Tinder Rape Case

_Whimsical_

pjohnson wrote: »

So the mob wanted his character on trial rather than the actual incident. Seems fair.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

This thread reminds of the recent one in which people were trying to claim it was rape if the guy removed the condom during sex.....ladies why are we so determined to make men out to be monsters?!

I just don't understand it.

TBH this sounds to me more like a one night stand that she later regretted and decided to punish him for rather than take responsibility for her own mistake.

The jury have found him innocent, she has been shown to be a liar and to have acted contrary to how a genuine rape victim would. That should be enough for us all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Exactly and she also added him to a list of sexual partners on her phone.

Now I know there is no 'right' way for a rape victim to behave... but I highly doubt anyone that was raped would do that.

But bear in mind I hate women and automatically take men's side in rape trials, as do most men who frequent AH.............. apparently.

pjohnson wrote: »

How is his past relevant to whether or not he raped THIS woman? He raped a woman once before therefore he cannot possibly be innocent and he obviously rape all the womens. Thats mob rule not justice......

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Totally agree... but again, this is getting angry with users after the fact, as I am sure many opinions expressed earlier in the thread by users wouldn't be expressed now given what is now in the public domain.

All of those comments were in the past two pages, all people who know the facts.
I don't think anyone is getting angry with posters, but they're answering comments like above. There are quite a few posters who seem to feel that his past is irrelevant, it's completely fair to offer an alternative view.

Personally my posts are not about the posters here, I feel the court failed this woman by allowing a case that included all sorts of personal details to smear her character to make her look a likely liar/"slut" but excluded very relevant info that made this man a likely rapist... Like him being a convinced rapist.

pjohnson

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

All of those comments were in the past two pages, all people who know the facts.
I don't think anyone is getting angry with posters, but they're answering comments like above. There are quite a few posters who seem to feel that his past is irrelevant, it's completely fair to offer an alternative view.

Fine then. The entire justice system should be based on historic charges rather than the actual charges.

Sallywag37

I couldn't count the time I've read or witnessed people up for armed robbery, shoplifting etc have their history of armed robbery or shoplifting raised in court, and rightly so. Why are convicted rapists allowed to conceal their criminal history in this country?

RayM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Seems you make a habit of attacking people's character rather than address their points... but then that's another hallmark of the perpetually wrongheaded too.

Look, if you make a habit of defending men accused of sexually assaulting women/girls, then it's inevitable that some people will perceive your posts as stemming from misogyny.

_Whimsical_

pjohnson wrote: »

Fine then. The entire justice system should be based on historic charges rather than the actual charges.

All relevant information should be included as evidence. If we are going to have the victims phone mined for every text to weave a narrative about their character then the defendant should certainly have their relevant criminal history included. It's not conjecture, it's not a letter from the parish priest saying he never liked the look of the guy, it's fact.

pjohnson

Sallywag37 wrote: »

I couldn't count the time I've read or witnessed people up for armed robbery, shoplifting etc have their history of armed robbery or shoplifting raised in court, and rightly so. Why are convicted rapists allowed to conceal their criminal history in this country?

While I agree fixed life sentences would solve the issue of repeat offenders it doesnt strike me as fair but it'd work.

Murrisk

RayM wrote: »

Look, if you make a habit of defending men accused of sexually assaulting women/girls, then it's inevitable that some people will perceive your posts as stemming from misogyny.

Absolutely. Outlaw Pete's fairly recent comments on Adam Johnson's victim were eye-opening and disgusting. Luckily they received little to no support. Sometimes people give themselves rope to hang themselves!

freshpopcorn

Sallywag37 wrote: »

I couldn't count the time I've read or witnessed people up for armed robbery, shoplifting etc have their history of armed robbery or shoplifting raised in court, and rightly so. Why are convicted rapists allowed to conceal their criminal history in this country?

My understanding would be if this was to happen the women's sexual history would have to be gone into as well. Did anything similar happen before/etc. This would cause up war.

Roger Hassenforder

Sallywag37 wrote: »

I couldn't count the time I've read or witnessed people up for armed robbery, shoplifting etc have their history of armed robbery or shoplifting raised in court, and rightly so. Why are convicted rapists allowed to conceal their criminal history in this country?

you'll have no difficulty then providing one instance of this (contrary to those permitted as discussed by Orusan and myslef above)...?

