I just watched the program called Consent that was shown on Sunday 21st at 10PM. Apart from the issues it raises, which were very revealing and thought provoking i still really have to know one thing.

If the real jury had found the defendant guilty, would the ending have been different? Would it have turned out that she did in fact consent? I suspect that's what the program makers would have done.

I suppose i may never really know, maybe that was something the program makers wanted.

I found some of the jury's comments unbelievable, i think it was enough to deter any woman from going through with a complaint and trial. For the record i am not a woman, but i can see that going through with something like that would be a daunting thought for anyone. I suppose that was something else the program makers wanted to show.

the geezer was innocent!

I was appalled by the number of 'rape myths' that the members of the jury still seem to believe. I thought we'd got past the point where we believed that all women instinctively fight back or that someone's who's been raped should be upset straight after.

It's disturbing to see that people seem to believe such nonsense and shows just why so many rape prosecutions don't end up in convictions.

I'd be horrified if I was a victim or a defendant and I thought the jury were as misinformed, emotionally illiterate and downright stupid as the people tonight were. Sadly I think that this is in fact the case.

I thought it was produced very well, and I'm glad to see the process wasn't glamorised. The use of real life/ret'd police officers, QC's and Judge made for compelling viewing.

I agree with the above comments (except Mr X!), what really surprised me was the attitude some of the female jurors towards the victim’s testimony. I know it wasn’t real, but they just seemed very quick to disregard her (the victim’s) account - I’m referring to the part when she was describing the resistance she put up, once she’d decided that the man was going too far - They (the jurors) seemed quick to dismiss her actions because ‘If that had been me I would have found some inner strength to fight/lash out’. the act of pushing away, using her arms and knees, didn’t seem to show enough proof of her resistance or withdrawal of consent to convince them.
They obviously saw a lot more information than we the viewer (naturally when 2/3 days of trial is edited down to two hours), but I expected a different reaction, especially from another female. In fact, I was expecting exactly that argument from the male jurors, but most didn’t seem to share it.

Just goes to so I guess….

The only thing I expected to see, but didn’t, was the jury being advised on points of law.

Rape, as defined in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, describes two areas regarding consent. Firstly, the consent is simply not given (an outright “NO” or explicit withdrawal of consent) or secondly, as was probably true in this ‘case’ “(A) does not reasonably believe that (B) consents” (where (A) is the offender and (B) the victim).

Taking into account the defendant’s testimony, it is on this point I believe he should have been found guilty. He claimed that he took her physical resistance, as her ‘liking it rough’ and his act of restraining her, just ‘play fighting’.
I’d have difficulty believing that someone, who had never had any sexual relationship with this person before, could assume this to be the case, within a matter of minutes of being alone together. Certainly a reasonable person (i.e. the juror) should conclude that the defendant must have had doubt and therefore questioned the true consent given by the victim. If so, the offence would be complete.

he was innocent! move along please nothing else to see.

i think channnel 4 spoilt the whole thing by showing that ending.

and yes, the women jurors seemed to sway the vote.

it was an interesting programme in all. i just watched it because i have jury duty soon and wanted to see what the process was.

you say innocent Mr X. Why do you seem so certain?

79rich79 raised a good question about the law of rape, there was a case where a man told his friends that his wife wanted to sleep with them, but she would resist as it aroused her. When it got to trial the judge rigthly said a reasonable person wouldn't beleive that and they were found guilty.

You could make a comment about how the judge may have misled the jury on the law as the women seemed to think that you needed more than simply to say 'no'. (By the way, even if your half way through and the women says stop, you have to, both legally and as a gentleman)

The main problem here though was the jury and subjectivity, if only the public knew that as a juror, their opinion and 'what they would do' is not wanted. They are meant to be blank slates judging on the facts of the case making as little subjective assumptions as possible.

Using this logic you could break down the case as such, man slept with women (uncontended fact), women claimed rape, man denied it, women has no reason to shout rape and is said to be honmest (uncontended fact), man has a reason to rape (he was horny) and he has a reason to lie (uncontended fact).

Ipso facto, he shouild have been found guilty if the jury weren't full of subjective opinionated and harsh gimps. (Although that old dude seemes to get the point)

Maybe this lays credence to the notion that jurors should be trained? Yes, no, compromise decromatic legitmacy you say?

While all the points are completely valid, i would still really like to know, if the jury found the defendant guilty, would the ending have been different?

quote:

Originally posted by Mr_X:
i think channnel 4 spoilt the whole thing by showing that ending.

Why?!! The whole point of 'the ending' was to show what *really* happened. Unlike real life, it gave us the opportunity to decide whether or not the jury came to the right decision. I felt that they did in the circumstances.

The ending made me feel quite sick, knowing how the jury has talked about it and the whole time he was guilty. I personally believed he was guilty on the grounds that 79rich79 made about taking her resistance as her liking it rough, no sane person would do that, especially when we saw how she reacted, there was no doubt that she was not consenting.

