![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
major_clangerA follow-up to this post, in view of the following BBC story:
A majority of women believe some rape victims should take responsibility for what happened, a survey suggests.
...The survey of more than 1,000 people in London marked the 10th anniversary of the Haven service for rape victims...
...The study found that women were less forgiving of the victim than men.
The story concludes by noting that 'the findings may help explain why juries are reluctant to convict in some rape trials.' That's something of an understatement. As I pointed out in my earlier post, if three or more of the jury disbelieve the complainant it is simply not possible to obtain a conviction, because of the rule that a jury decision must be by at least a 10-2 majority.
Even all-female juries wouldn't improve the rape conviction rate. Indeed, on this evidence, such a move would worsen it.
We are very attached to trial by jury. The concept goes back centuries, and the freedom of a jury to reach its own decision was enshrined in English law as far back as 1670 (the trial of Penn and Meade). The recent decision to allow non-jury trials in certain cases has caused much disquiet and interfering in the right to by judged by one's peers is seen as a radical and extreme change to our criminal justice system. But should we tolerate a system that convicts in some 6% of rape complaints?
A majority of women believe some rape victims should take responsibility for what happened, a survey suggests.
...The survey of more than 1,000 people in London marked the 10th anniversary of the Haven service for rape victims...
...The study found that women were less forgiving of the victim than men.
The story concludes by noting that 'the findings may help explain why juries are reluctant to convict in some rape trials.' That's something of an understatement. As I pointed out in my earlier post, if three or more of the jury disbelieve the complainant it is simply not possible to obtain a conviction, because of the rule that a jury decision must be by at least a 10-2 majority.
Even all-female juries wouldn't improve the rape conviction rate. Indeed, on this evidence, such a move would worsen it.
We are very attached to trial by jury. The concept goes back centuries, and the freedom of a jury to reach its own decision was enshrined in English law as far back as 1670 (the trial of Penn and Meade). The recent decision to allow non-jury trials in certain cases has caused much disquiet and interfering in the right to by judged by one's peers is seen as a radical and extreme change to our criminal justice system. But should we tolerate a system that convicts in some 6% of rape complaints?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-15 10:10 am (UTC)What we see is a two-stage problem. Firstly, there is a significant barrier to getting complaints taken to trial, if only 15% are. This may be due in part to complaints not being taken seriously, but I suspect there is also an element of pessimism on behalf of the CPS in terms of the likelihood of securing a conviction, and the risk of putting a complainant through a harrowing trial only to see an acquittal.
Secondly, there is the trial itself. It is hard to know what is the underlying cause as jury research always has been, and remains, stricly forbidden. (The Lord Chief Justice reiterated this, in another context, only the other month). But surveys like the one reported here do suggest that societal attitudes and assumptions may be part of the reason for the low conviction rate.