I understand something drastic needs to be done in regards to rape, but I’m glad this was axed.
Right to trial by peers is a system that works so well, and breaking that for one type of crime no matter how severe won’t do anything to change why that crime is being committed
Wonder how much money was wasted on this, at the advice of “everyone” not to.
Good. Absolute insanity that this was ever considered. Shame on those who proposed and supported it.
> The Scottish government’s reasoning was that while the conviction for most crimes sits around 90%, for rape it is much lower at about 50%.
The article talks about this being possibly due to bias within jury’s. But isn’t it mainly because of the nature of the crime that results in a ‘he said she said’ situation in court?
I completely sympathise with victims but how can we improve a situation where the PF and court system fundamentally needs overwhelming evidence to convict?
Of all the Sturgeon and Humza disasters, this was one of the most egregious. Conceived, packaged and sold on the most lightweight of assumptions and dismissive of all the attendant risks. It should never have made it this far.
“The proposal would have seen a single judge decide whether people are guilty of rape and attempted rape in an attempt to increase conviction rates.”
Absolute madness this was even considered. And why is there an attempt to just arbitrarily increase conviction rates, when surely the entire purpose of a trial is to establish if someone is guilty or not guilty?
I understand the motivation behind wanting to secure more convictions in rape trials unfortunately due to the nature of the crime most cases boil down to the word of two people.
I genuinely can’t think of any way to increase conviction rates without the system favouring the accuser which not the answer.
Good, this was an obviously shit idea.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and probably get shot down.
Jury trials are fundamentally flawed, and I would be in favour of replacing them with a three judge panel in general, sexual cases or no. I do not trust the general public with decisions like that, at least when the sample size is that small.
In Norway they have scrapped juries altogether now. I believe it is the correct way to go, especially for rape, sexual assault and abuse cases because the legal system isn’t working for victims. Jurisprudence and conviction is by far developed by and from the male perspective and no matter how many men suffer as victims, the majority of victims are female. Just as some background: I live in Scotland, got a law degree specialising in Human Rights down in England (Wales), but immigrated from Norway. The arguments against removing juries were the same in Norway I remember but I cannot say I have kept updated on how this is going there now. I do know victims representatives claim it is a positive development, but that seems obvious. As most juries would have to acquit in most rape cases that are word v. word. Interesting to see what happens next.
No fucking wonder.
Good. This was a shit idea, well done to everyone who blocked it. “I haven’t seen the evidence but I know what the verdict should be better than the judge and jury” was always a terrible justification for a law.
I posted basically this as a reply to someone but so many folks seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that jury trials are “vital to our society” or the like.
Jury trials in Scotland are vanishingly rare. They account for less than 5% of all criminal proceedings. Because of guilty pleas (and other legal ends to the criminal justice process ahead of trial) less than 1% of cases in Scotland are determined by Jury.
True Jury trials are reserved for the most serious of crimes. But to say that they are essential and to not have them is corrupt essentially makes the claim that the vast majority of Scottish justice is already corrupt.
I don’t have any strong feelings about jury/juryless trials.
Lots of things are done without a jury.
To me the issue was the ideological drive to secure more convictions. Not to secure a better understanding of the truth….not to secure better evidence or create a fairer system.
It’s just about assuming the accused is guilty and creating a system to get the final verdict to be guilty.
Excellent news, a henious policy and the result of relying on NGOs like Rape Crisis Scotland, to write laws.
It is a bad culture which has grown up inside scotgov of reliance on third parties for everything.
I was a jury member for a rape trial recently. My experience was that most members of the jury didn’t understand the basic principle of consent and this is why the rapist got off. They were absolutely unqualified to judge. It was an absolutely horrific experience and I still think about it, and the poor victim, almost every day.
The fact it even got that far is fucking disgusting.
I was on a jury in the high court not long ago and I was very disappointed with the advocates on each side. Their arguments were weak and as the Scottish system doesn’t allow for opening statements it wasn’t always clear what they were getting at when they highlighted the evidence. It’s no wonder conviction rates are low when this is the system we have.
