The Verdict

For those who watched it - I would appreciate your opinions on the representation of the trial as a critique of our Justice system as well as the result itself.

MY COMMENTS:

From watching the programme I believe it is not surprising that less than 5% of rape trials end in a 'guilty' verdict. 

Firstly: The narrator of the show advised that Jurors shoould no longer base their decision on 'beyond reasonable doubt' but should 'be sure'.  As a result of this although a large percentage of the Jurors felt that the alleged victim had been raped, they could not be sure and therefore had no choice but to give a 'not guilty' verdict.  This I feel meant that the final verdict of 'not guilty' was not a true representation of their evaluations of the case.

Secondly: Is it at all possible or realistic to gain a 'guilty' verdict in a case such as this based on the fact that Jurors must feel that they are 'sure' of the verdict? After all, there is seldom encough evidence presented in a rape case to be sure that a crime was committed.

CONCLUSION:

Don't get me wrong - I'm not suggesting that we start locking men away for a horrific crime that they may not have committed and we do need to protect those that are wrongly accused.  Likewise, shouldn't we ensure that we are providing justice for those who do suffer the consequences of such crimes?

All in all, I feel that this was a hugely intriguing insight into the way in which Jurors reacted to their duty - ranging from cool and collected to impulsive and emotional.  The analytical processes involved and psychological impact was enthralling to watch.