It is a scary area, for women as victims, but also for men because the line if very blurred. I think strict laws should be published so men can make informed decisions on wether or not the women really is consenting, and is in the right state to consent too - the whole drunk thing??

I have had sex whilst drunk which I later regretted, but recent laws suggest I could scream rape because I was drunk and not of sound mind and that he, as the man, should not have had sex with me because of that. It protects women more than men... but then, if you DO report rape, the chances of a conviction are ridculously low...

If anything, this programme was a great way to open up 1001 questions and raise awareness.

All I can say is well done C4 for this thought provoking look into the issues and myths surrounding rape allegations.

I was surprised at the reaction from some of the jurors (especially the female members) and the way they were unable to see diversity in behaviour. Just because one person would react in a certain way during and subsequently following a rape incident this rule does not apply to all. I was appalled that they were unable to understand this point. Surly some level of intelligence would have allowed them to observe that if everyone would react in the same manner, in ever situation, than society would lack diversity.

The programme bought up very interesting point about the validity of using peer juries in our judicial system.

Once again, well done Channel 4.

The thing that made me think he was guilty towards the end was when the prosecution mentioned the part where he said "it was just a shag, get over it" in the office. He denied saying that, but we know he did say it.

After that i was thinking he probably did do it, since he lied about that, he might be lying about everything else.

I think the jury saying they would fight with every ounce of strength is just ridiculous. If you are fearing for your life, it is perfectly reasonable to think if you do fight back he beat or even kill you.

I really hope i don't have my life in the hands of a similar jury, i have lost all faith in jury trials after this. Maybe it would be different in real life, but if this does really reflect what happens in the real world, then i certainly wouldn't want them deciding my fate.

I was a little disturbed by the end.

Was the last scene an indication that in real life he was found guilty? Would it have shown consensual sex had he been found guilty by the jury?

Could the makers not have added a little tagline (as they had done throughout) regarding the actual outcome rather than leaving us with an ambigous punch in the stomach? It hardly seems like an advert for pursuing justice if this is a typical outcome in such trials.

To Solinair, no, I doubt the ending would be different, this is because rape happens, to 1 in 3 women I beleive. Also, as the barister said, just because he was found guilty doesn't mean he was innocent, the jury were simply to unsure to justify sending him to jail.

To bb2brifan, the case of vitiated consnet is difficult, however, what you are referring to (a person gets drunk and sleeps with someone then cries rape) is legally clear. This is not rape, the conduct throughout the night is looked at and your willingness to vitiate your ability to give reasoned consent can be implied consent. Ofcourse if the women does give positive affirmative action showing that she doea not consent, then it is rape.

The problem arrives when women are drugged. Although slipping 'roofies' into drinks is obviously a clear case of rape in the legal sense (proving it can be hard), the problem comes with spikibg drinks, when a girl asks for beer and you slip whiskey into it to increase it alchohlic content. I consider it bad form but I am junsure whether this is illegal. You would have to talk to a qualified lawyer and even then you would get conflicting views.

As for low drop our rates, it is trye that conviction rates are only 5%, but this is the media misleading people making them think it is worse than it actually is which in this case leads women to not bother reporting rape as it is seen as futlie.

70% of rape convictions dont even start (according to official polls, the actual result is higher), then some more are dropped before it gets to court because women drop out, because they feel it is futiles (among other reasons), the actual conviction rate in court is actually one third. THis still is not satisfactory, but at least if people were aware of this fact the current conviction rates could increase dramatically.

THis is quite a slemn topic, here is toast to cheer everyone up. www.toast.co.uk

Expect it to arrive soon.

I think sometimes a ‘thirteenth juror’, a professional, like Magistrate’s court clerk, should be used as the Jury foreman. I’m aware the foreman gets some instruction under the current system, but I can’t imagine it could ever match the expertise of that of a professional.
A professional could oversee the deliberation, correcting on points of law and keep the jurors focused on their job. I’ve no doubt something like that would have benefited this jury.
This ‘Foreman’ need not carry a casting vote, but be there purely in a supervisory role.
I can’t see jurors themselves ever getting legal training, the cost, time and complexity would only add to an already lengthy process.

It seemed the jurors in this case were getting too involved in the circumstantial evidence and, more worryingly, jumping to quite a few conclusions.
I think it would have been beneficial to have someone remind them that they are there purely to decide guilt or innocence, according to the written law. And not to be distracted with either apathy or sympathy to a defendant or victim (easier said than done I know).

As Aneirin said, ‘they are meant to be blank slates judging on the facts’. It’s the Judge’s job, not the jury’s, to give an appropriate sentence and decide on the severity of the crime.

A proffesional thirteenth juror would indeed by extremely beneficial, but I dont think such a juror should be allowed a vote and should be limited to expressing his view. In a juror it can often be the case where louder figures can sway the vote, if there was a proffessional, laymen may be inclined to vote how the proffessional does, seeing him as more experienced and taking away the legitimacy of the jury system. Although judging guilt or innocence using a proffessional may be beneficial, we are in a system where the laypersons view are important and great pride is put on having men tried by the peers and not proffessionals.

