Rape conviction quashed over ruling on asking girl (15) about taking pill

kylith

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/rape-conviction-quashed-over-ruling-on-asking-girl-15-about-taking-pill-1.3539045

A Co Louth man’s conviction for raping a 15-year-old family friend has been quashed over a ruling which prevented his lawyers from questioning the girl as to why she was on the contraceptive pill at the time.

This is the kind of sh!t that really annoys me. Not only are there medical reasons for being on the pill, prior sexual activity is not consent to sexual activity at all times. Having sexts on your phone is not consent to sexual activity.

They have as much as admitted that they want to undermine her credibility with this.

Some more depressing quotes..

the defence had sought to question the complainant on previous sexual history, particularly in respect of messages on her phone which carried sexual innuendo and at least one photo of a male penis. The purpose was to establish that she had been sexually active and had probably engaged in intercourse immediately prior to the alleged rape.

Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.

The defence also sought to introduce evidence that would assist in establishing that the complainant was taking the pill not just for medical reasons but at least partly for contraceptive purposes in contemplation of such activity.

Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.

There was, at least, a possibility that the jury might be persuaded that a primary or secondary motivation for taking the pill, and remaining on it, was to facilitate sexual intercourse and that such sexual activity as occurred in the course of her confrontation with the man “was not the first occasion on which she had engaged in sexual intercourse”.It was “an important credibility issue,” Mr Justice Mahon said.

Now, as the girl said she was a virgin prior to the encounter with the defendant whether or not she had had sex before could be an important credibility issue, in which case they should have sought proof that she had had sex previously, which being on the pill is not.

It just seems that the defense's entire case is 'sure, she was on the pill, and she had some saucy texts on her phone, so she's obviously a slut who was gagging for it'. I despair...

TheChizler

I think they were arguing that she was lying about one thing therefore wasn't credible? I still don't see the relevance though. They somehow managed to turn the trial around on her.

RockDesk

But are the solicitors saying they had consensual sex? Or that she had had consensual sex with someone else and this man didn't touch her?

Because if it's the first, why isn't it statutory rape, rather than consensual sex?

GingerLily

That's disgraceful - so many teenagers are on the pill before they're sexually active these days - I know in school several girls were, and that was 10 years ago.

Wibbs

the defence had sought to question the complainant on previous sexual history, particularly in respect of messages on her phone which carried sexual innuendo and at least one photo of a male penis.

What the actual fuck? "Sexual innuendo" and a photo of opposite sex tingly parts? On a teenagers phone? If that's their "logic" then every spotty teenager out there is shagging. Jesus Christ.

Glass fused light

TheChizler wrote: »

I think they were arguing that she was lying about one thing therefore wasn't credible? I still don't see the relevance though. They somehow managed to turn the trial around on her.

Its always about the credibility of the witness so the best defence is to turn the trial about on her.
From that report the then 20 year old defendent was not denying some sexual activity took place. but as there were 2 charges rape and defilement the argument maybe on the correct charge.
As it was with a 15 year old family friend the 'I did not know she was underage' defence won't work. She is under 17 so legally can't consent to sexual activity so being on the pill or even having sex with someone else is not a defence either.

*Being quashed would mean that the conviction no longer stands and the State would have to retry the case from the start so victim will have to retestify.

Complete bull**** case. The fact that she was 15 and he in his 20s is surely enough without anything else ffs. His defence was that it was consensual. :rolleyes:

kylith

Glass fused light wrote: »

TheChizler wrote: »

I think they were arguing that she was lying about one thing therefore wasn't credible? I still don't see the relevance though. They somehow managed to turn the trial around on her.

Its always about the credibility of the witness so the best defence is to turn the trial about on her.
From that report the then 20 year old defendent was not denying some sexual activity took place. but as there were 2 charges rape and defilement the argument maybe on the correct charge.
As it was with a 15 year old family friend the 'I did not know she was underage' defence won't work. She is under 17 so legally can't consent to sexual activity so being on the pill or even having sex with someone else is not a defence either.