Outlaw Pete

freshpopcorn wrote: »

My understanding would be if this was to happen the women's sexual history would have to be gone into as well. Did anything similar happen before/etc. This would cause up war.

Well, going from the arguments for and against during the Ched Evans trial, as long as you enter no evidence as to your 'good' character, then the prosecution can't bring up any 'bad' character you have. It was the woman in that case which used her past sexual behaviour as evidence which was why the appeal court ruled it admissible in the end.

Another high profile case where previous was ruled inadmissible was the Philpot case in the UK when it was not known to the jury that he had attempted to kill a previous partner.

Roger Hassenforder

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

All relevant information should be included as evidence. If we are going to have the victims phone mined for every text to weave a narrative about their character then the defendant should certainly have their relevant criminal history included. It's not conjecture, it's not a letter from the parish priest saying he never liked the look of the guy, it's fact.

speaking of facts, and this is why the case was lost.
she lied. About several things.
She didnt need to, if she had been coerced into having sex with your man for fear of her safety (rape) , she could have reported once safely home (as opposed to her housemate doing it "unbeknownst to her". but she lied and then tampered with evidence after the incident.
mining a phone text conversation between two people discussing a hook up in a rape charge isn't weaving a narrative about their character. its actually relevant information.
They didnt look at any particulars of her sexual history outside of this case (and rightly so)

If he has said he is of great character, and would never rape someone, then yes, they can go into his history, and show he's a convicted rapist

Roger Hassenforder

Sallywag37 wrote: »

He's already proved he wants to rob and is willing to follow through on his desire to rob, so I'd say it's more likely he's guilty in this case and any other case he finds himself accused in. This by the way is exactly why previous robbing convictions are inadmissible in court; because people of common sense know that a robber is more likely to erm, rob

This attitude is quite alarming.
Changed one recurring word there.
And highlighted a line to show how out of touch with both the law and the concept of justice, you are.
Talk about unveiled misogyny...

You're not a Lynch?

Outlaw Pete

RayM wrote: »

Look, if you make a habit of defending men accused of sexually assaulting women/girls, then it's inevitable that some people will perceive your posts as stemming from misogyny.

I have already explained that when threads get started on AH regarding such cases, that in itself is highly indicative of there being a question mark over the evidence against the accused to begin with... therefore it's not unusual for users to take the side of the accused in such cases... we are not talking about average rape cases here.... are you not going to retort that point, no?

You say it's inevitable that some people would perceive my posts as 'stemming from misogyny' but it's just really people like you that would do something as foolish as that. Which is why, like I said in my previous post, I don't take your 'observation' all that serious...... you know... what with the bar you folk have for such a label being so low and all that.

Incidentally, not believing that Ched Evans should have been brought to court (let alone found guilty) or that Adam Johnson deserved to be sentenced to six years for a first offence, or believing that men such as those accused of rape like as Jay Cheshire (who killed himself and who's mother also later took her own life) are proof (if ever it was needed) that anonymity laws need to be in place asap, or either that Mark Pearson should never been charged when CCTV clearly showed that he didn't even have time to bless himself, let alone sexual assault someone.... (and feel free to jog my memory on any I've left out here, God knows your posts could do with some specificity)....... do.not.a.misogynist.make.me.... madness that needs to be said tbf.

The only reason people like you resort to attacking a user's character (in this case mine) is because ye have little options left open to you, given that most of time your opinions and views don't stand up to even the slightest bit of scrutiny.... what with them being so paper thin and based on little more than idealistic thinking and all.

Now, if you want to discuss 'me' any further, then start a thread in the Legends of Boards forum... as I think you (and now subsequently me) have derailed this thread more than enough as it is with this fascinating subject of whether or not Outlaw Pete is a misogynist or not. I'm not by the way. I'm lovely.

Ken.

Mod-RayM do not post in this thread again.

freshpopcorn

When I was at college we did a law for semester. It was very basic and not much needed to covered in it and we often had little chats about courts/jury's. Our lecturer was a barrister and her husband was one as well. Something came up about rape cases and she said the jury always went on the evidence given but they she said they could generally see through people lying. She also said women were more likely to see through a lying women than a man.

