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?

Well he should have said that then, thumbwitch. Otherwise people might get the idea that the Secretary of State has a problem with the inconvenience the justice system causes to rapists.

TBH I think things are just as bad for male rape victims, but don't have stats. My instinct would be the same as yours - that people can more easily accept that a man doesn't want to be forced into sexual activity with another man, than face the truth that woman aren't constantly available for sex any time anywhere.

I agree with you Elephants - but then again maybe they are getting the right idea? I was just throwing up a possible alternative but it's quite possible that he does just think men shouldn't be accused/convicted of rape, FGS, it's not like it's murder, it's only sex but it has such dreadful connotations for the poor man.
{wish there was an "I'm being completely sarcastic there" emoticon]

I honestly can not believe the 'genetically programmed' rapist argument - it just doesn't hold up at all, if you look at the rape stats for South Africa, look at how rape is used during war. Prison probably does very little to reform rapists, it does very little to reform any criminal - all the evidence suggests its a very expensive way of making criminals better at crime. But what else do we have?

I agree with Elephants and thumbwitch. I think it is very much a case that poor men shouldn't have to go through the embarresment of a rape trial/conviction.

I know of a friend just been though a very similar experience to ByThePowerOfGreyskull just shocking how lenient his sentence was, how convinced he was that his stepdaughter had led him on. Whats more scandalous was the lack of support she got - took a long time to come to trial, for many months he had been convicted on porn charges and suspected of abuse but she didn't say anything, then she wasn't allowed counselling until after the trial incase that damaged the evidence she gave. Put her mother in an awful dilema, what was most important getting support for or justice for her daughter.

But most rapists aren't also peadophiles, the guy I knew also had masses of child porn on his computer, which I imagine helped the jury, that and him being significantly older than his victim and married to her mother. If he had merely raped his wife I'm sure he wouldn't be in prison.

TheLadyEvenstar
apologies for shouting but
THE EIGHT YEAR OLD GIRL DID NOT MAKE A FALSE ALLEGATION. THE BOYS WERE CONVICTED OF ATTEMPTED RAPE. THE GIRL WAS PERSUADED BY THE PROSECUTION ASKING HER LEADING QUESTIONS AT THE END OF A LONG DAY TO SAY SHE HAD MADE IT UP BUT THE JUDGE AND JURY CLEARLY DID NOT BELIEVE THIS WAS THE CASE [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8692223.stm]]

link

apologies - the defence not the prosecution

Theladyevenstar - I reckon you're making that shit up to support your prejudice arguments. If you want to be taken at all seriously, you will have to do better than that.

Oh yes and also, do burglars, murderers, fraudsters etc have law breaking in their genes?

Does it make a difference? Even if it was genetic (laughable but playing along), so what? They're still a danger to society and should be treated accordingly.

Why are you so invested in excusing rapists?

I'm really sorry, I shouldn't have shouted, I'm just so fed up with seeing this awful calumny on the eight year old girl repeated. It's so unfair.

'ONe could even say it was partly her fault that the girl I worked with had been raped, as her consensual sex with one of the blokes implied that the other girl would be "up for it" as well.'

Thumbwitch - I'm sure you don't really believe that - it's too ridiculous when you think about it.

Excusing rapists? no thats not what I do. I think rapists are the lowest form of scum on earth and if i had my way i would see every one of the disgusting bastards strung up. However over the years I have often wondered why these men and sometimes women do rape. I do believe it is something in the make up. Whether that be a mental health issue or just genetical.

Many thieves are drug addicts/alcoholics or just addicted to stealing - sad but true.

Would I defend a rapist?? no in the slightest...would you defend one?

Seth - enlighten me as to which bit you are referring to please - I'm not entirely sure.

You should have come along to our discussion group on Susan Brownmiller's book 'Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape' TheLadyEvenstar.
She makes a pretty good case for it being to do with the prevailing culture rather than it being genetic, I think.

the bit I quoted Thumbwitch - the idea that the victim's friend should share the blame for her friend being raped and that because one person is up for sex that is a reason for thinking their friend must be as well.

did you mean, rather than 'one could say that', that 'sexist unreasonable people could say that'? Because the phrase 'one could say that' makes it sound like you think it's reasonable!

Sorry, don't know how I missed that quote! I must have scrolled down too fast or something.

HOw to put this - yes I do think that the "friend" is to blame to some extent, but not as much as the lads who did the deed. If the "friend" hadn't agreed to get into the van and made the girl I worked with get into the van as well, then perhaps she wouldn't have been raped. But perhaps she would. Who knows.
I do blame the other girl for lying about it because it destroyed the whole case for the girl I worked with - if it had just been her bringing the case, maybe she would have got further with getting some justice - but then again maybe not, since she was drunk, with another girl who was "up for it" and got into the van (not willingly but she wasn't hogtied either). It's hard enough, as we know, to get justice when all the evidence is there - but include alcohol and some doubt as to whether a "no" was said/heard and the chances fade rapidly.

