Scrap juries in rape trials, Labour MP suggests

Watch
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#1
Juries may need to be scrapped in rape trials because of the dominance of rape myths in society and “shockingly low” charging and conviction rates, the House of Commons will hear.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-mp-ann-coffey

Indeed, a Labour MP stood today in the House to suggest just that. Conviction rates are down and that has been identified as a problem among the feminist wing of the Labour party and beyond. They are suggesting the scrapping of trial by jury in rape cases because they believe the people that make them up are prejudiced and deliver wrong verdicts, in tune with the leftist view that the plebs never were or ever will be there to be trusted with anything. Trial by jury was created by men anyway.

There was a psychology professor on Radio 4 last week (formerly known as the station for the thinking man), making the case for the testing of juries in such cases to prevent any 'incorrect' attitudes seeping into the system, in tandem with this. It is a sweeping move, played out across a range of channels. He had devised a 'scientific method' for it and all.

Alas, the public revelations of men being submitted to kangaroo courts in the most literal of ways came and went without much notice. Everybody knows that had anything like that come out with women at the receiving end and there would have been resignations and public executions with no end. Instead, they all get promoted. That's the latest wave of feminism.
Last edited by username1738683; 3 years ago
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 3 years ago
#2
The worrying thing is there’ll be so many people on here who actually defend this lunacy. I’m also not really sure why people think that the ‘short skirts cause rape myth’ (and others of that ilk) still exist en masse
Last edited by Underscore__; 3 years ago
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#3
(Original post by Underscore__)
The worrying thing is there’ll be so many people on here who actually defend this lunacy. I’m also not really sure why people think that the ‘short skirts cause rape myth’ (and others of that ilk) still exist en masse
Even more worrying (the ones in here will be mostly harmless, hopefully) is the increased frequency in these stabs at the established rule of law and order we witness, we've had Labour launch three of them in a short space in the cases of Peter Green, Lord Lester and today's. There are mobs blocking Central London, as anti-democratic as it gets. We have Kavanaugh and the organised assault on the US south border among the same lines to show it is not confined to these shores, what is truly worrying is the increased level of acceptance and tolerance towards these things.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report 3 years ago
#4
Scrap juries for all trials ...

Bunch of Loose Women watching morons.
3
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
Report 3 years ago
#5
I suspect they want to model the court system on the Nazis People's Courts.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
Report 3 years ago
#6
(Original post by Underscore__)
The worrying thing is there’ll be so many people on here who actually defend this lunacy. I’m also not really sure why people think that the ‘short skirts cause rape myth’ (and others of that ilk) still exist en masse
The real problem is the myths about the questions on which rape trials turn.

The difficult issues for actual juries are rarely to do with the complainant’s consent or lack of it. They are almost invariably about the jury’s certainty concerning the Defendant’s beliefs and the reasonableness of those beliefs.

Woman says she did not consent. Man says she did.

To convict the jury has:

(A) to be sure that a reasonable man would not have thought the woman was consenting; or

(B) to be sure that the Defendant either (i) did not believe the woman was consenting; or (ii) did not care whether the woman was consenting.

Only if one of these tests is satisfied does the jury have to consider and be sure that the woman was not consenting (or was incapable of consenting).
1
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
Report 3 years ago
#7
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
I suspect they want to model the court system on the Nazis People's Courts.
No that is just a stupid comment.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report 3 years ago
#8
(Original post by zhog)
Even more worrying (the ones in here will be mostly harmless, hopefully) is the increased frequency in these stabs at the established rule of law and order we witness, we've had Labour launch three of them in a short space in the cases of Peter Green, Lord Lester and today's. There are mobs blocking Central London, as anti-democratic as it gets. We have Kavanaugh and the organised assault on the US south border among the same lines to show it is not confined to these shores, what is truly worrying is the increased level of acceptance and tolerance towards these things.
You’re right, with some it’s not even a case of tolerance, they go to the complete opposite side; if you support Kavanaugh you’re a rape apologist and if you talk negatively about illegal immigration into the US at all you’re a racist.

(Original post by nulli tertius)
The real problem is the myths about the questions on which rape trials turn.

The difficult issues for actual juries are rarely to do with the complainant’s consent or lack of it. They are almost invariably about the jury’s certainty concerning the Defendant’s beliefs and the reasonableness of those beliefs.

Woman says she did not consent. Man says she did.