Whichever way you slice it, it was rape. His hope is to get it down to ‘just’ statutory rape, I suppose. Which doesn’t make him much less of a scumbag, IMO.

mariaalice

The simple way to stop that sort of nonsense is to disallow any questioning of the complainants prior sexual history it is not relevant to the issue of whether they were raped.

Glass fused light

kylith wrote: »

Whichever way you slice it, it was rape. His hope is to get it down to ‘just’ statutory rape, I suppose. Which doesn’t make him much less of a scumbag, IMO.

I would say the argument is defilement not rape and the clinton defence that they were only messing around.

professore

I would say from long experience of reading newspaper articles that there is a lot more to this than the headline and even the content. Especially when you read about something you have deep personal knowledge of (not this case - something completely different !!! ) and the Irish Times article bore no relation whatsoever to the truth and was flat out biased and lying for most of the article.

Many young girls are on the pill for many reasons such as heavy periods etc. In countries such as the Netherlands parents put their daughters on the pill after puberty to prevent any chance of unwanted pregnancy. This doesn't mean that these young girls are "up for it" all the time with anyone. So to quash the case on that basis alone is an utter disgrace.

Also he is going to have to go through a retrial. Unfortunately so is the girl.

Assuming the defence is correct and she was involved immediately prior with another man - he should also be on called as a hostile witness, and if this guy is sent to jail he should also be tried and sent to jail if guilty.

Hector Bellend

If they had sex then surely the fact that she was underage renders consent irrelevant in this case.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

They have as much as admitted that they want to undermine her credibility with this.

They wouldn't be doing their job effectively if they weren't trying to undermine the witnesses credibility in defence of their client. It's depressing, but it's necessary.

Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.
Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.

It's relevant to the defence.

Now, as the girl said she was a virgin prior to the encounter with the defendant whether or not she had had sex before could be an important credibility issue, in which case they should have sought proof that she had had sex previously, which being on the pill is not.

It just seems that the defense's entire case is 'sure, she was on the pill, and she had some saucy texts on her phone, so she's obviously a slut who was gagging for it'. I despair...

The point of the appeal was that the defence were denied the opportunity to allow the jury to hear questions and answers which they consider relevant to their case in defence of their client, and that the jury should have been allowed to make the determination about the witnesses credibility.

Graces7

This is what lawyers do and get paid for doing.
As Dickens said, "The is A ASS!" ie donkey

And is also amoral

Winning is what counts. not truth

kylith wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/rape-conviction-quashed-over-ruling-on-asking-girl-15-about-taking-pill-1.3539045



This is the kind of sh!t that really annoys me. Not only are there medical reasons for being on the pill, prior sexual activity is not consent to sexual activity at all times. Having sexts on your phone is not consent to sexual activity.

They have as much as admitted that they want to undermine her credibility with this.

Some more depressing quotes..
Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.
Completely irrelevant to whether or not she was raped.
Now, as the girl said she was a virgin prior to the encounter with the defendant whether or not she had had sex before could be an important credibility issue, in which case they should have sought proof that she had had sex previously, which being on the pill is not.

It just seems that the defense's entire case is 'sure, she was on the pill, and she had some saucy texts on her phone, so she's obviously a slut who was gagging for it'. I despair...

Peregrinus

I think the argument would be as follows:

1. He was convicted on the basis of evidence given by her.

2. Therefore, he should be entitled to challenge her credibility as a witness.

3. Therefore, if she has made a statement in the witness box ("I am a virgin") which he has reason to think may be false, he should be allowed to cross-examine her on that. Particularly if her false statement related to her own sexuality/sexual activity. Whether she was a virgin or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether she was raped, but it's relevant to the question of whether she's a reliable witness.

4. Therefore, if he wasn't allowed to cross-examine her as to credibility, his trial was unfair.

So the argument is not "she's sexually active, therefore you should not believe her". It's "if she lies about/is in denial about her past sexual activity, she's a less credible witness in relation to her sexual activity on this occasion too".

It may be, as others point out, that she was on the pill for reasons which had nothing to do with any sexual activity, but she wasn't given the opportunity to give that evidence. So we don't know.

