Consent

P

purr

At the Start
Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
220
Location
Dorset
Did anyone see this on Channel 4 last night? I taped it and have just sat down to watch it, and to be honest I was quite shocked. It really opened my eyes about the jury system in this country and how it is completely inadequate.

For those who don't know, it was a "date rape" scenario - actors played the part of the accused, plaintiff and witnesses, and the rest of the people were for real - prosecutor, defence, police, judge, and jury - random selection.

An incredibly major decision can rest on a bunch of muppets who think "not all rapes are traumatic", "you'd get angry, not just sit there in shock for days!", "whatever our decision is, it won't affect her, but it will have a big effect on him!" or come out with gems like "I think they're both guilty!" (the defendant AND the plaintiff). Only one of the above comments was from a man.

I would have found him guilty, even bearing in mind "beyond reasonable doubt", with all the evidence on show. The jury found him not guilty. It turned out that he had "done it", and therefore got away with it.

I didn't envy the jury one bit as it must be hard to decide, but I was appalled at HOW they decided and the comments they came out with in judgement of the woman.

I hope I never have to rely on people like that - no wonder people don't want to go through it.
 
I didn't see it but my brother was on a jury for a date rape trial a few years ago and he says it was horrific. The evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the guilty verdit despite the people concerned being a couple - the man was convicted and sent down. My brother was very much disturbed by the whole trial.
 
Originally posted by purr@Jan 22 2007, 10:07 PM
I would have found him guilty, even bearing in mind "beyond reasonable doubt", with all the evidence on show. The jury found him not guilty. It turned out that he had "done it", and therefore got away with it.
Click to expand...
I hope Warbler or someone of that ilk will be along soon.
 
I didn't watch the fiction, but I was on a jury early last year in another type of case where the accused would probably look very plausible. It was the long-term sexual abuse of two young boys in the care of a man who was first the Head of a school for 'troublesome' boys, then moved on into Social Services. Given that the evidence was purely anecdotal and easily 30 years old, one would think that we 'muppets' would've dismissed the accusations within half an hour.

As it was, the trial lasted nine days and we found the accused comprehensively guilty on 12 of 13 counts in a trial which tested three now grown men to give what was humiliating and gruelling testimony. Our view was, from the get-go, three unrelated men, one with a family, were hardly likely to now bring up past coerced sodomy, masturbation, and fellatio for a bit of a laugh.

I was particularly struck by the tremendous common sense of our jurors, from a mature head teacher, young office workers, a carpenter, through to a 20 y.o. male student, who we appointed as our head. At the end of the trial, one of the male jurors then said he decided not to tell anyone in case he was thought prejudiced, but that he'd been abused as a young child by an uncle. He was one of the most calm, reasoned and objective members.

It sounds as if the film made juries appear idiotic and biased, while my experience from what I saw in the juries' waiting room and the way we - all complete strangers - discussed matters calmly and without any arguments in the jury room reflected anything but that. In that respect, I would say that the film has done juries a great disservice and that it will be far more damaging than any good towards encouraging women to come forward after being attacked. That is not in the service of women at all.
 
Yes the jury didn't come out of it well at all, although they were allegedly randomly chosen members of the public as any jury would be. I suppose the point is, there is always a risk that you will get a moron, someone with a prejudice, or someone who just takes a look at someone's face and decides they are guilty/lying without hearing the evidence.

Obviously not all juries are going to be like this, but the one on television last night certainly was.

I agree that it may well put women off reporting an attack, which is indeed very worrying.
 
I watched this and thought it was quite predictable that he would be found not guilty and that he had actually committed rape.

I would have found him guilty, even bearing in mind "beyond reasonable doubt", with all the evidence on show.
Click to expand...

There was no way he could possibly have been found guilty - it was his word against hers. Remember, being found 'not guilty' is not the same as being found 'innocent'....the former simply means that it cannot be proven he did it.

As the defence summed up - the jurors needed to be sure he did it, not probably did it, may of did it, or could have done it.

As there was NO solid evidence that he was lying and she was telling the truth, the decision was the correct one. It's better for a guilty man to walk free than an innocent man to be sent to jail for many years for a crime he did not commit.

Re the jurors (muppets as you call them) - what did you expect? These are supposed to represent a cross-section of the British public, so why the hell did you expect them all to be level-headed and intelligent? There are morons and idiots everywhere (take a look at any message board for example) so on every jury you're going to get some people who have pretty blinkered and ignorant views on certain issues.