As a side note, thet do have systems in various countries where the judge will sit in with juries and direct them (although he doesn't vote), this may be a good idea.

I've been raped and didn't report because I knew there was no point. I would have put myself through hell, having to relieve the trauma, and due to the circumstances of the attack there is no way I'd have got a conviction

I think it's a terrible shame that people still believe in rape myths, and I think it's a shame that the government, police and media aren't doing anything to combat these myths. It shouldn't be left to already over-stretched rape charities to have to attempt to dispel the myths. It's a big issue that affects as many as one in 4 women, possibly more, in their lives, and shouldn't be handled as something that doesn't happen, or that only happen to 'good careful' people: women who never drink or wear slightly revealing clothing etc

Women do tend to be less sympathetic towards rape victims from my experience. I think that possibly the reason behind this is fear: many women like to think that if they're 'careful' and 'sensible' they'll never get raped: when in reality the vast majority of victims are raped by people they know, in their own homes. I think these women feel better convincing themselves that rape only happens to people who take drunken short-cuts through dark alleys wearing short skirts: as they feel then that if they don't do these things, they won't ever be attacked. Or that if they are attacked, they'll fight back etc: most victims don't.

The court system is far from perfect, it can be horrible invasive and shaming. I dont see any reasonable way to get around the shame and other negative feelings I assume someone in this position would have without compromising legitimacy. This is aside from getting around antiquated notions of consent such as it can be informed through conduct or because you are married consent is a given. Fortunately many of these discrepencies have been fixed, however a lot more still needs to be done (social and legal evolution is a slow process)

I wouldn't bother trying to give advice to anyone in this position (being raped) simply because I am both unqualified and have no idea what I'm talking about. Aside from a few statistics, legislation and how the law 'should' work. (I have little idea of how the law actually works)

Irrergardless, if people can admit it, even to strangers over the internet, then it is a positive step in the right direction, in my view.

I would like to add that there is always a point to reporting these crimes, however, sometimes the detriment to the victim is too great and it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them too.

I've been criticised for not reporting and I used to feel guilty. Now, knowing more about the system and having spoken to people who have been through it, I'm glad I didn't, especially in the circumstances that mine occurred, which I won't get into.

As a victim myself I would always say to any victim do what is right for you and don't listen to anyone else. If you're unsure, and can deal with the trauma, go to a Haven centre where they collect evidence incase you decide to go to the police at some point

The problem with reporting rape is that victims must go through lengthy and invasive examinations, having samples taken etc, which after being raped is extremely traumatic, and then tell and re-tell their story, with only a very small chance of securing a conviction (5% of cases that reach court result in conviction: many cases where rape has occurred are thrown out before this stage due to 'lack of evidence') Then even if a conviction IS secured, often the sentence is a joke: 2 or 3 years in prison for eg, which is upsetting in itself for a victim (why have they been given just 2 years for ruining my life?)

These days most of the cases that get a conviction are ones where the woman has been badly beaten, torn, not been drinking etc: ie, where she conforms to what jury members see as rape.

Even then you hear some shocking stories. I've read court transcripts of some cases, and some of its really unbelievable. One 25 year old woman was a virgin when she was raped. It was so violent that she needed stitches. The defending lawyer said she'd cried rape after getting embarassed that she needed medical attention. The jury's verdict? Not guilty..

Personally I thought This whole programme was horrifying.
It made me sad, angry and disgusted.
I love the point of it as a victim of rape where justice wasnt done the point really hit home making it even worse.
If she had been lying a think my tv would have been in the garden as its hard enough to report rapes as it is.

The only thing that concerns me about this show is that it says everything in the court is real yet when i went to court it was not like that. you couldnt get half a sentence out because they were typing it all down, you are not alowed 2 say what you think or feel only facts.
As for the jury i found my self screamin at the tv 'How many of you have been raped?'
Coz all i could hear was i would have done this you would have done that it makes me angry because untill you are that situation u should shut up as you dont know what you would do

I Hated this programme
and thing it would bring back bad memories for people of this sort of crime
One thing i would have liked to have seen is the jurys expression when they found out it was true that would have been good to see them settin a criminal free

I agree that if the ending was different, had he been found guilt or not guilty, then it may have caused some difficulty for women who are the victim of this horrible crime.

That being said i don't think the program can be criticised for brining up "bad memories" for some victims. If this were the case, then issues such as this would never be discussed in TV programs or otherwise. I think people need to be aware of the issues raised in this program and others whether it is dealing with child abuse, domestic abuse, drug abuse, alcoholism or any other social , criminal or personal issues.

I have just finished watching 'Consent'. I was so moved by seeing it that i just had to add a comment.

To start with I thought the man was not-guilty, bec