Sand

I don't envy the jury on this court case. I believe the result was correct. It is up to the prosecution to prove the guilt of the defendant. Given the nature of the incident, it was simply one persons word against another persons. In such a case, of course the lawyers are going to look to undermine the testimony of one person or other by highlighting discrepancies.

The person making the accusation was shown to be unreliable in her account of events to her flatmate and then to the court. If anything, the flatmate corroborated the account given by the defendant. The judge was right, it would be highly dangerous to convict someone on the word of an unreliable witness alone.

That said, its clear something negative happened. The point that drew my attention was where she described relying on him to drive her out of that deserted location whilst enduring a long, bizarre rant about women and the church. I've been in situations like that, and it is not fun trying to decide if the best course of action is to jump out of the car and walk, or listen on to the driver ranting and raving and hope it all ends well.

Ultimately, I think the guards and the prosecutors need to examine these courts a little more dispassionately. If there is no evidence other than one persons word against the other, then maybe it really is not in the interests of the victim to proceed. Best case scenario, they will be cross examined, their behaviour and statements examined and any discrepancy highlighted and questioned to sow doubt in the mind of the jury, worst case scenario they will suffer all of the above and the defendant walks free. I know the argument is to pursue every rape accusation seriously, but sometimes you have to be serious about the chances of securing a conviction on hearsay alone and weigh that against the trauma to the victim.

Samuel T. Cogley

Rapes are almost always going to me one persons word against the others. In some cases neither party is even lying (from their point of view). I frequently see comments about how lawyers drag people through the mud etc. That's simply not the case, all that can be done is rigorous cross examination and trying to balance that cross examination is probably one of the single biggest legal challenges in criminal law. The surrounding facts are also incredibly difficult to get the balance right on. On the one hand of course the victims sexual history should not be brought up, but the surrounding facts of the encounter in question, of course have to be examined.

As for prosecuting the person who made a the allegation - if it's malicious then fair enough, but in the vast majority of cases the person is disturbed in someway. The better course is to make sure they get the counseling and support they need.

Junkyard Tom

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

He actually is in jail and is a sex offender

Holy fuck, seriously?

Outlaw Pete

Murrisk wrote: »

Absolutely. Outlaw Pete's fairly recent comments on Adam Johnson's victim were eye-opening and disgusting. Luckily they received little to no support. Sometimes people give themselves rope to hang themselves!

Whenever I post a view I give my reasoning for it. Nobody retorted my reasoning on that thread (in any way that would warrant a response at least) just a load of the usual guffawing. I couldn't care less if my view was shared or not by the way, as that was not (and never is) my motive for posting (though it is clearly a popular one). I post my views to express how I feel on a given topic, end of story. If it's appreciated, cool, if not, I'll live. If you have any more to say on it, you know where the thread is.

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

All of those comments were in the past two pages, all people who know the facts.

Well, my comment regarding her adding his name to a list of her sexual partners was made today and I didn't know he was currently in jail. Sometimes people will reply to a post that has been written the night before without have read any posts made after that. For example, my first reply today around 1pm was made when I got to AudreyHepburn's post from around 8:30am.

Personally my posts are not about the posters here.

Fair enough.

... I feel the court failed this woman by allowing a case that included all sorts of personal details to smear her character to make her look a likely liar/"slut" ...

That's not true. Details were included as they were relevant to show that she had lied. If a defense tries to use evidence purely to show that a woman is a "slut" then it wouldn't be allowed and nor should it, as like I said earlier in the thread, a woman could hook up with ten men off Tinder a day and it would mean she hadn't been raped.

Don't you think that the evidence which showed she lied was relevant?

..but excluded very relevant info that made this man a likely rapist... Like him being a convinced rapist.

I'm not sure how I feel about that but isn't the thinking behind the inadmissibility of previous convictions based on the realistic notion that juries may very well just say 'Well, they must have done it, sure they've done it before'. Surely if someone is guilty of something then there should be evidence of it. A past history of committing similar crimes, while certainly raising the likelihood that they are also guilty of committing the one they are on trial for, doesn't really prove that they are and surely are courts should be about prove that above all else.

Murrisk

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Whenever I post a view I give my reasoning for it. Nobody retorted my reasoning on that thread (in any way that would warrant a response at least) just a load of the usual guffawing.

Guffawing, eh? Sure thing, bud. But it's nice that it didn't bother you how bad it made you look. Nice to be so thick-skinned.