Rockdesk asks about statutory rape. There is no such crime in Ireland. There is rape, sex with a person of any age, without their consent. And there are various offences involving sex with underage people, in which consent is not an issue - the conduct is an offence even if they consent enthusiastically. If you're charged with and tried for one offence, they can't end up convicting you of an entirely different offence. On the facts given the defendant seemingly could have been charged with one of the underage offences, but he wasn't.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point of the appeal was that the defence were denied the opportunity to allow the jury to hear questions and answers which they consider relevant to their case in defence of their client, and that the jury should have been allowed to make the determination about the witnesses credibility.

I really don’t see how whether or not she was on the pill is relevant, though. Yes, if she’s claiming she was a virgin then having had sex previously would speak as to her credibility, but the pill in no way proves that. She could have been on it for any number of reasons, including not wanting to be caught out if she decided to have sex in future.

Outlaw Pete

Don't see the issue here. It was a crucial part of the prosecution's case and cross examination wasn't allowed regarding it. In all likelihood the jury would not have been persuaded that she was on the pill for other purposes than the ones which were claimed but to not at least allow questions on the matter they prejudiced the defense.

As the judge added:

“It is a matter which ought properly to have been left to the jury for consideration.”

Guy:Incognito

mariaalice wrote: »

The simple way to stop that sort of nonsense is to disallow any questioning of the complainants prior sexual history it is not relevant to the issue of whether they were raped.

Depends on how prior it is. What if you're being accused of rape , that you didn't do, but the woman in question had sex with someone else within a short enough timeframe that physical signs from that could help convict you?

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

Complete bull**** case. The fact that she was 15 and he in his 20s is surely enough without anything else ffs. His defence was that it was consensual. :rolleyes:

This.

If the defendant was 16/17, maybe even 18 then the "consensual" defence might be relevant.

But he was 21 FFS. She was 15. Consent is no defence.

Grayson

Wibbs wrote: »

What the actual fuck? "Sexual innuendo" and a photo of opposite sex tingly parts? On a teenagers phone? If that's their "logic" then every spotty teenager out there is shagging. Jesus Christ.

maybe we should consider banning carry on movies. After all the innuendo shows that you're gagging for it.


As a side note, my mum was a nurse and midwife. When my sister was a teenager she brought her to our GP and got her a prescription for the pill. My sister wasn't sexually active it was just my mum being prepared. Because sh1t happens and the only way to be certain is to be prepared.

Edit: I'll do the same if I ever have kids. and I might even consider doing something like this.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/jan/23/why-i-put-400-condoms-in-the-kitchen-drawer-for-my-sons

Glass fused light

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think the argument would be as follows:

1. He was convicted on the basis of evidence given by her.

2. Therefore, he should be entitled to challenge her credibility as a witness.

3. Therefore, if she has made a statement in the witness box ("I am a virgin") which he has reason to think may be false, he should be allowed to cross-examine her on that. Particularly if her false statement related to her own sexuality/sexual activity. Whether she was a virgin or not is irrelevant to the issue of whether she was raped, but it's relevant to the question of whether she's a reliable witness.

4. Therefore, if he wasn't allowed to cross-examine her as to credibility, his trial was unfair.

So the argument is not "she's sexually active, therefore you should not believe her". It's "if she lies about/is in denial about her past sexual activity, she's a less credible witness in relation to her sexual activity on this occasion too".

It may be, as others point out, that she was on the pill for reasons which had nothing to do with any sexual activity, but she wasn't given the opportunity to give that evidence. So we don't know.

She was 15, her passed sexual history is not a defence, he was arguing consent to at least some sort of activity. she could have has sex in front of the jury with anyone and everyone and she would still have had no legal capacity to consent.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Rockdesk asks about statutory rape. There is no such crime in Ireland. There is rape, sex with a person female by a male of any age, without their her consent.

A 15 year old male or female can not consent as the laws prevent them from having capacity.
A only a female can be 'raped' if its a male its a sexual assault.
In the case of a minor the defendant cant rely on consent without arguing reasonable belief of being 17.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And there are various offences involving sex with underage people, in which consent is not an issue - the conduct is an offence even if they consent enthusiastically. If you're charged with and tried for one offence, they can't end up convicting you of an entirely different offence. On the facts given the defendant seemingly could have been charged with one of the underage offences, but he wasn't.

