The Political Hat

     The Guardian, of course, has come out with an opinion piece that is calling to abolish the jury system in order to convict more men of rape.  Julie Bindel, the writer of this insanity, claims that 94% of rapists get away with it and that thus rape is de facto legal.

     How does she get to this 94% number?  She assumes that all accusations are true and that failure to provide evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is tantamount to a “rape culture” ruled by Teh Patriarchy™!  She goes on to say that:

“Why do away with one of the fundamentals of a decent justice system? Is the jury system not set up in order to better ensure fairness and justice, rather than relying on a crusty old Etonian in a wig?

“Not in rape cases. If jurors were to receive the level of training and awareness-raising necessary to challenge the deep-rooted and highly persuasive myths about rape, the jury system would be more effective in dealing with sex crimes – but this would take more than a few words from the judge at the beginning of a trial, which is how it works at the moment.”

     In other words, the populace hasn’t been sufficiently propagandized to believe Feminist myths about how all men are rapists, or “systems of oppression” that keep women down.

     She further blames the media reporting on false rape accusations, because they raise doubt about a man being guilty just because the prosecutor wants to convict someone.

Her solution to this?

“One potential solution to this worrying state of affairs is to do away with jurors in sex crime trials, and appoint a specially trained judge. I am wholly in favour of our jury system, but even more in favour of ensuring that rapists and other sex offenders do not walk free. New Zealand could be the first country to rid sex crime cases of jurors if one key recommendation from a recently published report by its Law Commission is implemented. The commissioners have suggested that there is a case for having sexual violence trials decided by a judge, either alone or with two expert ‘lay assessors’.”

     The jury system has evolved as a check on the state prosecuting innocent individuals.  Note that one of the “solutions” is to have two “experts” guide the judge to the “correct” verdict in the name of “justice”.  This is eerily similar to the calls to abolish elections in the name of “democracy”.

Continue reading →