Murrisk

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Rapes are almost always going to me one persons word against the others.

Exactly, if it starting happening that cases weren't allowed to be brought if it's one person's word against the other, then I think hardly any rape cases would make it to court!

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Holy fuck, seriously?

Yeah. Well, sexual assault and oral rape. Also convicted for physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

redshoes15

From experience I know how difficult it is for jury's to go one way or another on a case such as this. I did jury duty on a case similar to this about 12 years back. Horrific experience all round. Long and short of it, we couldn't come to a decision and the judge wouldn't accept a majority verdict. If I remember right it was 9/3 in favour of guilty. Hung jury so yer man was retried. The Garda that escorted us out of the Four Courts, who had been assigned to us for the duration of the case, told us the guy was 100% guilty and an all round piece of sh1t. I didnt look in the press to see how the subsequent retrial went. Didn't have the heart. I do hope the ba5tard is rotting in Arbour Hill. I would hate to have served on the jury that let this piece of crap off but if the evidence wasn't there it wasn't there.

Roger Hassenforder

Murrisk wrote: »

Exactly, if it starting happening that cases weren't allowed to be brought if it's one person's word against the other, then I think hardly any rape cases would make it to court!

Yeah. Well, sexual assault and oral rape. Also convicted for physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

What's he in for now?

johnnyskeleton

redshoes15 wrote: »

The Garda that escorted us out of the Four Courts, who had been assigned to us for the duration of the case, told us the guy was 100% guilty and an all round piece of sh1t.

That's why it would be much more efficient if we did away with the jury system and just let Gardai decide who is guilty.

redshoes15

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's why it would be much more efficient if we did away with the jury system and just let Gardai decide who is guilty.

I disagree, had the prosecution provided the evidence to find him guilty (I'm against saying they didn't do their jobs as it was very close) it would have been a different outcome. The case I served on was quite different to the Tinder one. Given the lack of conclusive evidence it was, in my opinion, impossible to return a beyond reasonable doubt guilty verdict.

I'm a supporter of the Gardai but giving them the power to convict an individual of a crime without a trial involving a jury would cause anarchy in this country. There are many bad apples as we are all aware.

Junkyard Tom

Murrisk wrote: »

Yeah. Well, sexual assault and oral rape. Also convicted for physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

Was it not allowed to be part of the case against him for the woman he took to the mountains?

Roger Hassenforder

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was it not allowed to be part of the case against him for the woman he took to the mountains?

It's not known what he's in for now, that was a few years ago. Maybe he's rehabilitated!!

There's only a few reasons a scumbag's history is allowed, one is when he tries to establish he's not a scumbag. If a scumbag's trial opened with the prosecution appraising the jury of the scumbag's history of scumbaggery we might as well dispense with courts and go straight to lynching

Widdershins

I once heard solicitor pointing out that their client had no previous convictions, in court? If the person's criminal history/lack therof can be used to inform a judge in a district court, why cant it be used to inform a jury?

Roger Hassenforder

Widdershins wrote: »

I once heard solicitor pointing out that their client had no previous convictions, in court? If the person's criminal history/lack therof can be used to inform a judge in a district court, why cant it be used to inform a jury?

A defence can do it to show their client is if good character etc., e.g in this case, if he wasn't a rapist, and he isn't a rapist.
But There's a big difference in a prosecution bringing in the defendants previous, straight away half the jury have them convicted without hearing the evidence.

Roger Hassenforder

redshoes15 wrote: »

I disagree, had the prosecution provided the evidence to find him guilty (I'm against saying they didn't do their jobs as it was very close) it would have been a different outcome. The case I served on was quite different to the Tinder one. Given the lack of conclusive evidence it was, in my opinion, impossible to return a beyond reasonable doubt guilty verdict.

I'm a supporter of the Gardai but giving them the power to convict an individual of a crime without a trial involving a jury would cause anarchy in this country. There are many bad apples as we are all aware.

They were being sarcastic.
I hope!