18 comments
I understand something drastic needs to be done in regards to rape, but I’m glad this was axed.
Right to trial by peers is a system that works so well, and breaking that for one type of crime no matter how severe won’t do anything to change why that crime is being committed
Wonder how much money was wasted on this, at the advice of “everyone” not to.
Good. Absolute insanity that this was ever considered. Shame on those who proposed and supported it.
> The Scottish government’s reasoning was that while the conviction for most crimes sits around 90%, for rape it is much lower at about 50%.
The article talks about this being possibly due to bias within jury’s. But isn’t it mainly because of the nature of the crime that results in a ‘he said she said’ situation in court?
I completely sympathise with victims but how can we improve a situation where the PF and court system fundamentally needs overwhelming evidence to convict?
Of all the Sturgeon and Humza disasters, this was one of the most egregious. Conceived, packaged and sold on the most lightweight of assumptions and dismissive of all the attendant risks. It should never have made it this far.
“The proposal would have seen a single judge decide whether people are guilty of rape and attempted rape in an attempt to increase conviction rates.”
Absolute madness this was even considered. And why is there an attempt to just arbitrarily increase conviction rates, when surely the entire purpose of a trial is to establish if someone is guilty or not guilty?
I understand the motivation behind wanting to secure more convictions in rape trials unfortunately due to the nature of the crime most cases boil down to the word of two people.
I genuinely can’t think of any way to increase conviction rates without the system favouring the accuser which not the answer.
Good, this was an obviously shit idea.
I’m gonna go out on a limb here, and probably get shot down.
Jury trials are fundamentally flawed, and I would be in favour of replacing them with a three judge panel in general, sexual cases or no. I do not trust the general public with decisions like that, at least when the sample size is that small.
In Norway they have scrapped juries altogether now. I believe it is the correct way to go, especially for rape, sexual assault and abuse cases because the legal system isn’t working for victims. Jurisprudence and conviction is by far developed by and from the male perspective and no matter how many men suffer as victims, the majority of victims are female. Just as some background: I live in Scotland, got a law degree specialising in Human Rights down in England (Wales), but immigrated from Norway. The arguments against removing juries were the same in Norway I remember but I cannot say I have kept updated on how this is going there now. I do know victims representatives claim it is a positive development, but that seems obvious. As most juries would have to acquit in most rape cases that are word v. word. Interesting to see what happens next.
No fucking wonder.
Good. This was a shit idea, well done to everyone who blocked it. “I haven’t seen the evidence but I know what the verdict should be better than the judge and jury” was always a terrible justification for a law.
I posted basically this as a reply to someone but so many folks seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that jury trials are “vital to our society” or the like.
Jury trials in Scotland are vanishingly rare. They account for less than 5% of all criminal proceedings. Because of guilty pleas (and other legal ends to the criminal justice process ahead of trial) less than 1% of cases in Scotland are determined by Jury.
True Jury trials are reserved for the most serious of crimes. But to say that they are essential and to not have them is corrupt essentially makes the claim that the vast majority of Scottish justice is already corrupt.
I don’t have any strong feelings about jury/juryless trials.
Lots of things are done without a jury.
To me the issue was the ideological drive to secure more convictions. Not to secure a better understanding of the truth….not to secure better evidence or create a fairer system.
It’s just about assuming the accused is guilty and creating a system to get the final verdict to be guilty.
Excellent news, a henious policy and the result of relying on NGOs like Rape Crisis Scotland, to write laws.
It is a bad culture which has grown up inside scotgov of reliance on third parties for everything.
I was a jury member for a rape trial recently. My experience was that most members of the jury didn’t understand the basic principle of consent and this is why the rapist got off. They were absolutely unqualified to judge. It was an absolutely horrific experience and I still think about it, and the poor victim, almost every day.
The fact it even got that far is fucking disgusting.
I was on a jury in the high court not long ago and I was very disappointed with the advocates on each side. Their arguments were weak and as the Scottish system doesn’t allow for opening statements it wasn’t always clear what they were getting at when they highlighted the evidence. It’s no wonder conviction rates are low when this is the system we have.
Comments are closed.