The report said the conviction was for rape and defilement.

That's a very interesting breakdown peregrinus thanks for that.
I am surprised if the underage bit wasn't included by default in the original case

biko

No means No! *













* Ian Paisley

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

I really don’t see how whether or not she was on the pill is relevant, though. Yes, if she’s claiming she was a virgin then having had sex previously would speak as to her credibility, but the pill in no way proves that. She could have been on it for any number of reasons, including not wanting to be caught out if she decided to have sex in future.

Of course she could have been on the pill for any number of reasons, but the point of the appeal was that the jury was never given an opportunity to hear what those reasons were and whether or not it was reasonable to assume she was either on the pill for medical reasons, or because she was sexually active, or both.

You know that the accused at all times maintains the presumption of innocence, and the alleged victim isn't on trial, so it's a question of acknowledging that the accused simply has the right to a fair trial, when the potential consequences of being found guilty can mean they end up doing jail time.

I'd say the same btw if the alleged victim were a 40 year old man, the defendant would still be entitled to a fair trial. That's why it's important for all parties concerned that justice is seen to be done the first time, rather than putting everyone through an even more lengthy appeal and retrial. I can understand why someone would want to do that though if they maintained that they were innocent.

jiltloop

mariaalice wrote: »

The simple way to stop that sort of nonsense is to disallow any questioning of the complainants prior sexual history it is not relevant to the issue of whether they were raped.

Absolutely, the law should be changed on this. Previous sexual history should have zero bearing on a rape case. The only thing that should matter is what happened at the time in question.

In fact as far as I understand, and I'm open to correction on this, there are strict rules around bringing up a defendants previous convictions in court.

One eyed Jack

jiltloop wrote: »

Absolutely, the law should be changed on this. Previous sexual history should have zero bearing on a rape case. The only thing that should matter is what happened at the time in question.

In fact as far as I understand, and I'm open to correction on this, there are strict rules around bringing up a defendants previous convictions in court.

No, you're right, it's called a section 3 application, and a witnesses previous sexual history can often have a bearing on the case, particularly in terms of their credibility as a witness.

Outlaw Pete

jiltloop wrote: »

Previous sexual history should have zero bearing on a rape case.

Depends on the context and what argument is it the defense is using the sexual history to further.

For example: if a woman says a man tied her up and raped her and he claims she asked him to tie her up and it was consensual. Then it's very much relevant to the case if they have evidence that she has asked other sexual partners to do similar. Doesn't mean the man didn't rape her of course but that again is something for the jury 's consideration. To not allow such evidence would be unfair. If nothing else, it puts their credibility into question, assuming of course this was something which they denied ever having partaken in.

jiltloop

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Depends on the context and what argument is it the defense is using the sexual history to further.

For example: if a woman says a man tied her up and raped her and he claims she asked him to tie her up and it was consensual. Then it's very much relevant to the case if they have evidence that she has asked other sexual partners to do similar. Doesn't mean the man didn't rape her of course but that again is something for the jury 's consideration. To not allow such evidence would be unfair.

I think using the victim's sexual history against them to paint them as promiscuous is despicable and does not contribute to a fair trial, it also discourages victims of sexual assault from making a complaint so it's hugely damaging. Many women I've spoken to have said they wouldn't report a rape because of how trials are conducted in this respect. The victim inevitably suffers a further demeaning experience which I can understand is extremely daunting. This is wrong.

Of course we could make up several hypothetical scenarios were you could argue that this line of question may be necessary but the reality is that in most cases it's not relevant and is a weapon used callously by the defense.

Outlaw Pete

jiltloop wrote: »

I think using the victim's sexual history against them to paint them as promiscuous is despicable...

So do I. So do the courts.

Of course we could make up several hypothetical scenarios were you could argue that this line of question may be necessary but the reality is that in most cases it's not relevant and is a weapon used callously by the defense.

If the court found that the defense was only introducing such evidence to show that that the claimant was promiscuous, they would not allow it and so while I accept that once used to happen, it is now no longer the reality as you suggest.

jiltloop

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So do I. So do the courts.