RabbleRouser2k

redshoes15 wrote: »

From experience I know how difficult it is for jury's to go one way or another on a case such as this. I did jury duty on a case similar to this about 12 years back. Horrific experience all round. Long and short of it, we couldn't come to a decision and the judge wouldn't accept a majority verdict. If I remember right it was 9/3 in favour of guilty. Hung jury so yer man was retried. The Garda that escorted us out of the Four Courts, who had been assigned to us for the duration of the case, told us the guy was 100% guilty and an all round piece of sh1t. I didnt look in the press to see how the subsequent retrial went. Didn't have the heart. I do hope the ba5tard is rotting in Arbour Hill. I would hate to have served on the jury that let this piece of crap off but if the evidence wasn't there it wasn't there.

Can't imagine how tough that must have been-seriously. I've been called for jury duty twice, and both times I was able to avoid it. One was a doctor's note, the other time I had work or something...that I forget, but the doctor's note I remember distinctly-had a flu that returned as a chest infection-fun times...no it wasn't.

I'm grateful that I wasn't called for something like that. To sit there and listen to the details would horrify me.

Murrisk

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What's he in for now?

Not sure off the top of my head!

Murrisk

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Was it not allowed to be part of the case against him for the woman he took to the mountains?

Apparently not, because he did not enter in any evidence of his good character.

Outlaw Pete

One high profile case where a Judge allowed such evidence (much to the displeasure of the defense) was in the OJ Simpson trial:

PROSECUTORS WIN KEY SIMPSON FIGHT

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 18— Jurors may hear crucial testimony about O. J. Simpson's prolonged and repeatedly abusive treatment of Nicole Brown Simpson, including the tape of a telephone call Mrs. Simpson made to a 911 operator eight months before she was killed, Judge Lance A. Ito of Superior Court ruled today.

After deciding one of the most bitterly fought issues in the extraordinary double-murder trial, Judge Ito put off opening statements until Monday, citing several unresolved matters. But his decision today assured that once testimony in the case began, jurors would see a side of Mr. Simpson drastically different from the amiable image he long cultivated: a man given to repeated jealous rages, capable of kicking down Mrs. Simpson's door, throwing her out of a moving car and smashing her windshield with a baseball bat.

Judge Ito's ruling changes the complexion of the case, guaranteeing that Mr. Simpson's character, and not just desiccated discussions of blood splotches, hair follicles and DNA, will be of paramount concern.

The day's highlight was Judge Ito's eagerly awaited ruling on the admissibility of what prosecutors say are 59 separate instances of domestic violence before, during and after the Simpsons' troubled marriage. While Judge Ito excluded many of them as hearsay, unsubstantiated or too remote in time, he let in the bulk of what the prosecution cared about most.

Jurors can now hear -- if they have not already -- the tape of Mrs. Simpson's October 1993 call to 911 after Mr. Simpson had kicked his way into her house. That tape, Judge Ito ruled, offered insight into the "nature and quality" of the couple's relationship and of Mr. Simpson's jealousy. Only one snippet, in which Mrs. Simpson expressed fear of an imminent beating that apparently never happened, is to be excised.

They can also hear that on one occasion Mr. Simpson threatened his wife with a gun to get her out of the house and, on another, pushed her out of a moving car. There can also be testimony about an altercation on New Year's Day in 1989 in which the police, responding to her call to 911, found Mrs. Simpson hiding in the bushes outside her home, wearing only a bra and sweat pants.

"He's going to kill me! He's going to kill me!" she told the officers. That episode led Mr. Simpson to plead no contest to spousal abuse, and to send his wife several contrite letters, which the jury will get to hear as well.

"Judge Ito gave the prosecution almost all of what they asked for and more than what they needed to establish Mr. Simpson's capacity and motivation to kill," said Peter Arenella, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles. "This evidence is critical to the prosecution's case, because if believed, it will motivate jurors to overcome any doubts or confusion they might have about the reliability of the physical evidence linking Mr. Simpson to the slayings.

"But using this kind of evidence is a double-edged sword," Mr. Arenella continued. "If prosecutors are too heavy-handed with it, jurors might believe they are trying to assassinate Mr. Simpson's character to convict him."

Under California law, evidence of a defendant's character or prior bad acts is generally inadmissible to prove conduct on a particular occasion. That someone has behaved badly one or 20 times, the law holds, cannot be allowed to convict him on the 21st. But the law makes an exception for prior acts tending to show motive, opportunity, preparation or intent, as long as their value as evidence is not outweighed by their prejudicial effect.