I'm not sure it will put women off reporting an attack (far too many go unreported as it is) - perhaps (hopefully) women watching will realise that if this does happen to them then they need to report it asap, not wait for days after other circumstances have come into play (such as her boss making her rapist her equal and then refusing to sack him on her demand).

His aquittal was more down to her actions afterwards than the inadequacies of the jury.
 
Originally posted by Stav@Jan 23 2007, 10:46 AM
Re the jurors (muppets as you call them) - what did you expect? These are supposed to represent a cross-section of the British public, so why the hell did you expect them all to be level-headed and intelligent? There are morons and idiots everywhere (take a look at any message board for example) so on every jury you're going to get some people who have pretty blinkered and ignorant views on certain issues.
Click to expand...
And that's what really concerns me about the current trial by jury system. That was my point.

Watching this programme, thinking that is how it could be... It would entirely put me off reporting such an incident, if it (God forbid) ever happened to me. What other evidence could there have been, even if she had reported it earlier?

I felt the physical evidence, the character references, the way he kept changing his story... he was less than convincing and this combined with the physical evidence and the fact that she was so bruised and also that the sex was unprotected while she had condoms right there in her bag... it would have been enough for me. I was certain that he had done it based on the evidence shown in court, and I would have been shocked if it had turned out any other way.

Of course if I was on a jury myself I would never give a guilty verdict based on opinion, as a legally trained person I am fully aware of the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard of proof in the criminal courts. But, in a rape case, what evidence would you expect in order to give a guilty verdict - physical evidence of trauma, sure - which was evident in this case - and what else?
 
Purr - you say you're 'legally trained' - as what, I don't know, but if you are then you've just entirely overlooked what was exactly the same sort of case which I was jurying on.

We had no physical evidence, other than photos of the school where some of the alleged attacks took place. We had the word of one supposedly respectable, middle-class man with a respectable, middle-class family against three blokes, one who cheerfully admitted he'd been 'dodgy' - did drugs, stole, was generally 'a bit of a wide boy'. The reason they'd been in contact with the accused was because they were all deemed 'unmanageable'.

Yet, 12 sensible people sat down and convicted on 12 of 13 counts of sexual battery because of not of the 'evidence' brought - there was none, since records had long ago been destroyed when the school was closed - but because of the fact that too much of the information from both sides drew us inevitably to those conclusions.

Purr, you seem determined to have seen one film and have decided that juries are idiots - which presumably you and Stav would also be if called - and that you can't see how a jury could have reached the conclusion it did. You seem to think that no-one could win a date rape case, which is nonsense, because plenty of women have.

We convicted on the basis of verbal evidence only. We convicted on the basis of a 'higher status' accused versus three previous little scrotes. We convicted on the basis of the much higher likelihood that the acts described DID take place. We convicted on the basis that we put aside any bias we might have had - did you bother to read that one of our jurors had been similarly attacked, yet refused to trade on this, remaining objective and calm?

If anyone's biased, it seems to be you, Purr! And if that's what legal training does, I'm rather glad you're not on a jury!
 
I did read your post Krizon, and obviously in this case the jury was sensible, fair and talked things through properly.

In last night's case, the jury were shouty, talked over each other, made some rather startling comments and basically did not do the concept of trial by jury any favours at all. There were one or two people on that jury who were trying to stick to the case properly and discuss it like a sensible adult, but you could see them getting more and more frustrated with the bimbos and the opinionated.

Last night's jury was chosen from random selection, just as any jury could be chosen and the people were not actors.

If all juries were like the one you describe, I would feel happy with the system and feel that cases are being considered in a reasonable way. However, it is all too real that a jury could be just like the one on the programme, and that - to me - would be a horrifying thought.

I couldn't put myself through it, just because of the risk that I would get a jury like the one last night, who would judge me personally rather than trying to stick to the facts.

I would never say that all juries are like this, but they doubtless can happen, and that scares me.

Incidentally, Stav is saying that they couldn't possibly have found him guilty as the evidence they had was so little (photographs of bruises six days later, and verbal accounts under oath - he was proved to have lied in his police statements, there were other anomalies as well such as the condom issue, as I said, what more evidence would you ever expect from a rape case).

So based on Stav's points, he would also presumably not have convicted in the case you sat on.
 
I haven't seen the program (it's sitting on Sky+ at home, though), but I wonder if the fact that the jury knew they weren't a real jury had an effect on how they approached it?
 
I felt the physical evidence, the character references, the way he kept changing his story... he was less than convincing and this combined with the physical evidence and the fact that she was so bruised and also that the sex was unprotected while she had condoms right there in her bag... it would have been enough for me. I was certain that he had done it based on the evidence shown in court, and I would have been shocked if it had turned out any other way.
Click to expand...

