What do you think about this proposal to deny those accused of rape the right to trial by jury?

Question

Is it fair to deny those accused of rape (but not those accused of other crimes) trial by jury as a way to have more people found guilty?

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11688199

Answer 1

Wow I am shocked that this being proposed.



Rape is 1 of the most disturbing and dreadful of actions a person could to another human including murder.

This is a incredibly unwise idea as it's denying a person a constitutional right for a trial by jury when it's a felony case. A jury with more persons to convience the DA must convience beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of this disturbing awful predatory offense or offenses. If it's only a Judge that Judge could possibly be unfair or not impartial and ruler the defendant guilty even with no compelling evidence only a accusation and maybe lame evidence.

1 of the greatest things about the USA is the US Constitution including the Bill of rights, being a democracy, along with the citizens no matter what crime or crimes they're accused of have the right to a fair trial which can be trial by jury.

Answer 2

This is turning into a witchhunt situation.



Can we just not do it this time? Can't we learn from history? Anyone remember the McCarthy Era, Zoot Suit Riots, or the Salem Witch Trials?



There is no rape culture (at least not in the developed world). And accurately judging how many times people get away with rape simply isn't possible, because you can't know how many of those found not guilty were innocent.



Arson is another crime that is difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The solution often used is to punish arson more harshly when a person is convicted in order to deter the crime.



We should try a similar yet even harsher solution for rapists. Rapists who are convicted should get life in prison without a chance of parole.



Even with juries it's questionable whether people get fair trials. Sometimes the only evidence of guilt is that the accuser says so and yet they convict, as if the possibility of a person lying or mistaking someone's identity is not reasonable doubt. There should have to be more robust evidence than someone's word.



EDIT:



The proposal to allow victims to ask for an apology and payment and not get a conviction will just be used to inflate rape statistics. It will be assumed by statisticians that people pleading guilty under those arrangements really are rapists, when many would just be apologizing and paying the alleged victim to avoid having to go to court.

Answer 3

Won't happen. Being accused does not prove or suggest guilt. ANYONE can be falsely accused, even a wrong person or someone falsely accused by a vindictive woman or lover.In the USA our constitution demands a fair trial by a jury of one's peers. So, it won't happen here in the USA. Even international laws call for an accused to be tried before a court of law.

Answer 4

Most US states gives the defendant an option by summary judgement (judge) or jury trial regardless of the nature of the crime.But NZ and the British system of justice is a shade different in their procedures than American law procedures, which is an American right under the US Constitution for a trial by a jury of your peers.

Answer 5

It's a bad idea. There are many good reasons to have trials by bury rather than have guilt decided by a single person. Bias is reduced with numbers at there is less chance for corruption.



It's also not fair to deny due process only to people accused of one specific crime.

Answer 6

All of that is pure corruption of justice. Of course, suspending a trial by jury is horrendous. But even the idea about having "specialist judges and lawyers" or special training. WTF is that? The logic of law is the same no matter the crime! It was tested through time to be the best way for justice. All the elements have to be examined in the same way: motive, evidence, witnesses, testimony, etc. What else needs to change?



What can any "special training" do but manipulate and corrupt. Who will be doing the training? Who appoints the "trainers?" How will the "curriculum" change over time? What outcome are they trying to change, and at what expense?



But...it's New Zealand. I guess it's to be expected there.

Answer 7

I call it a good plan.



A jury is a useless waste of resources anyway. How are they of any value?



I am an American living over seas. I have told many about our system of juries. Most people are shocked to hear what a stupid system the USA has.



I would never trust my future to a jury. I could never get a fair trial with "flat earth" morons deciding my fait.



I will never do jury duty. They will have to send a SWAT team if they think they are going to force me to participate in such nonsense.



If they told immigrants about how dumb the system is in the USA, few would not line up to immigrate.



The legal system in the USA is beyond corrupt. It is cheaper to hire a Mexican illgal alien to kill the alleged vctum than to retain a lawyer.

Answer 8

In the USA this proposal is unconstitutional. I don't know anything about New Zealand law.

Answer 9

It wouldn't be setting a precedent. In various times Western societies have become very authoritarian and with authoritarian rule comes oppressive authority. The McCarthy trials and Salem witch trials were great examples of Authoritarian rule corrupting justice. While we look back on these things as times of evil now, in their own period they were widely accepted by most people as being what was required to contain the thing they were fearful of as a consequence of scare campaigns by the Authoritarian leaders.



We are seeing more and more of these types of proposals in Western countries over the past 15 years. Most of them in the name of anti-terrorism but many so called protection of women measures, anti-racism and anti-other things as well.

Answer 10

I think that would set a terrible precedent that could undermine our entire legal system. I think finding ways to make trials for victims less traumatic would be appropriate, but not to scrap the jury system.

Answer 11

Symptomatic of of a social structure that's being destroyed by privilege and entitlement. Now we've sorted out most problems people face in the west, the millenial generation is setting about destroying the very mechanisms that gave them the life they enjoy - simply because those mechanisms don't always by necessity benefit them - and benefit to them, is all they understand



Bizarre really.. a successful society, apparently destroys itself, because of its success

Answer 12

So, if someone in the government wants to get rid of you, they just have to charge you with rape?

Answer 13

I struggle to see logic in much US jurisprudence.

Answer 14

Why would New Zealand do such a thing?

Answer 15

due process is required in every case if you want a civilized society

Answer 16

I think that would be awesome, considering I was raped.

Answer 17

Surely that is martial law.

Answer 18

Dumb question. Kys

Answer 19

think you are unconstitutional. Will not happen.