Citing a 1986 opinion by a California appellate court, Judge Ito ruled that the threshold for allowing such evidence was lower in instances in which the assaults are against the same person. It was on that basis, he held, that evidence related to at least some of Mr. Simpson's past conduct was admissible.

Prosecutors had offered several instances in which Mrs. Simpson either said or wrote about her husband's violent and threatening conduct: threats that he would kill her if she ever left him, for instance, or statements that she so feared her husband that she felt she no longer had any reason to live.

Judge Ito barred them all. They were hearsay, he ruled, inadmissible because Mrs. Simpson was no longer around to be cross-examined. By the same logic, he disallowed the call Mrs. Simpson made to a shelter for battered women five days before she was slashed and stabbed to death.

Intuitively, the judge suggested, such evidence should be admitted. "To the man or woman on the street, the relevance of such evidence is both obvious and compelling, especially those statements made just days before the homicide," he wrote. "It seems only just and right that a crime victim's own words be heard, especially in the court where the facts and circumstances of her demise are to be presented."

But on that, he stressed, higher courts had tied his hands. The California courts had ruled, he wrote, that admitting into evidence even the statement of a murder victim made on the day of the killing was reversible error.

Full article here.

Junkyard Tom

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

There's only a few reasons a scumbag's history is allowed

I don't think sex offenders should be allowed to conceal thier past if they're up for a second trial for a subsequent sex offence. In fact I reckon there should be a two-strikes-and-you're-out system for sex offenders.

RabbleRouser2k

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

I don't think sex offenders should be allowed to conceal thier past if they're up for a second trial for a subsequent sex offence. In fact I reckon there should be a two-strikes-and-you're-out system for sex offenders.

That falls apart very quickly if you think about it-what if it was proven beyond all doubt that they hadn't committed the second offence? And his or her past was brought up, only to have the case find them not guilty?

He, or she, since it could be a male or female offender, would likely sue the state, and possibly lead to another referendum.

The three strikes rule would cause more problems than its worth.

SimpleDimples

I would rather a convicted rapist got send down for rapes he didn't commit than get away with one he did.

The women's sexual behaviour and past was pulled apart in court, yet his wasn't.

Yes she lied about some details and he was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

Either way i hope the women involved gets the help she needs.

Junkyard Tom

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

what if it was proven beyond all doubt that they hadn't committed the second offence? And his or her past was brought up, only to have the case find them not guilty?

Then he doesn't get convicted?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Sand wrote: »

Ultimately, I think the guards and the prosecutors need to examine these courts a little more dispassionately. If there is no evidence other than one persons word against the other, then maybe it really is not in the interests of the victim to proceed. Best case scenario, they will be cross examined, their behaviour and statements examined and any discrepancy highlighted and questioned to sow doubt in the mind of the jury, worst case scenario they will suffer all of the above and the defendant walks free. I know the argument is to pursue every rape accusation seriously, but sometimes you have to be serious about the chances of securing a conviction on hearsay alone and weigh that against the trauma to the victim.

Which is why so so so many rape victims choose not to go to prosecution. 5% of reported rapes make it to court, 19% of those end in conviction, dropping to 7% of contested charges. Ireland has a particularly low reportage and conviction rate.

So I don't know why people are so determined to live in a fantasy world where men have to live in constant fear of women swanning into a garda station and ordering up a rape conviction as easily as a pizza. If you do not rape someone, you will almost certainly not get convicted of rape. If you do rape someone, you're in one of the best countries in the western world in which to do so, the law is very very much on your side. People have some weird victim complex that makes them think otherwise though.

RabbleRouser2k

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Then he doesn't get convicted?

That doesn't sound feasible-he or she could argue the case should never have made it to court, and their past should not have been included. Or they could even argue by including their past, it was trying to tarnish to verdict against them-as in the ched evans case.

SimpleDimples wrote: »

I would rather a convicted rapist got send down for rapes he didn't commit than get away with one he did.

The women's sexual behaviour and past was pulled apart in court, yet his wasn't.

Yes she lied about some details and he was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

Either why i hope the women involved gets the help she needs.

You may like that-but I certainly wouldn't. I'd be absolutely ashamed to live in a country that did that. It's mob mentality at it's finest.