It's harder to be objective when you know someone involved in this kind of thing, I find. But in the end of course it is the lads' fault primarily.

Well that brings me back to my question - do you think this genetic excuse (for that is what it is) extends to murderers, thieves, fraudsters and other people who break the law?

I agree with the point made quite early on here that men generally see rape as almost an occupational hazard of being a woman, and while they accept it's a crime, don't see it as that serious unless it involves particular violence - hence the bending over backwards to be 'fair' to the accused.

However, given that the law as I understand it says 'innocent till proven guilty', then on the other hand, I can't really see how to get round this notion that the accused should be given the benefit of the doubt - because surely that's how the law works: if the case is that he says A and she says B, the judgement has to be innocent, in the absence of other supporting evidence? I strongly believe that the rape conviction rate's too low but I have serious doubts about how to proceed to change that without tampering wholesale with the innocent till proven guilty principle.

I have just been watching the coverage of the search for Raoul Moat, which is drawing massive amounts of attention given the threat to a specific group - ie police officers. Now I can see that it's right to take such a threat seriously but in comparison, rapists being known to be on the loose and free to attack a much wider group (ie women) draws much less coverage and outrage.

Genetic excuse-don't make me laugh. Ordinary men and women do this, that's the frightening thing about it.

I think we have problems with (i) the law; (ii) our culture; and (iii) the justice system, which combine to really toxic effect in sex crime investigations and trials. Actually I wonder if the law, though imperfect, is the least of these problems.

The Law may well need changing, but altering burdens of proof and other radical changes? I wonder how we could practically run a completely different system of proof and evidence for sexual offences alongside the conventional one for everything else.

I think the fundamental problem is cultural.
You can use legal changes to alter the culture (eg. the Race Discrimination Act, which prohibited and therefore stigmatised conduct hitherto considered acceptable as a means of social engineering) but I sadly feel there is no consensus for it among our political classes and it is not clear what changes would be effective. Even if there were a consensus, parts of the media would be trenchantly hostile and the need to keep them onside would stifle this kind of thing at birth.

Plus, unless they've had some direct involvement in a case, I don't think many people realise just how strained and stressed the justice system is (and how much worse it is going to get once the independent criminal Bar is completely destroyed, which won't be long now). Spend a day sitting in Crown Court listening to all the applications and hearings-you will be horrified at how ad hoc, shoddy and inept many prosecutions and defences are, usually through simple lack of time and co-ordination but sometimes from the incompetence and indifference of the people involved.

There is no appetite for fixing this for anyone, let alone vulnerable women and children, because it is complex, costs money and wholly undermines the quick fix high rhetoric approach of all the major parties. What we have instead are sentimental tabloid campaigns for simplistic legal changes and easy paedo-bashing.

What can we do? Campaign, educate, complain, but like civil rights, it's going to be a very long haul.

But if someone was say robbed and the victim identified the attacker, who denied it, would that mean the attacker was always found innocent? Maybe, I don't know.

I think our idea of rapists as the lowest form of scum may be part of the problem - we have a picture of the evil rapist - which men don't identify themselves as when their lover says no, but they really don't think that is the right answer. I think we have a big problem with how society treats women and maybe that needs to be addressed as well as just the conviction rate. I'm thinking of lads magazines, music videos, wanna be wag t-shirts on sale for little girls at primark. We define women in so much popular culture as sexual objects, this has to be part of the problem. I really feel we have gone backwards as a society in our treatment of women over the last 10 years.

I suppose when you have,like me, spent so long trying to figure out why it is easy to latch on to a reason as to why a man would rape.

when lets face it it is animal instinct to hunt what you want and take it.

thats basically what a rapist does, over powers his prey and takes what he wants leaving his prey either dead or wounded

Well when I'm hungry or need a pee, I negotiate with these desires towards a socially acceptable outcome

And prey isn't the right word for rape I don't think. prey is with regards to killing to eat.

I wonder if animals rape. (random thought)

Anyway, we, as a society, pride ourselves on this negotiation so in this respect, it is irrelevant what a rapists instincts are, it is the factors which make him think he is entitled to take it, which I reckon are patriarchy and society's depiction of women, subservience and ever readiness for sex.

ducks do. gang rape with murder sometimes.

Well when I'm hungry or need a pee, I negotiate with these desires towards a socially acceptable outcome

And prey isn't the right word for rape I don't think. prey is with regards to killing to eat.

I wonder if animals rape. (random thought)

Anyway, we, as a society, pride ourselves on this negotiation so in this respect, it is irrelevant what a rapists instincts are, it is the factors which make him think he is entitled to take it, which I reckon are patriarchy and society's depiction of women, subservience and ever readiness for sex.

women don't rape

legally they can 'assault by penetration' but the offence of rape (in England) can only be committed by a penis with a man attached to one end of it

Mitchy i love the way you say things!! you make me giggle