"the way he kept changing his story" - she seemed to change her story just as much as he did

"and the fact that she was so bruised" - she had a couple of small bruises which could easily have been consistant with consensual rough sex (which he claimed it had been)

"and also that the sex was unprotected while she had condoms right there in her bag" - no evidence of this, her word only, even the viewers didn't see if this was the truth

Watching this programme, thinking that is how it could be... It would entirely put me off reporting such an incident, if it (God forbid) ever happened to me. What other evidence could there have been, even if she had reported it earlier?
Click to expand...

Reporting it earlier wouldn't have guaranteed a conviction but it would certainly increased the chances. For those who did not watch the program, the guy followed her to her hotel room (both had been drinking) when she went to change her shoes, and once inside they started kissing and ended up on the bed. She admitted she was happy for this to happen but when he started being more advanceful she decided she didn't want it to go any further, but he forced her.

Afterwards she told no-one, and went back to work to find out that her rapist colleague had been promoted to be the boss's deputy, a position (I think) she was hoping for. This pissed her off big time (she admitted this in court) so went home and told her flatmate what had happened. She returned to work the next day and told her boss she had been 'sexually assaulted' by the guy, and that he must sack him. Obviously the boss could not do that and told her if she was serious then she should go to the police. He sent her home and her flatmate eventually persuaded her to officially report it.

For obvious reasons, date-rape can be incredibly difficult to prove and I felt the message given by the program was that if it does happen to you, then you need to report it as quickly as possible as otherwise subsequent events can transpire against you - as they clearly did here. They gave ammunition to the defense which left the jury no alternative as to find the guy not guilty.
 
If you believe a televised drama represents real life, Purr, then we'd all be screaming, hysterical, over-sexed, axe-wielding psychotics. I'm afraid real life is a lot, lot duller.

The only fact I see here is that this was fiction. What was the purpose of the play, anyway? To try to tell women that they won't be believed? To frighten them out of reporting such an incident because juries are made up of fools? Those tired old themes have already been done to death in other fictional works. The idea of the bug-eyed ranting jury is SO old, it ought to be in a nursing home.
 
Yes, the TV cameras probably did not help, but the fact is there is a risk that you could have people on a jury saying these exact same things without the TV cameras, as it was their genuine opinions.

"We should find him not guilty because if he goes to jail it will affect him, but if he goes free it won't affect her", the guy who said that would probably have felt that way regardless of whether he had a camera pointing at him.

This was a genuine jury, not played by actors, and of course having a camera pointed at them might make them take it less seriously but all the same, their views were genuine.

It just brought home to me that there is a risk that someone could go through all this, telling the truth about what happened to them, and they may end up with a prejudiced or less than intelligent jury who are not capable of reasoned discussion.

I fully believe there needs to be some form of "quality control" in the form of appointing professional jurors to do the job rather than random selection.
 
Originally posted by purr@Jan 23 2007, 10:46 AM
I did read your post Krizon, and obviously in this case the jury was sensible, fair and talked things through properly.

In last night's case, the jury were shouty, talked over each other, made some rather startling comments and basically did not do the concept of trial by jury any favours at all. There were one or two people on that jury who were trying to stick to the case properly and discuss it like a sensible adult, but you could see them getting more and more frustrated with the bimbos and the opinionated.

Last night's jury was chosen from random selection, just as any jury could be chosen and the people were not actors.

If all juries were like the one you describe, I would feel happy with the system and feel that cases are being considered in a reasonable way. However, it is all too real that a jury could be just like the one on the programme, and that - to me - would be a horrifying thought.

I couldn't put myself through it, just because of the risk that I would get a jury like the one last night, who would judge me personally rather than trying to stick to the facts.

I would never say that all juries are like this, but they doubtless can happen, and that scares me.

Incidentally, Stav is saying that they couldn't possibly have found him guilty as the evidence they had was so little (photographs of bruises six days later, and verbal accounts under oath - he was proved to have lied in his police statements, there were other anomalies as well such as the condom issue, as I said, what more evidence would you ever expect from a rape case).

So based on Stav's points, he would also presumably not have convicted in the case you sat on.
Click to expand...

Two points that Colin made seem to me to be determinative.

1 It wasn't a real case

2 They knew they were on TV - were they perhaps encouraged to argue ?

As an evidential basis for attacking trial by jury it is about as reliable as Jeffrey Archer.

K's experience is I suggest much closer to the mark.
 
Back
Top