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?

Dittany, it seems you find it hard to believe that anyone is able to grasp a concept other than you, and as for your accusation that I am patronising - well, read your own posts before you start tarring everyone else with that brush.

Yes, I am aware that rape is usually committed by men and I am aware that it is a global problem. What I was taking issue with was your assertion that most men regard rape as a crime against another man's property rather than a crime against women's humanity, which I don't agree with. And I know you feel threatened by people not agreeing with you on these threads but sometimes it happens.

am not attaching any blame to your decision not to go to the police RTD! it's awful to pile on the guilt of 'if he goes on to rape other women it will be my fault for not reporting him' when of course it is HIS responsibility not to rape, not ours to protect other women

Mitchy, I know you're not blaming me for anything. This isn't the place for that

I don't know. Maybe I'm naive / optimistic, but I really do think that it was the situation that caused temporary insanity, as it were (although he is obviously an unpleasant person in the first place, it turns out!) & not something that could be easily replicated.

No need to return the favour, dittany, I like to dish them out for free on occasion.

I think that letting a rapist walk free gives men the freedom to rape women without fear of reprocussion. Say actually we would rather give you the benefit of the doubt rather than punish you for this says to me that we really don't feel it is a serious crime. And if it really isn't so bad whats the big deal with letting rapists walk free.
Actually I thought it was the 1995 Criminal Justice act that finally made rape in marriage illegal - just 15 years ago.

I also think most men see rape as a crime committed by a stranger, out of the blue, with a knife. They don't see forcing your girlfriend/wife into sex as rape in the same way, they know its wrong, and not nice - but they don't see it as criminal.

But in a way, saying 'we'd rather give you the benefit of the doubt than tar you with The Rape Brush' is saying that it is serious... I'm so confused, even in my own head.

& yy about the stranger / knife thing. Especially in terms of getting people to believe you - if it seems likely that you'd have willingly had sex with someone, there's apparently no possibility that they could've raped you

Do we think that way about other crimes - do we think well if this person is lieing and wasn't actually mugged/punched/stolen from - then that is an awful cross to bear? I don't know?

Well I would rather go out with someone who had been in prison for theft / assault than for rape, whether or not they protested their innocence...

I'm inclined to agree with you there RespectTheDoughnut, re your point about the unwillingness to convict refects the seriousness of the charge.
Regarding rape as a weapon of war - isn't that an acknowledgement that rape is probably up there in terms of the worst thing you can do to a woman, and that's why it's used in such a systemic way in warzones?

It doesn't seem that it is always a case that rapists disrespect the seriousness of the crime, rather they know just what a weapon it is, and consciously decide to perform the act. Which makes them evil. Which makes juries uncomfortable to think of evil walking among us in a "ordinary decent" man.
After all, thousands of consensual sex acts happen every day, in all sorts of circumstances. It's easier to believe this is one of them.

I do think it is a terrible thing for innocent people to be convicted and incarcerated for crimes they didn't commit

so am glad the standard of proof is so high for all serious offences

but obviously many things are horribly horribly wrong with the way these particular defendants are tried and way before it even gets to court, when it even gets there, and that is just those rapes that are reported

the scale of it all is so depressing

even women blame other women for the actions of men

The fact that so many women have been raped, suggests that an awful lot of men have committed rape. I think that using it as a weapon of war absolutly shows that men see women as property. Anyway I need to go to bed now.

I don't think reluctance to convict suggests widespread horror at the gravity of the offence, I think it's because myths about women lying and the perceived 'grey areas' of the law regarding consent are tilted against complainants

I agree with SparkofSense, I think. A lot of men use rape to punish women - women who've dumped them, or refused to go out with them in the first place, etc. That's without even getting into the warfare aspect.

& I do think that the gravity of it is a factor, Mitchy. It seems a bit more trivial to convict someone of theft, for example. As I say, I would perhaps consider dating someone who'd been convicted of theft (although they'd have to be pretty convincing of their good character otherwise!) but would never have it cross my mind to even get to know someone who'd been convicted of rape.

All sorts of people can steal, for lots of reasons & in lots of degrees of seriousness. Rape is rape is rape.

personally not happy with idea that 'rape is the worse thing you can do to a woman' as like to think am stronger than that

would rather not have my eyeballs gouged out or be immersed in acid or burned or buried alive for example

technically rape carries maximum sentence of life (like arson, murder) where burglary (even aggravated?) probably about 12 or 14 at most, so in that sense it is a more serious conviction

have feeling sentencing more lenient in reality though

I think the points that are being made here are separate issues.

I don't disagree that people don't take rape as seriously as they should. That people don't believe victims as readily as they should.

As a different point, I feel that it's a case of feeling that not ruining innocent people's lives is more important than justice for a victim when it won't undo what's happened. Not that the justice is unimportant, but weighed against the (admittedly slight) possibility of an innocent man labelled a racist forever...

but if your husband (or brother or dad) was falsely accused, you'd want a very high standard of proof, you'd want any conviction to be absolutely sound

we have to remember that it is not difficult for anyone to fall foul of the law when innocent of whatever charges are laid against them

am not sure justice for victims is really the issue, the point is surely to take rapists off the streets and out of the domestic settings they operate in to make society that little bit safer

but we know that many rapists do go on to do it again and again and again, and that many of the men who commit sexually motivated murders only get to the point of doing it because they get away with rape after rape and end up feeling invincible. So people shouldn't be thinking of it as ruining the innocent man's life versus not undoing the harm already done, but as ruining the innocent man's life versus the possibility of more and more (innocent) women's lives being ruined.
Whenever we hear about one of these freakish and appalling cases such as a serial killer like Peter Tobin, or men abducting and imprisoning women like Fritzl in Austria, it always seems to be the case that there have been many opportunities to stop them if only they'd been caught and properly punished for their earlier attacks.

I think justice for the victim and taking them off the streets are both relevant issues - protecting women is important and we keep hearing of cases where it hasn't happened, but justice for victims is still important.

sorry to just jump in, have noticed how when it comes to victim support/funding, collection of evidence, prep of prosection etc, it doesn't seem to be taken seriously at all. in fact it only seems to become a Serious Crime when there's a danger of someone actually being punished for it. then its just too much of a heinous crime to possble convict this nice neat suited man for. it which point the notoriously elastic Reasonable Doubt arguments appear. (that was a really snarky post from a newbie. i apologise but i find it all so frustrating)

I think that justice for victims is partly the issue - not least, the being publicly believed bit would be a big thing for most people, I think.

I also wonder if rapists would learn from time in prison. Obviously whilst they're in prison they're not hurting women, but when they come out... I'm not sure that rape is the sort of thing which is usually stopped by the thought of the repercussions? Unless, I suppose, that's because of the lack of repercussions in general.

Argh, it's so confusing.

a family friend has just been through this mitchyInge
he has now gone to prison for 8 years.
he willingly testifies that he had sexual relationship with the person he just felt it had all been consensual (sp?)
there was NO DOUBT in my head that he had done it, I knew him as a child he was lovely, as a grown up he is a fabulous man, he comes from a great close nit family.
and Yet it is totally and utterly clear that he did it as an act of war/revenge towards his partner who had walked out on him and her children. (he raped his stepdaughter had a 6 month "relationship" with his 14 year old step daughter) very sad and traumatic for everyone and the people determined that it wasn't rape are being blind.