To convict the jury has:

(A) to be sure that a reasonable man would not have thought the woman was consenting; or

(B) to be sure that the Defendant either (i) did not believe the woman was consenting; or (ii) did not care whether the woman was consenting.

Only if one of these tests is satisfied does the jury have to consider and be sure that the woman was not consenting (or was incapable of consenting).
I’ve made a similar point before, I remember saying that consent isn’t really a relevant factor in rape trials and several people lost their minds.
0
reply
Johnny English
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report 3 years ago
#9
(Original post by Notoriety)
Scrap juries for all trials ...

Bunch of Loose Women watching morons.
Absolutely ......what jurors lack in basic common sense and logic ....they make up for in prejudice and hatred towards the police . 99% of those who go in front of juries are guilty ...absolutely, but this does not translate into convictions . Ask any serving police officers what they think ....it's an absolute joke . The lawyers are no better than the defendants. ...worse in most cases because they are getting paid to lie ...paid for by the British taxpayer .
The Judicial system in this country is nothing to be proud of . It's an absolute disgrace . Its only achievement is reducing prison numbels by letting guilty convicts go ....hundreds every week .
So ...if you fancy becoming a well paid liar ...then become a lawyer .
Last edited by Johnny English; 3 years ago
2
reply
Andrew97
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report 3 years ago
#10
Oh dear lord.
0
reply
Trapmoneybenny
Badges: 15
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report 3 years ago
#11
(Original post by zhog)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-mp-ann-coffey

Indeed, a Labour MP stood today in the House to suggest just that. Conviction rates are down and that has been identified as a problem among the feminist wing of the Labour party and beyond. They are suggesting the scrapping of trial by jury in rape cases because they believe the people that make them up are prejudiced and deliver wrong verdicts, in tune with the leftist view that the plebs never were or ever will be there to be trusted with anything. Trial by jury was created by men anyway.

There was a psychology professor on Radio 4 last week (formerly known as the station for the thinking man), making the case for the testing of juries in such cases to prevent any 'incorrect' attitudes seeping into the system, in tandem with this. It is a sweeping move, played out across a range of channels. He had devised a 'scientific method' for it and all.

Alas, the public revelations of men being submitted to kangaroo courts in the most literal of ways came and went without much notice. Everybody knows that had anything like that come out with women at the receiving end and there would have been resignations and public executions with no end. Instead, they all get promoted. That's the latest wave of feminism.
Its rather repulsive when old people act like fools. so she hasn't even fathomed that the drop in conviction rates is due to the fact that there has been a rise in cases in which the accusers's accusations could never hold up in court due to lack of evidence or have been found to be based on malicious intent? (ie utter b u l l s h i t)

No.... its clearly due to the sexist pigs that are men and the women who have been ingrained with sexism. Only the Guardian will parade such ****, and their cheerleader the BBC

Nah, if the woman is crying and is appearing to struggle to form a coherent sentence she must be right, after all what does she have to gain right?
Last edited by Trapmoneybenny; 3 years ago
0
reply
DrMikeHuntHertz
Badges: 16
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report 3 years ago
#12
(Original post by nulli tertius)
No that is just a stupid comment.
It may be stupid, but it doesn't mean it's wrong
0
reply
SHallowvale
Badges: 14
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report 3 years ago
#13
(Original post by zhog)
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...-mp-ann-coffey

Indeed, a Labour MP stood today in the House to suggest just that. Conviction rates are down and that has been identified as a problem among the feminist wing of the Labour party and beyond. They are suggesting the scrapping of trial by jury in rape cases because they believe the people that make them up are prejudiced and deliver wrong verdicts, in tune with the leftist view that the plebs never were or ever will be there to be trusted with anything. Trial by jury was created by men anyway.

There was a psychology professor on Radio 4 last week (formerly known as the station for the thinking man), making the case for the testing of juries in such cases to prevent any 'incorrect' attitudes seeping into the system, in tandem with this. It is a sweeping move, played out across a range of channels. He had devised a 'scientific method' for it and all.

Alas, the public revelations of men being submitted to kangaroo courts in the most literal of ways came and went without much notice. Everybody knows that had anything like that come out with women at the receiving end and there would have been resignations and public executions with no end. Instead, they all get promoted. That's the latest wave of feminism.
Of course this is stupid, but this does not reflect the opinion of all feminists (be them Labour MPs or not).

