Sex cases in the news

Of course not. What an odd thing to ask me!

petallus I don't think whenim or myself were suggesting that DLT, etc., were guilty. I deliberately didn't address my remarks to specific cases - I was making a general observation. These cases have been heard and the verdict was not guilty.

I was pointing out that there is, I think justifiably, great outrage expressed by many people at the very low conviction rate for sexual crimes - and these recent verdicts merely follow the same trend.

The police and CPS are now getting it in the neck for bringing charges, whereas in the past they have got it in the neck for not bringing charges. It seems to me that, like social workers, they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Ditto from me, Eloethan. Degrees of culpability are forgotten as soon as a verdict is given. My despair plummets further when I see righteous speeches being made on court steps. Several of those recently tried in court and acquitted are still to be brought back on further charges, as was Stuart Hall.

It has been one step forward, two or three back, since I was in my twenties so far as the way in which allegations of sexual abuse are investigated and tried. The police force and CPS have taken significant steps in the direction of offering women and men, who report sexual offences, a more humane and sensitive response. This doesn't mean they assume the allegations to be true, the investigation into them are rigorous.
The increased difficulty with the recent historic trials, is the absence of corroborative or forensic evidence. I do hope the recent high profile cases don't lead to a reduction in the number of people or children, in having the courage to go to the police about abuse, whether it's historical or current.

It is true that many of us have despaired over the years at the low number of convictions for sex crimes.

However, behind this must be the assumption that the accused are guilty. Who would want an innocent man to be convicted?

Therefore, if some of us are feeling despair at recent verdicts, surely it suggests that that we suspect the accused were guilty and got away with it!

I agree, petallus, it certainly has come across like that.

Some people, like Stuart Hall, have been convicted, it is always likely that some will be acquitted. It is a shame we do not have the Scottish verdict of 'not-proven', which I suspect might have been used in one or other of these trials.

Everyone is supposed to be considered innocent until proven otherwise but it seems to be the other way round for alleged sexual offences. The man being named and not the women making the allegation. Whilst this is done to protect the victim other victims are not so protected. The very old saying that 'mud sticks' will taint their lives even if found not guilty.
I too like the 'not proven' verdict as it makes a verdict of not guilty clearer.
Very few men are sexual predictors and some of those that are get away with it but there are too many assumptions made by society. I give an example
Up to Fifteen years ago A friend of mine worked as a housekeeper to a priest very happily for years. He then had a young assistant join him. This assistant raped my friend, I believe her, and she bravely went to the police. At the trial the jury found the priest not guilty probably because they could not believe that a man who had taken a vow of chastity could do such a thing. Would the jury make the same decision today. I don't know and my friend won't know as she took her own life as she could not live with it.

Brenda I'm very sorry to hear about your friend. She is amongst many who haven't been served well by our justice system. A tragic end to her life.

Yes, 'not proven' is one step forward if they should ever adopt it.

Petallus the first rule is never to assume anything in dealing with sexual offending. It's a matter of recognising evidence. Patterns of behaviour, corroboration from unconnected sources, grading of reliability of evidence, number and quality of witnesses and claimants, past and present lifestyle and associates that cause concern, previous and current attitudes and a wide range of other factors that all combine to determine whether prosecution should be attempted. What gets reported in the tabloids doesn't go anywhere near providing convincing information. Claimants who can give good evidence in the run up to a trial may make very poor witnesses when it counts, and lawyers often take miscalculated risks about submitting or withdrawing evidence that can bring a case to its knees.

Please don't assume that anyone who queries the process and outcome of a court case makes assumptions that everyone must be guilty even if acquitted. There is a busy court of appeal that overturns wrongful convictions when trials go wrong, but not to overturn acquittals. It's interesting to read how acquitted cases get reported - some are clear cut about the innocence of the defendant and other reports are sufficiently vague to make one think the press were not convinced, either.

Well, thanks for that whenim64.

I've read what you say several times and still don't find it all that easy to understand the message. Added to that, I am not a complete ignoramus about such matters .

Several people expressed despair at the recent verdicts. That seems to suggest that they think there was a miscarriage of justice.

I did follow one of the trials quite closely, as reported in The Guardian and other media sources. I felt fairly confident that the outcome was a fair one although of course one can never be sure.

I'm simply asking you not to jump to the conclusion that I assume guilt because I think anyone who has a sexual allegation made against them must be guilty, Petallus

Your previous posts on this thread do seem to imply that, though, when. Why else would you be so despairing?

