I am genuinely interested in this topic, if you want to talk about Mason Greenwood please go to that thread.

Last year I was on a jury trying a sexual assault case we found him not guilty. Even today I am still uneasy about it, it was the right decision under the law however most of us felt that "something" had happened as opposed to him being innocent.

There are shockingly low numbers of convictions which understandably women's rights groups are justly upset about.

But what do we do about it.

In the case I was on the judge was a very kindly man he made sure the victim and other witnesses were comfortable and understood the process. The victim gave evidence from behind a curtain and neither prosecution or defence lawyers raised their voices in fact there was no bullying, histrionics or courtroom antics that you see in the movies.

So as a man it's hard to see what more could be done in terms of the trial process to ensure that the victim has their day in court and isn't intimidated.

During the trial we were told that the victim has been interviewed by a female police detective who was specially trained in these cases and she gave evidence. So it looks like the police side of this went as well as could be expected.

So I come back to my point what more can be done. I believe in some countries they have special rape courts (the law is still the same) it's the environment that is special e.g. mainly female court staff. I don't have a problem with that if it works.

One option is to say "The victim must be believed" well sorry I don't accept that because then you have a 2 tier legal system where extra weight is added to a victim's evidence depending on the crime.

The only sensible thought I have had so far is actually what that person is charged with.

In the case above it wasn't just sexual assault the charge specifically and I do mean specifically details what he was alleged to have done. The judge told us to find him guilty we had to accept that he did every thing described. Well none of us (7 women 5 men) believed one of the actions it was just nonsense.

However if the charge had simply been "sexual assault by touching this person in a sexual manner without their consent" (in other words leaving the specifics to the evidence) he might have been found guilty as some of us did feel that something had happened.

So apart from re framing the charges I struggle to see what more can be done.

Your thoughts

One more point

It’s really interesting you have some first hand experience in a case like this - thanks for sharing it.

I think the ‘why’ is quite explainable; generally a crime which takes place behind closed doors, without witnesses, one word vs another - anything is difficult to prove in those circumstances.

You then add that alcohol/drugs are often involved, and the load of grey around the nature of sex and the things that permits, and it’s a nightmare from a legal point of view.

In all honesty, I don’t know the solution.

I’ve seen these cases pursued with more success in a civil claim rather than a criminal one, as the burden of proof required is less, but that doesn’t feel like a solution which could scale up.

It’s an absolute minefield and I hope someone smarter can me can come up with something, because clearly the current system is not working.

Not strictly on point because it can apply in any criminal case.

At the end of the defendants phase of the trial his lawyer read to the court his previous good behaviour and character references from 3 people.

It's a standard thing in many different trials but why? As I said in my post above I am only interested in evidence that relates to the crime, a letter from somebody who wasn't there but says he's a good bloke, so what?

I don't think any of the jury paid the slightest heed to the good character references. Plenty of people and I include myself have got drunk and done something out of character that family and friends would never have believed.

One more point

The question is what amount get correct convictions ? As a % I mean.
I suppose we will never know the answer but I prefer the law now than back in the day.
We burn you, if it heals you’re a witch, if it doesn’t heal you’re a witch. Then you’re burnt or hanged. Seems slightly unfair

Literally, the only solution would be a written consent form with various boxes to be ticked as to precisely what is being consented to (straight sex, anal, bondage etc. etc) signed by both parties before or during foreplay.

Would put rather a damper on the whole business in my opinion,but it would solve the problem.

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

i know nothing about legal process. However, it strikes me that prosecutions happen on a case-by-case. And get chucked out of court if the evidence isnt strong enough.

surely if you are dealing with a Marlon King/Ian Huntley type character.......then all their previous shady background MUST be taken into account ?

if a bloke has a ton of previous...then he's gotta be a nasty c..nt ?

and if the 'victim' has a ton of previous false-claims ? against different people. what does that tell you ?

Edited by PalazioVecchio (07 Feb 2023 11.07pm)

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford