I served on a jury once and saw a similar situation as with these juries. In my case, there wasn’t enough evidence to convict the defendant. Unfortunately, the victim refused to offer full testimony, so, as a jury required to follow the law, there was nothing we could do. The first night of deliberation, we were deadlocked with eleven jurors saying guilty and one saying not guilty. Before noon the next day, we came back with a not-guilty verdict. It really can come down to one persuasive person.

But the third factor is kind of interesting too. What if the main reason is that the juries each had one or two people with really vocal opinions that swayed the rest of the jurors? Of course, it’s hard to know what happened in there, but it doesn’t sound all that unlikely. The first jury might have had one person who could persuasively argue their point of view who vehemently thought the defendents were not guilty, and one person who thought the opposite, but who wasn’t good at all at defending their views to their peers. The rest just fell in line.

after jane doe, that person is the other real hero(ine) in this story. i mean, can you imagine…one juror. i guess in a sad way, it does give me a little hope…that’s why we have 12: to reduce the probability that any trial will contain an entire jury full of idiots. at least that one tiny (but crucial) little part of this whole ordeal went the way it was supposed to.

I don’t think 21 months is enough. I don’t think six years would be enough. I’m not even sure what “enough” would be.

That’s the point and the problem.

I sometimes compare the sentances handed out to rapists, with those who commit other crimes. Graham Capill was the head of the Christian Heritage party here for years, he was for the death penalty and against abortion and all the rest. He also raped little girls, and was recently sentanced to 9 years in prison. Every other prison sentance I compare to that, and think that values the lives of those girls too low.

I do find comparisons awful, but I’m not happy to call for tougher sentancing. I don’t think it helps. I don’t think jail helps. Those boys are going to come out of jail worse than when they went in.

I agree with Tony that making convictions more likely is more important than increasing sentances. And with you that the only way is to increase convictions is eliminating rape culture.

Which again is the problem

If legal reforms were able to lead to a higher likelihood of arrest and conviction, there’s a good chance we’d see a decrease in the incidence of rape. The evidence is that criminals are generally relatively insensitive to increases in the punishment if convicted, but they are sensitive to an increased likelihood of arrest and conviction.

I’m sure you’re right Tony, but is that a good reason not to add a new crime to the books that reflects a crucial element in the commission of the crime? Aren’t people charged with leaving the scene of an accident without offering help to injured parties? And the important thing is the message that would be sent as well - that ganging up to rape or otherwise sexually assault girls or women (or anybody, but most victims are female)) is specifically not tolerated in our society. You can be charged with being part of such a group. We might then see some serious analysis and reporting of the influences involved in that particular crime, out of criminology studies etc. Teenage boys and men often bond with each other over the commission of these crimes which perhaps only one or none of them would have commited alone. That dynamic needs to be understood and dealt with. I don’t see any evidence that this is a serious consideration in the legal system , or anywhere else, currently. Has it even been mentioned in the horrific case we’re discussing?

Maybe it would help if group assaults carried much harsher penalties than individual ones because bonding in this way itself became another crime. So each man is charged with the assault, and charged separately for the other serious crime of ‘joining’ in the assault. At the very least this would put a spotlight on the source of the issue, which currently doesn’t seem to be faced or addresed at all.

…Al Stokke, responded to this by saying that the rape wasn’t so bad, since Jane Doe was unconscious at the time.

Wait, so does that mean that if I happen upon Stokke’s unconscious body in the course of my daily business, I can do whatever I want to it and then videotape it for posterity and it wouldn’t be so bad on account of him not being conscious?

Example: I’m married but don’t wear a wedding band. Five to one, the same people who thought Doe deserved to be raped because she’d had sex with two of the rapists previously would say, “Well, that tramp didn’t have a wedding band on. It serves her right.”

Yes.

We’re still a long way from there, sadly.

I hope Jane Doe can find some peace and enjoy her life. And I wish there were something concrete people could do for her.

Me, I’d've thrown the keys away, but I couldn’t get beyond this issue with some folks.