Not sure I understand the part in bold, if it's a common practice of the defense that would suggest otherwise since the courts allow it to happen.

jiltloop

I'm not sure if you edited your original post but I didn't see the second part when I was responding.

Glass fused light

jiltloop wrote: »

Not sure I understand the part in bold, if it's a common practice of the defense that would suggest otherwise since the courts allow it to happen.

No the defence is allowed to introduce "relevant" sexual history, in this case the original judge belived that the girl being on the pill was only being introduced to 'prove' that the only reason a woman would be on the pill is to prevent pregnancy. The judge accepted that the reason was other than as a contraceptive and so excluded it's disclosure.

One eyed Jack

I'm just going to preface this by saying I absolutely do understand where you're coming from, but I just want to make a couple of points.

jiltloop wrote: »

I think using the victim's sexual history against them to paint them as promiscuous is despicable and does not contribute to a fair trial

It does contribute to a fair trial, because it's the defendant on trial, not the alleged victim, and to exclude any means by which the defendant can actually defend themselves against the accusations made against them would violate the defendants right to a fair trial.

it also discourages victims of sexual assault from making a complaint so it's hugely damaging. Many women I've spoken to have said they wouldn't report a rape because of how trials are conducted in this respect. The victim inevitably suffers a further demeaning experience which I can understand is extremely daunting. This is wrong.

It would be equally wrong IMO if we were to suggest the introduction of measures which would make it any easier to convict a defendant of what is generally regarded as one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed against another person or persons (average sentence in Ireland for rape is 5 - 7 years, depending upon both mitigating and aggravating factors in each case), and if you're going to convict someone for it, then the defendant should have every opportunity to defend themselves.

I've spoken to both male and female victims about this btw and while I understand just how damaging it can be, it can be just as damaging to convict someone without giving them every opportunity to defend themselves. It would lead to retribution rather than justice. It can be just as demeaning and damaging to be accused of one of the most heinous crimes that can be committed against another person when the defendant maintains they are innocent. Wrongful convictions and false accusations are incredibly rare, and personally speaking, I'd like to keep it that way.

Of course we could make up several hypothetical scenarios were you could argue that this line of question may be necessary but the reality is that in most cases it's not relevant and is a weapon used callously by the defense.

The reality is that in all cases where it is intended to be used in Ireland, an application has to be made beforehand, and the reality is that in most cases it isn't used at all -

Since 2001, complainants in rape cases have had an automatic right to their own lawyer paid for through legal aid when an accused indicates they intend bring a section three application. This lawyer can object to the line of questioning or negotiate certain limits on it.

Figures released by the Legal Aid Board following a freedom-of-information request show that over the last five years an average of 30 per cent of rape trials involved questions about a complainant’s sexual history. In 2016, the practice was used in 28 rape trials out of the 99 which were scheduled.

Any arguments that it shouldn't be used because it could prejudice the jury against the witness are based on the assumption that the jury aren't just ordinary members of the public just like them with their own biases and prejudices, and in actual fact it's more likely that male members of the jury are more likely to empathise with the alleged victim and seek to convict the defendant(s) than female members of the jury -

Rape study shows female dominated juries don’t convict

MEN standing trial for rape stand a far greater chance of walking free if they appear before a jury dominated by women.

A six-year study on the outcome of sex crimes in the Central Criminal Court found female-dominated juries failed to convict a single person of rape. By contrast, jury panels with a majority of men found one in every four defendants guilty.

...

One of the research strands focused on a theory that the frequency of a male bias in rape juries contributed to the extremely low conviction rates for sex crimes.

Law lecturer Conor Hanly, giving his personal assessment of the preliminary results, said the results show this has no grounding in fact.

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape.

“This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors.

“Contrary to what social science research would lead us to expect, it would seem that female dominated juries are less sympathetic to rape complainants than are their male colleagues,” he said.

Huexotzingo

professore wrote: »

I would say from long experience of reading newspaper articles that there is a lot more to this than the headline and even the content. Especially when you read about something you have deep personal knowledge of (not this case - something completely different !!! ) and the Irish Times article bore no relation whatsoever to the truth and was flat out biased and lying for most of the article.

Which case?