Ana I despair at the harm that sexual abuse does. Has it occurred to anyone that some of these celebs who are accused of sexual offending may have been subjected to such abuse themselves? I would be surprised if they were motivated to complain about such treatment now, but a few pop stars have disclosed that they, too, had been abused. 'Fondling of groupies' and claiming 'they all did it' and that's how it was back then is a way of minimising sex offending and rationalising that it was ok in those days. It never was, but it wasn't invented in the 60s. Plenty of aspiring actors subjected to casting couch rapes much earlier than that.

If you are reading into my posts that I assume guilt as a default position, then that's your issue, not mine. Peace!

The problem is that, while one wants guilty men brought to justice no matter how many years have elapsed, it is so difficult to produce enough evidence to convict. I was on the jury for a sex abuse case and we ended up acquitting the defendant on most of the charges and failing to reach a verdict on the others. Faced with a case of one person's word against another's with no corroboration, and knowing the devastating effect that a guilty verdict would have on the man's life we felt we had no choice. To prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt you need real proof and the more time has passed the more difficult that becomes.

I was on the jury for a sexual abuse case involving children. The defendant was a (previously) much loved family member. The family were devastated.

We found him guilty.

Hopefully justice was done but there weren't really any winners.

That's the point Petallus, no one wins in these awful situations. The perpetrators though, are more likely to find a jury reluctant to find them guilty, that perhaps juries trying those accused of being drug dealers/burglars etc. I'm not criticising juries, simply suggesting that most people struggle to comprehend the extent of sexual offending in our midst. Juries reflect public opinion.

Juries should not reflect public opinion. Their job is to listen to the evidence and decide on the basis of the evidence whether the defendant is guilty of the crime.

I was on the jury of a historic sex abuse case and we did just what I stated above. What was discussed in the jury room while reaching the verdict cannot be divulged, but casual conversation between jurors during the trial did not suggest that anyone had any problem with discussing the evidence or accepting what the crime involved.

It was not our job 'to comprehend the extent of sexual offending in our midst'. Our job was to listen to the evidence in the case before us and decide on the basis of it whether we were absolutely convinced that the crimes brought before the court were committed by the defendant.

Remember the level of proof required in a criminal trial is much higher than in other courts, where they can decide 'on the balance of probabilities' and if there is any doubt you must acquit the defendant.
In many sexual abuse cases, where the abuse happened some time ago it is one person's word against another and it is not easy to say that you absolutely believe one party and are equally convinced that the other is lying. You may be unable to reach a decision, or suspect that the defendant probably did commit the crime but not have the absolute certainty that a guilty verdict requires

Unfortunately too many people believe that if the defendant is acquitted the accuser is a liar and the offence/offences did not occur. This is not true, frequently all a not guilty decision means is that the evidence is not strong enough for the jury to be absolutely certain that the crime was committed as stated and because of that they cannot bring in a guilty plea.

When I was juror the defendant was found guilty because the evidence was crystal clear and compelling.

Men taking advantage years ago (wrongly, of course) of freely offered sexual favours is one thing but forcing themselves on the unwilling or vulnerable is quite despicable and should be punished severely. But after so many years, how do you prove it, and how do you stop a rush of those just seeking compensation, revenge or publicity? I wish I knew.

Flickety I'm sure most juries consist of sensible and conscientious people. However, there have been several cases where jurors have not met the high standards that would be expected.

Those that can afford it can instruct the very best legal advisers who in turn instruct barristers who have a high success rate.

Eloethan is right that most juries consist of sensible and conscientious people. That's because they usually reflect the society from which they are drawn.

But there were suggestions in other posts that juries should be looking at other wider issues when reaching decisions, on the contrary jurors need to wear blinkers and concentrate only on the facts of the case put in front of them

Of course there are duff juries, there are duff doctors, duff teachers, duff lawyers. The appeal system is there to deal with that and we do see verdicts overturned and sentences cut or increased.

The number of people who can afford the best legal advice are a very small proportion of the number who go through the courts. the majority, including most professional people cannot and do not.

But there were suggestions in other posts that juries should be looking at other wider issues when reaching decisions, on the contrary jurors need to wear blinkers and concentrate only on the facts of the case put in front of them

Of course there are duff juries, there are duff doctors, duff teachers, duff lawyers. The appeal system is there to deal with that and we do see verdicts overturned and sentences cut or increased.

The number of people who can afford the best legal advice are a very small proportion of the number who go through the courts. the majority, including most professional people cannot and do not.