even get to court - how could the legal system improve on its dealings with these crimes? Do we need some kind of exceptions to the usual rules to deal with these cases? What the hell can the legal system do?

Because after this experience, however traumatic the experience, I really don't think I would put myself through it.

And that's terrible isn't it?

Sorry, didn't proof read.

I mean, after the experience of seeing the system at first hand on jury service, if I was raped, I really don't think I'd have the guts to go through the legal system with it.

you've just reminded me of a psychiatrist I saw for a while who provided expert testimony to successfully exculpate a defendant who had shot his wife in the face over breakfast, because he was depressed and she provoked him

am glad you helped to secure convictions on at least some counts

think we need more women competing for judicial appointments for a start, and maybe drafting legislation and throughout the CPS

Why could you only convict on 7 out of 17 counts? Were there technicalities?

Obviously understand if you can't go into detail..

at the academic stage of training (did the pgdl) I don't remember anything much about sex/gender inequality being aired

it could easily feature somewhere in there, and maybe in the vocational stage lpc/bvc too?

Hi Dittany

I can talk about the evidence, but not what went on in the jury room.

There was not enough proof on the other counts to convict, sadly.

Your last sentence is why some rape victims will not report it and go thru what those incredibly brave women in your case went thru. myself being one. would be my word against his (theirs)

Exactly SN. it's awful. I can only speak for myself (see my last post ), but after hearing the evidence I am totally convinced he was guilty of everything he was charged with. But the proof wasn't there.

So what can we do?

I really think we need to treat these cases slightly differently, but how?

am not up to date with new laws but it used to be the case that victims of rape were 'witnesses' to the offence rather than victims. which is an unhelpful status

have always thought that was odd but maybe situation is different now? am sure

I had a similar thing (although not as horrendous - think touching rather than forced intercourse), and although lots of the jury wre convinced he was guilty, the evidence provided wasn't such that enough people could say it was proved.
I agree, we should be looking at different ways of trying/proving cases like these.

oh x post with dittany

nothing has changed then

I sat on the jury of a rape case. when the judge gives his summing up and directions you realise just how precise the law is.
That not only must the woman have said no but the man needs to have heard her say it and to have understood that she meant no.

It is ridiculous.

I was raped repeatedly during my very violant life with xp. there is no way i could ever even contemplate going to court as i know i will be looked at as a liar.

I would rather let him get off the hook knowing he did it than for him to get a slap on the back and the knowledge that he has gotten away with it.

Its very hard to have evidence of a rape as well especially if it's not reported as any physical evidence may well have healed and not even been seen by any kind of medical professional. No weapon was used that can be tested in anyway and there are often no witnesses.

Probably best i leave the thread now x

If someone raped me I would probably just poison them. Apparently that's the best way to commit murder and not get caught.

I meant other than the victim and the rapist.

The argument that is put forward is that there has to be no reasonable doubt. It has to be beyond "reasonable" doubt.

Unfortunately, lots of people appear to transfer that to mean beyond "any" doubt. They are too willnig to believe that it is reasonable to doubt the word of the chief witness for the prosecution.