- Joined
- Oct 1, 2005
- Messages
- 38,750
- Reaction score
- 13,845
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/juries-rape-trials-myths-justice
Not only does the writer want to do away with JURIES, a cherished institution in the English (and American) legal system, she also wants to undermine JUDGES, even those "specially-trained," with a special "panel" of advisors:
This is bat**** insane.
There is no crime so heinous worth eliminating OR undermining fundamental institutions of justice for.
The conviction rates for rape have long been shockingly low. This is what has led one Labour MP, Ann Coffey, today to suggest doing away with juries in rape trials.
I support this. Prevailing rape myths, such as “she was asking for it”, “he’s handsome, and does not ‘need’ to rape”, and “if she didn’t want it she would close her legs”, can poison the mind of a juror against the complainant, whatever the evidence against the defendant. Women and girls are routinely blamed for being raped, which means the perpetrator, even when it is abundantly clear that he is guilty, is too often absolved. That is how patriarchy works: keep females in a constant state of fear of male violence, and then put the responsibility for it firmly on their shoulders.
“But our jury system, the bedrock of a fair trial, is under threat as it is,” is an argument I often hear when I suggest this way forward. But let’s look at why some of us support this measure.
Not only does the writer want to do away with JURIES, a cherished institution in the English (and American) legal system, she also wants to undermine JUDGES, even those "specially-trained," with a special "panel" of advisors:
If we did get rid of juries, we would need more than a judge who has undergone specialist training. Perhaps one option would be to appoint a panel of assessors, such as those that sit on discrimination cases, all of whom would have expertise in issues relating to sexual violence. Panellists could help inform the judge in the case about relevant issues, and remind them of some of the facts as well as the myths; for example, people of all ages, from babies to elderly women are raped (sexual attraction has nothing to do with it); not shouting “no” does not mean consent; and the idea that alcohol is the new short skirt – that a drunk woman is signalling she’s “up for it”.
This is bat**** insane.
There is no crime so heinous worth eliminating OR undermining fundamental institutions of justice for.