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?

The male victim thing is interesting. I've had this discussion (with a man) before - & he feels that man on man rape is worse, because of the 'gay' aspect as well as the rape. I think that it's not really about sexuality at all. Rape isn't a sexual act, it's a violent one which happens to use sex. & what if a lesbian is raped by a man? Is that not equally bad as a straight man being raped by a man? Apparently not, but I don't see why. Especially if the woman is anally raped, so you can't even use that argument (more painful, etc - like being forced to have sex against your will isn't painful if you have a vagina?!)

EightiesChick points out something which highlights my discomfort with the possibility of ruining a man's life with the accusation of rape - the innocent until proven guilty principle. It seems like most of you here feel the opposite about rape (because of the statistics - false accusations being so rare) & that accused rapists should be guilty until proven innocent. I understand the statistical basis for that, but it's not in the spirit of the justice system. This is why it's so confusing to me, because I feel like I fall somewhere in the middle, but there is no middle.

I make myself laugh too - which is a problem socially

No I think everyone should be considered innocent until they are proven to be guilty. That is what happens now and I don't think anyone is suggesting changing that legal framework.

What some people are saying, is that the "his word against hers" argument isn't seen as a problem if, for example, she saw him burgling her house. In that case everyone (I would think) recognises that her statement is valid witness testimony. When it comes to rape however, it's treated in practice as if her testimony has no value. "She would say that". There's an unspoken assumption that women can and often do make allegations of rape against innocent men because - well who knows? Because they're pissed off with them, because they don't want anyone to think they've slept with the bloke consensually, I don't know, we're in the realm of fantasy here. Some women do make false allegations of rape. There just aren't very many of them. Similar to the numbers who make false allegations of burglary, in fact.

What some people here are outraged about, is that the court case is all about what he thought. Did he think she was looking at him in a suggestive manner? If there's any kind of get out the man and his lawyer can come up with, the CPS or jury seem eager to seize with both hands to avoid convicting. However the fundamental viewpoint of the victim, that she was attacked and violated, is seen as so much hogwash, as likely to be false as true.

That's what's wrong.

There still seems to be a prevailing (and extremely old fashioned attitude) that women are unreliable witnesses - and that they are more prone to not telling the truth, or that their minds are somehow not rigid enough for clear recall. I can't remember exactly which bloody Psychologist said that kind of bollocks (Probably Freud) but I did find this when googling - Islam believe that the testimony of 2 women is needed to be equal to that of 1 man.

'...the rate of conviction once someone has been charged with rape is 58 per cent.

A report in to the effectiveness of juries, published by the Ministry of Justice last month, confirmed that rapists are more likely to be convicted than acquitted, with higher success rates than those for rates for grievous bodily harm, threats to kill, manslaughter and attempted murder.'

(From here)

So is the problem the bit before it gets to the court? (The whole 6% thing?) Or should the figure of 58% be much higher?

The women not being believed thing is obviously ridiculous (especially the requiring 2 women for the same effect as 1 man ), but am not sure that it isn't a slight red herring. Again, what about male rape victims? Are they more readily believed in the courts?

Yeah, the problem is in the beginning. Victims who go to the police are not always swabbed for DNA or taken seriously, they are discouraged from persuing the case etc etc

I have to say last time there was a discussion on rape I was very much against the accused being named, but the more I read and listen about the whole thing the more I think dittany (et al) are right.

I find it so hard to believe that juries think women make it up that I was all for allowing men to remain anonymous...

It's such a sorry state. Don't women jurors also fail to convict rapists?

I think it is the "It'll never happen to me" "if that was me I would do ABC" syndrome. that makes it hard for others to believe an accusation.

Well i think most of the rape cases have problems getting to court in the first place were all banging on about juries but most cases which get to court end in conviction.

Perhaps it would be logical to expect the conviction rate once the case goes to court to be higher than 58% because the proportion of cases which actually end up in court is so low i.e. only the most cut and dried, violent, stranger type rapes actually make it that far?

"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 this is completely backwards. The problem is that rape is treated differently than other crimes at the moment but shouldn't be. With other crimes people don't blame the victim. They would listen to both sides and remember that the accused has a lot to gain by lying.

Right, this information about where the problem lies - before a charge is brought - is very interesting. So the stats we hear about 5%-ish (is that correct) of cases end in conviction includes a lot accusations that don't actually even make it to a charge. Now that's actually encouraging, in a way, because it makes me think, along the lines of EldritchCleavage's excellent post, that this is a cultural issue rather than one where we need to change the principles of the legal system in terms of innocent till proven guilty, which as I said earlier, makes me uncomfortable. Having said that, it's hardly an easy task to change an institutionally sexist policing and justice system - which is what we seem to be saying we have.

RespecttheDoughnut The 'male rape is worse' view some men take seems to come from that being something 'unnatural' if the victim is straight, whereas sex between men and women is inherently natural, even if one party is having it forced on them .

Scottish rape law is changing with regards to consent:

Circumstances in which conduct takes place without free agreement Show EN

(1) For the purposes of section 12, but without prejudice to the generality of that section, free agreement to conduct is absent in the circumstances set out in subsection (2).

(2) Those circumstances are?

(a) where the conduct occurs at a time when B is incapable because of the effect of alcohol or any other substance of consenting to it,

(b) where B agrees or submits to the conduct because of violence used against B or any other person, or because of threats of violence made against B or any other person,

(c) where B agrees or submits to the conduct because B is unlawfully detained by A,

(d) where B agrees or submits to the conduct because B is mistaken, as a result of deception by A, as to the nature or purpose of the conduct,

(e) where B agrees or submits to the conduct because A induces B to agree or submit to the conduct by impersonating a person known personally to B, or

(f) where the only expression or indication of agreement to the conduct is from a person other than B.

(3) References in this section to A and to B are to be construed in accordance with sections 1 to 9.
14 Consent: capacity while asleep or unconscious Show EN

(1) This section applies in relation to sections 1 to 9.

(2) A person is incapable, while asleep or unconscious, of consenting to any conduct.
15 Consent: scope and withdrawal Show EN

(1) This section applies in relation to sections 1 to 9.

(2) Consent to conduct does not of itself imply consent to any other conduct.

(3) Consent to conduct may be withdrawn at any time before, or in the case of continuing conduct, during, the conduct.

(4) If the conduct takes place, or continues to take place, after consent has been withdrawn, it takes place, or continues to take place, without consent.

Reasonable belief
16 Reasonable belief Show EN

In determining, for the purposes of Part 1, whether a person?s belief as to consent or knowledge was reasonable, regard is to be had to whether the person took any steps to ascertain whether there was consent or, as the case may be, knowledge; and if so, to what those steps were.

www.opsi.gov.uk/legislation/scotland/acts2009/asp_20090009_en_3#pt2

Many people are upset with these changes as they realise they cannot continue to get away with raping drunk women. I hope it works.

Thanks for that earwicga, I thought I was out of my depth there for a second then I got the gist

Are people coming out and clearly saying they are upset about this? Unbelievable. It'll be "how can you tell when someone is unconscious" next.

Eightieschick - it was that conclusion: "it's hardly an easy task to change an institutionally sexist policing and justice system - which is what we seem to be saying we have" which led me to ask this question

Gosh - that takes away the "implied consent" thing when people haven't been able to say no for whatever reason - that's a good thing!

"Some women do make false allegations of rape. There just aren't very many of them."

Actually there have been several reliable studies of this. The best one I know of actually required the woman in question to admit in as many words that no rape occurred and taht study showed that 41% of rape allegations were false.

Isn't it interesting how well that fits with the figure of 58% for convictions in court?

"You'd better get in touch with Baroness Stern then captainspeaking, because she found no such thing in her review last year."

Yes the Stern review found that 35% of allegations were withdrawn by the complainant after talking to the police. Add to that the 7% of cases which come to court but do not result in conviction and what do you get?

42%.

Exactly what we'd expect if the previous study of false allegations was correct.

"Yes, your reasoning is completely sound there CN"

Thanks.

I actually think that rape is probably the second most under-reported of all crimes after assault. In fact I'll go further: I think that the overwhelming majority of rapes are never even reported. So the reports are composed of a very small proportion of those real rapes and a large number of malicious accusations.

So two things can be done: more work on getting women to report rape and men to stop doing it (a long process), and very long prison sentences for women who falsely accuse men of rape. No one who genuinely wants to see rape eradicated could argue with that; after all those false allegations make it far more difficult for real victims to be heard.

Have just read this - and be warned, it's a depressing tale - not primarily about rape but in fact, the difficulty this young woman had in getting people to act on her accusations of rape/sexual abuse played a major part in things. Plus I was at the drunk girl in the street they disbelieved and sectioned! Is this all part of this general underlying sense that women are not to be believed in what they say? There's no male case to compare it with, but still...

"the difficulty this young woman had in getting people to act on her accusations of rape/sexual abuse played a major part in things"

It is sad, but it's important to be realistic - this is a person whose own family acknowledge was unstable, prone to screaming abuse at those caring for her, who committed crimes against people she accused of terrible offences without apparent evidence and who was known to have serious problems with drugs and alcohol.

I wouldn't say she wasn't raped although I wouldn't say she was either. But how is anyone supposed to find the truth in amongst that lot?

"The rape victim isn't just standing up giving evidence for the entertainment of the court - what she says is evidence that could convict a rapist if the jury finds it convincing and it has the same value as every other kind of evidence that is presented to the courtroom.

On the other hand the rapist isn't a witness, he's the defendant."

"It's not one side's word against another. It's witness evidence and whether or not you believe that the prosecution successfully disputed it. If they didn't then why didn't you find the defendant guilty."

Surely if the defendant's case is that there was a sexual act but that it was consensual, i.e. he does not dispute that he was present during the act and participated in it, then by definition he is also a "witness" to the act.

That's not to say that his version of what happened should be automatically treated as more believable than the alleged victim, but I'm not sure where you are coming from in saying that he is not a "witness". Surely that's the crux of the issue - the two people are both witnesses (likely the only two witnesses of the act) and the jury has to decide, based on their conflicting accounts, whether or not they are sure beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty?

"I'm not sure where you are coming from in saying that he is not a "witness"."

He's not a witness. He's the accused. They call them different things to distinguish between their roles.

The acccused's account carries no more weight than anyone else's. It has to be consistent and have evidence to support it. Just saying, "I didn't do it" isn't enough, any more than saying, "He did it".

Who says something is irrelevant. Courts don't judge how valid evidence is on the basis of who presents it, they judge it on wheter it is consistent, reliable and useful.

I appreciate that distinction in the legal sense. But what I mean is that they are both "witnesses" insofar as they both witnessed the act at the centre of the trial, and that neither the accused nor the alleged victim's account should of itself carry more weight. I agree completely with your last two paragraphs.