Failing the System !

A lot of people are having doubts about how justice is served in Australia. Two football players are charged with raping a young woman and this week the jury of their second trial was discharged when it was unable to deliver a verdict, even when the need for a unanimous verdict was downgraded to accept a majority decision.

One of the men charged in a key player in one of Rugby League's prominent football teams and under that sports code of conduct he has been suspended from play for bringing the game into disrepute.  His club is keeping him on the payroll, but sportsmen and sportswomen achieve glory for their performance on the field and this player will not return to play until the case before the courts is decided.

Now there is every chance the matter will go to a third trial and there is no reason to suppose that the outcome will not be similar to the first two trials.  The jury will be asked to decide on much the same evidence that has been presented before, resulting in a mix of opinions.

Theoretically, this could go on indefinitely until it exhausts the pool of jurors, but is it justice to deprive an accused of the right to earn his or her living when that living depends on the performance attained in a public arena.  Age has a lot to do with public performances, and this player risks being forgotten by his former admiring fans.

These failed trials also affect the young woman who alleges she was raped.  She has twice given evidence and had this reported in the media and it looks like she will need to submit to a third testimony before a new jury. For many women, giving evidence of rape publicly is a humiliating experience.

It is more than possible that our court system may determine that consensus is unlikely and abandon further hearings.  In that case the footballer will be forever tagged as a rapist and the women's movement will be aggrieved that a raped woman was not accorded justice.

This case boils down to the basics that needs to be determined when rape is alleged.  The accused claims that sex was consensual and the victim claims it was forced on her against her will.  How the participants behaved prior to the sexual act taking place will have a great influence on how individual jurors reach a conclusion.

These failed hearings also involve costs.  Both parties are represented by counsel in court and the costs mount as each trial is abandoned.  It is quite possible that either party may find themselves served with a crushing debt that forces them to declare bankruptcy.

As things stand, justice is an open ended matter before the courts.  A  second trial seems a reasonable alternative to overcome a divided jury, but beyond that it should be decided by a judge sitting without a jury or be automatically abandoned as having run its course.

Justice is not served when it delivers harm to both litigants !