She accused him of a crime, the onus was on her to prove she was raped-and the onus was on him to prove he didn't commit a rape.
His past didn't factor into it, because he didn't stand there and say 'I'm a good man, I don't rape'. Instead he stood there, and corroborated the same evidence her roommate gave, as well as the texts sent to him, and other details. He didn't delete messages, he didn't say he was good guy.

Lying about evidence was what created doubt. Even a fraction of doubt can cause problems, the level of details regarding this case created a chasm.

She may very well need psychological help-this case rang of regret rather than rape.

SimpleDimples

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

You may like that-but I certainly wouldn't. I'd be absolutely ashamed to live in a country that did that. It's mob mentality at it's finest.

As far as I'm concerned rapists and child abusers are the lowest of the low and if found guilty once they never deserve freedom. I don't believe they can be rehabiliated either. You can call that mob mentality if you like but I don't know how anyone can defend a convicted rapist.

RabbleRouser2k

SimpleDimples wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned rapists and child abusers are the lowest of the low and if found guilty once they never deserve freedom. I don't believe they can be rehabiliated either. You can call that mob mentality if you like but I don't know how anyone can defend a convicted rapist.

If found guilty, send them to prison. Fine.

But nobody should go to court without representation-and every solicitor and barrister throughout the country knows this.

I have no respect for rapists or paedophiles either-but I'll be damned if I will see someone go to prison for a crime they did not commit.

Junkyard Tom

SimpleDimples wrote: »

I don't believe they can be rehabiliated either.

I think a lot of probation officers and social workers would agree with you. They often completely refuse to engage with counsellors and the like.

Roger Hassenforder

SimpleDimples wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned rapists and child abusers are the lowest of the low and if found guilty once they never deserve freedom. I don't believe they can be rehabiliated either. You can call that mob mentality if you like but I don't know how anyone can defend a convicted rapist.

I don't think anyone is defending a convicted rapist but rather ensuring justice is done and seen to be done.

There's no doubt this guy is a turd. But the victim tampered with evidence, gave false statements to Gardai, and lied - possibly perjured herself to get the guy.
If you don't have a problem with that, you've no concept of justice.

Roger Hassenforder

SimpleDimples wrote: »

I would rather a convicted rapist got send down for rapes he didn't commit than get away with one he did.

The women's sexual behaviour and past was pulled apart in court, yet his wasn't.

Yes she lied about some details and he was found not guilty but that doesn't mean he's innocent.

Either way i hope the women involved gets the help she needs.

No it wasn't, and rightly so.
"She lied about some details..."
You don't have a problem with that?
What else did she lie about?

With your logic Gardai can just pin a rape on the nearest sex offender, be grand. Let the real rapist walk around Scot free.

SimpleDimples

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

No it wasn't, and rightly so.
"She lied about some details..."
You don't have a problem with that?
What else did she lie about?

With your logic Gardai can just pin a rape on the nearest sex offender, be grand. Let the real rapist walk around Scot free.

Twisting my words! I never said that Gardai can just pin a rape of the nearest sex offender. However, if a convicted rapist admits to having sex with a women who says he raped her then i'm happy to accept that he more than likely did. Convicted rapists don't change their ways.

You can continue to debate this with me all night long if you like but defending a rapist is abhorrent & nothing you can say will make me change my mind.

RDM_83 again

Mikaela Narrow Lice wrote: »

Which is why so so so many rape victims choose not to go to prosecution. 5% of reported rapes make it to court, 19% of those end in conviction, dropping to 7% of contested charges. Ireland has a particularly low reportage and conviction rate.

Have they done a break down that separates out the historic cases from that as I think thats an issue here too (and realistically unless there is forensic evidence any historic conviction is hard to achieve).
Also do you have a source for the 5% reaching court as I have heard the other stats reported I think but not that one.

Here is the counter argument to the idea that rape is a special case when it comes to lack of convictions written by a female legal expert and published in the Guardian

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/25/rape-myths-low-conviction-rate

Basically for a crime that generally has few independent witnesses the level of convictions is about the same as other crimes.
I am sure most people in Ireland have had a serious assault happen to them or their peer group with plenty of physical evidence and the case never making it too court. Its a cynical thing to say but unless its an easily provable case or a high status victims a huge amount of crimes go unpunished.