A good counter-article has been written, also on the Guardian. The author? Most likely a feminist, just like the two of us.
0
reply
AngeryPenguin
Badges: 18
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report 3 years ago
#14
(Original post by Johnny English)
So ...if you fancy becoming a well paid liar ...then become a lawyer .
Most of your post is confusing but that, at least, is solid advice.
0
reply
yudothis
Badges: 20
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report 3 years ago
#15
(Original post by Underscore__)
You’re right, with some it’s not even a case of tolerance, they go to the complete opposite side; if you support Kavanaugh you’re a rape apologist and if you talk negatively about illegal immigration into the US at all you’re a racist.



I’ve made a similar point before, I remember saying that consent isn’t really a relevant factor in rape trials and several people lost their minds.
Because it does. A) Nulli literally just said one of the conditions is how the man interpreted consent and B) in theory it shouldn't even matter at all. If a woman at some point stops actively denying consent because she is afraid of possibly violence, that's all that matters. Not whether a "reasonable" man would then take that passiveness as consent or not.
0
reply
Underscore__
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report 3 years ago
#16
(Original post by yudothis)
Because it does. A) Nulli literally just said one of the conditions is how the man interpreted consent and B) in theory it shouldn't even matter at all. If a woman at some point stops actively denying consent because she is afraid of possibly violence, that's all that matters. Not whether a "reasonable" man would then take that passiveness as consent or not.
Allow me to rephrase, the point I made previously was that the existence of consent was not relevant. It would make a case easier to defend but people seem to have the misguided idea that no consent equals rape.

In the situation you describe the relevant factor would be the impression given off to the man in question. If a woman isn’t saying no because she has a gun to her head that’s obviously rape. If it were a situation where a woman felt scared and so went along with it but the man was didn’t realise she was afraid it would hardly be fair to call him a rapist
0
reply
That'sGreat
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report 3 years ago
#17
(Original post by DrMikeHuntHertz)
I suspect they want to model the court system on the Nazis People's Courts.
Would certainly set precedent for them to transfer their anti-semitic views from words to action...
0
reply
username1738683
Badges: 12
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report Thread starter 3 years ago
#18
(Original post by SHallowvale)
Of course this is stupid, but this does not reflect the opinion of all feminists (be them Labour MPs or not).
Stupid may not fully reflect it, sexist might be an even better word. There are women who aim at 'equal rights' and others who want to institute a de facto state of female supremacy. Thanx for the link, I fully subscribe to everything in it.
Last edited by username1738683; 3 years ago
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
Report 3 years ago
#19
(Original post by yudothis)
Because it does. A) Nulli literally just said one of the conditions is how the man interpreted consent and B) in theory it shouldn't even matter at all. If a woman at some point stops actively denying consent because she is afraid of possibly violence, that's all that matters. Not whether a "reasonable" man would then take that passiveness as consent or not.
I am afraid you have a simplistic view of rape.

Let’s look at two common real world examples.

A girl has sex with younger/junior member of Asian grooming gang because of fear of violence from older/senior member of gang eg older brother. Junior member asserts girl consented. There was the outward appearance of consent. The only evidence as to junior member’s actual belief was his assertions in police interview and at trial that she consented. Jury satisfied on evidence that girl was actually coerced into intercourse by senior member. Whether junior member gets convicted of rape or not will depend on the jury being sure that it was not reasonable of junior member to believe in her consent. That will turn on proof of junior member’s knowledge of the senior member’s coercion. That will be the key issue at the trial.

Woman consumes a lot of alcohol. Man and woman have intercourse. Man says woman consented. Woman has no recollection of evening. CCTV evidence of period very shortly before intercourse shows woman totally “out of it”. Eye witness gives contemporaneous statement that woman, although drunk, appeared capable of consenting and desirous of sex with Defendant. At trial, witness agrees CCTV shows woman incapable of consent. Accordingly, clear objective evidence that woman incapable of consenting to intercourse. Only evidence of man’s actual belief being his police statement. He chooses not to give evidence at trial. Key issue at trial, is jury sure that a reasonable man, without the God’s eye view of the CCTV, would have considered woman incapable of consenting?
0
reply
Napp
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report 3 years ago
#20
MPs need to keep their noses out of the justice system.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

When did you submit your Ucas application if you applied to go to university this year?

September 2021 (16)
7.05%
October 2021 (112)
49.34%
November 2021 (23)
10.13%
December 2021 (31)
13.66%
January 2021 (19)
8.37%
I still haven't submitted it yet! (20)
8.81%
Something else (6)
2.64%

Watched Threads

View All