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?

her statement isn't really treated as fact though is it?

juries supposed to decide on the facts and I bet half the time they are not helpfully directed by the judge

in the end what they count as fact might just be evidence that intercourse took place

Unfortunately, in reality it appears we do. I was talking to someone at the weekend who in all other respects is a perfectly civilised, decent man. He was on a jury where they didn't convict because apart from her, there were no witnesses and it's "too dangerous" to convict on her word alone. She might have been telling the truth, but there was too much reasonable doubt to assume that she was adn he assumed that the repercussions of an innocent man being wrongly convicted, were worse than that of a rapist walking free.

Which appears to be the default position of everyone.

I think what needs to happen, is that the jury are given some education in rape myths etc. before a trial so that some of their prejudices are at least challenged and brought out into the open. But that's just a stopgap, so much else needs to happen...

dittany - prosecution muddied the waters by bringing in a very unreliable second defendant (this was the second go at trying the case), and made a big deal about an item of clothing worn, but didn't show either the item or one similar, so we could decide if what was being alleged was physically possible. All we had was one side's word against the other, and sadly you can't vote guilty because you think one side is a slimy so and so and most probably did do it.

Also we'd been told that we'd be able to view the defendat's initial video testimony again, but then were told we couldn't as it was evidence, so we had to rely on the judge's summary of it. Which wasn't helpful when hardly anyone had made notes of what was being said, and had used it to get a "flavour" of the case.

obviously the reasonable doubt has to tip in balance of the defendant - well, it depends whether you think it worse to let a guilty person go free or lock up an innocent one, the latter seems to inform our approach in England and Wales doesn't it, understandably, the stakes are high when someone's liberty and reputation are at stake

wish we had 'not proven' like the scots, an acquittal pretty much means 'innocent' when the overwhelming majority of men accused of rape can't possibly be

well no, it's not the law, that is the very point of the jury - judge decides on matters of law, juries determine the facts

yes obviously is v deep seated prejudices

completely agree with you about property crime v offences against the (female) person

the thing that always amazes me is how juries seem to use their tiny inklings of 'reasonable doubt' to stop themselves convicting rapists but then when it comes to convicting women of making false accusations the same does not seem to apply.
I mean, don't they ever think there is the smallest, tiniest possibility that she might really have been raped and have been telling the truth the first time round and has been pressurised into withdrawing the accusation? apparently not.

was slightly more complicated than that as the defendant had a very believabale explanation of an alternative (X touched me rather than I touched X), and by chucking in a possible second offence with a very unreliable witness, it really confused things.
As a group we'd have been much much happier with a Not Proven option, as that was what it actually was.
(just realised that this is in the feminist section - this case had no females involved at all, and as the alleged victim was 16 at the time, we were pretty much disposed to side with him from the off - wonder how different it might have been if he had been a 16 year old girl?)

Am guessing it would hve been v. different.

"For men (generally, there are exceptions) rape is a property crime against another man's property, not a crime against women's humanity."

Dittany, I have to take issue with this. I accept that you acknowledge there are exceptions but I would say actually the majority of men I know do not believe that rape is a property crime but do believe it is a crime against women's humanity. If the men you know lead you to feel otherwise then you have all my sympathy but I can't not speak out in defence of the men I live with and work with and am friends with.

I don't think most men do beleive it's a crime against women's humanity actually.

I think most of them just believe that it's a bit of an occupational hazard of being a woman and that although it's unfortunate and undesirable, it really isn't that big a deal and unless there is violence along the lines of punching, kicking, hitting etc., then really women make far too big a fuss about it. Which is why they don't convict men - because they really don't believe it's that big a crime and tht prison is a reasonable sentence for it.

Like I say, I feel sympathy for you given the men that you must know then.

I am honestly not trying to be inflammatory here. I'm asking this because I want to clarify my own thoughts, IYSWIM?

I have been raped, but I was raped by someone in certain circumstance, so I'm almost entirely sure that the rapist won't attack anyone else. I didn't report it.

Reading

he assumed that the repercussions of an innocent man being wrongly convicted, were worse than that of a rapist walking free.

makes me wonder - is this not (usually) the case? I totally understand the thing about how we should believe rape victims (some of the people I did tell didn't believe me & some even blamed me for 'leading him on' ), but the possibility of a false conviction of an innocent man could ruin his entire life. Whereas letting a rapist walk free (assuming he's not a serial rapist)... It seems like the damage has already been done, no matter what?

I feel like I've got this wrong somehow because it goes against my general opinions, but I can't work it out.

but sleepinglion who else is perpetrating all that sexual violence if not men?

it's not women

or do you think allegations of rape and assault are usually false?

I find it hard to believe that rape is a once in a lifetime 'accident' for men, why would they rape one partner but not a subsequent one? or one stranger and not another?

smallwhitecat - I must be extremely very old then (as if becoming a grandma isn't proof enough of that)!

well that is a good thing then about the direction

Mitchy - we were both young & in very vulnerable emotional situations. We had been together for a while, but not had sex. Being together made us feel better. I think that he thought that having sex would mean that he could sort of 'lose himself' in me, as it were. It was totally fucked up in a lot of ways, but I do think that it was because of the intensity of the situation.