She also highlights the issue with the idea of rape myths/victim blaming surveys

She takes issue with the idea that many of the myths are widespread and questions whether all are mistaken. One of the most frequently discussed is the "coffee myth", in which people are said to wrongly believe that if a woman invites a man home for coffee after a night out, it generally means an invitation to have sex with her.

Reece said: "Most participants [in surveys on attitudes to rape] probably mean that an invitation for coffee is by convention a signal of consent and/or that women tend to signal consent in this way. "Interestingly, rather than providing evidence of the prevalence of rape myths, those who agree with this statement are providing evidence of its truth … the best evidence we have of how women show consent to sex is how people say women show consent to sex."

The commonly advanced argument was that law reform had proved ineffective because judges, police, jurors and even the general public hold "rape myths", Reece said, but there was less evidence of people blaming victims than is often supposed.

One survey frequently referred to was carried out by Amnesty in 2005. The word "blame" was not used in the questionnaire. "So the 30% of respondents to the Amnesty survey who thought that being drunk made the woman to some extent responsible for being raped may have meant that she was in some way culpable," Reece said. "But they may [alternatively] have meant that her drunkenness was causally implicated in the rape, in the sense that she might not have been raped if she had been sober, that being drunk increased the risk of being raped.

"Not only is this a far more benign belief than victim-blaming, but the rape research provides solid evidence that it is also an accurate belief, with one proviso. Most rape researchers prefer to talk in terms of women 'enhancing their vulnerability' to rape, rather than in terms of any causal connection."

RabbleRouser2k

SimpleDimples wrote: »

Twisting my words! I never said that Gardai can just pin a rape of the nearest sex offender. However, if a convicted rapist admits to having sex with a women who says he raped her then i'm happy to accept that he more than likely did. Convicted rapists don't change their ways.

You can continue to debate this with me all night long if you like but defending a rapist is abhorrent & nothing you can say will make me change my mind.

So even if the person crying rape was lying, you'd take her word for it? Again, you can accept it all you want-but it doesn't make it true.

The reason we continue to debate with those who disagree is because that's not how the law works.
Just because someone claims a crime, doesn't mean it happened.

She's considerably 'lucky' too-based on claims of perjury by some on here, she could have faced a rather hefty fine for evidence tampering.

Roger Hassenforder

SimpleDimples wrote: »

Twisting my words! I never said that Gardai can just pin a rape of the nearest sex offender. However, if a convicted rapist admits to having sex with a women who says he raped her then i'm happy to accept that he more than likely did. Convicted rapists don't change their ways.

You can continue to debate this with me all night long if you like but defending a rapist is abhorrent & nothing you can say will make me change my mind.

I'm neither twisting your words or defending a rapist, I'm applying your rationale. This is grown ups discussing the criminal justice process.

If you were arguing heavier sentencing for repeat offenders I'd agree with you 100%. But you're not.

you want a woman's (victim) word to carry more weight than a mans (alleged rapist) where there is insufficient evidence to get a rape conviction over the line... Sure we might as well dispense with court altogether.

This is fundamental to a lot of rake offences, the issue of consent. A man might genuinely believe he had consent.
A court might find otherwise based on evidence. Where a victim is shown to have given false evidence, lied etc you still believe her because a leopard never changes his spots.

Does this absurdity only apply to rape and other sexual assault charges?
(I frequently argue against Sharia law for the reason). If applying it to all criminal charges, your misogyny and bias might not be so apparent, and indeed I might even agree with you - there's an argument convicted felons of serious crimes should have diminished rights.

But it seems I'm a rape apologist no matter what I say...

Samaris

I'm generally on the side of rape being very hard to prove and it being a problem (albeit not one I can solve), but even I'm going "whoah, hold up there a minute". Yes, it's sickening that he's a convicted rapist and was loose to continue potentially preying on people. And it is horrendous for this woman if she was raped, can't prove it, and made a foolish mistake in deleting text messages, but that mistake told badly against her as it inevitably would do.

But you cannot classify the world into "people that deserve a presumption of innocence" and "people who don't" with the expectation that this should hold up in a court of law, else what's the point in a court of law?

The case has to be tried on its own merits. Else you get the lazy approach taken very occasionally with serial killers - ah sure just lump all the missing people from that area into one group, here's a killer, must have been him, job done. Maybe it was. Probably even it was. But it does preclude that there's a second one out there who is free to get away unsuspected with more predation.