12/09/07 (UK):
U.S. Approach To Rape Trials May Be Adopted In U.K.
|
|
The U.K Solicitor General, Vera Baird, has announced that a panel of experts, incorporating judges, doctors and academics will be working on a 'package' of reforms on rape trials designed to increase conviction rates whilst maintaining the fairness of a jury trial.
'X-Pro News' has heralded this in a previous issue, contrasting how such trials are conducted both in the U.K. and the U.S, where there is generally much more information given to juries - usually by experts - as to how and why rape victims behave in a particular way. This can often include not reporting the crime for a long period of time, and even agreeing to meet the accused afterwards. Now it seems likely that the U.K Government is determined to go ahead with proposals that may well bring the system into line with this approach.
There is no doubt that the conviction rate has fallen remarkably over the past few decades. The Solicitor General pointed out that in 1977, the U.K rate was around 33%, but that in recent times this had fallen to just 5.7%. Modern, cynical juries, it seems, are not particularly forgiving of a complainant who may behave in a way that, to them at least, seems rather odd. Improvement in forensic techniques may also have had an influence.
The U.S. approach, it is said, redresses that imbalance and attempts to dispel 'rape myths'. Juries are told, for example, about the effect of PTSD and how that may influence the decision making process of the victim. However, the U.K approach may well be a little different in that the information could be delivered by an agreed video presentation, a leaflet or possibly directions from the trial judge.
No one, it seems, has yet considered the position where a defense team disagrees with the information that is proposed goes before the jury. One can only assume that experts will be called, which, it seems, is not the Government's intention, and may lead the jury back to square one in any event. The question is whether, in the absence of expert testimony, one size really can suit all when juries are dealing with such a complex and emotive issue.
© X-Pro 2007
|
|
