A disturbing piece in today’s Times, by Frances Gibb, the paper’s Legal Editor. The ground is clearly being prepared for implementing a longstanding feminist demand – articulated most recently by Julie Bindel – that there should be no juries in rape trials. The verdicts would then be made by feminist-trained judges, and we can be sure the conviction rates would skyrocket, and even more innocent men would end up in prison.
We should not be surprised that different groups in society exhibit different propensities to convict men in rape cases. But surely that’s part of the strength of the jury system? One of the more disturbing sentences in the piece:
Those with personal experience of a sexual offence were four times more likely to convict before the jury retired.
Given that the proportion of women who’ve had personal experience of a sexual offence, and admit it, is higher than the proportion of men who have, I think we can safely assume a strong majority of the ‘four times more likely to convict’ group are women. So is their increased propensity to convict a reflection of their desire for vengeance against men as a class? If any group should be screened from rape juries, it should surely be this group.
The tone of the article, it seems to me, is that pro-male bias is a problem, while anti-male bias isn’t. The final paragraph:
Nigel Booth, a barrister at St John’s Buildings, Manchester, said: ‘This research asks some very serious and difficult questions about the fairness of jury trials in rape cases.’
Mark my words, jury-free rape trials are on the horizon. Theresa May is a feminist. Alison Saunders, head of the CPS, is a radical feminist with a taste for show trials. The new head of the Supreme Court is Lady Hale, a whiny feminist, who has talked at length and often of the ‘need’ for more women in senior levels of the judiciary. Things are going to get a lot worse for men, that’s for sure.