Airyfairy12

Last week I visited my parents house and on the table where 3 newspapers from different days during that week. Each newspaper had a different headline relating to a different crime that recently happened, each crime was either a rape, murder or both of a woman in a gender violence attack. It just seems like a constant stream of serious incidents regarding the rape or murder of women, every week. Yet I come on here or scroll through facebook or some other social media and theres threads, comments and posts from men bashing feminism and insisting that sexism doesn't exist in western society. If incidences like this were happening to men by the hands of women at the rate they take place against women by men, I dont think men would be so willing to ignore the issue.
Never mind the list as long as my arm of publicized rape trials were the victim's blamed and rapists let off, murders of women, brutal sexual attacks of women and young girls in recent months, If this incident alone doesnt shake people up to the realization that as a society, we have a very real and dangerous problem concerning how we treat and view women then nothing will.

When a fifteen year old girl is blamed and put on trial for being raped by a 20 something year old man something is very wrong.

I dread to think of the life long consequences this will have on that poor girl and her relationships with men in the future, never mind her relationship with herself.

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Last week I visited my parents house and on the table where 3 newspapers from different days during that week. Each newspaper had a different headline relating to a different crime that recently happened, each crime was either a rape, murder or both of a woman in a gender violence attack. It just seems like a constant stream of serious incidents regarding the rape or murder of women, every week. Yet I come on here or scroll through facebook or some other social media and theres threads, comments and posts from men bashing feminism and insisting that sexism doesn't exist in western society. If incidences like this were happening to men by the hands of women at the rate they take place against women by men, I dont think men would be so willing to ignore the issue.

I think you'd be very wrong about that. Whenever a case comes to public attention in the media of a man being sexually assaulted by a woman, it isn't perceived the same way as a man who commits rape of a woman at all.

Never mind the list as long as my arm of publicized rape trials were the victim's blamed and rapists let off, murders of women, brutal sexual attacks of women and young girls in recent months, If this incident alone doesnt shake people up to the realization that as a society, we have a very real and dangerous problem concerning how we treat and view women then nothing will.

In case you missed it in my earlier post -

Rape study shows female dominated juries don’t convict

MEN standing trial for rape stand a far greater chance of walking free if they appear before a jury dominated by women.

A six-year study on the outcome of sex crimes in the Central Criminal Court found female-dominated juries failed to convict a single person of rape. By contrast, jury panels with a majority of men found one in every four defendants guilty.

One of the research strands focused on a theory that the frequency of a male bias in rape juries contributed to the extremely low conviction rates for sex crimes.

...

Law lecturer Conor Hanly, giving his personal assessment of the preliminary results, said the results show this has no grounding in fact.

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape.

“This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors.

“Contrary to what social science research would lead us to expect, it would seem that female dominated juries are less sympathetic to rape complainants than are their male colleagues,” he said.

Part of the reason for why women do not report rape is their fear of being judged, and it's actually their own judgement of women that have been raped that causes this conflict where up until the point they were raped, they too believed so many of the myths about women who are raped.

When a fifteen year old girl is blamed and put on trial for being raped by a 20 something year old man something is very wrong.

I dread to think of the life long consequences this will have on that poor girl and her relationships with men in the future, never mind her relationship with herself.

What's very wrong there is your claim that the alleged victim is on trial. They aren't. There are no legal consequences for the alleged victim unless they choose to attempt to pervert the course of justice by giving false testimony as a witness for the State in the States case against the accused, who maintains the presumption of innocence until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of which they are accused. In most cases they also have the right to appeal a conviction.

Airyfairy12

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you'd be very wrong about that. Whenever a case comes to public attention in the media of a man being sexually assaulted by a woman, it isn't perceived the same way as a man who commits rape of a woman at all.

You cant deny that theres an imbalance in male and female victims. When something like this happens every so often you put it down to a random attack, when its a weekly event, sometimes multiple times a week that a strong indication of something very serious is taking place. Ignoring it, avoiding the conversation and undermining it with whataboutery is part of the problem. This isnt about gender wars or women whining about not being equal, women and girls are literally being murdered and raped on a weekly bases in this country. Put yourself into the shoes of the woman - imagine reading these news headlines every week and imagine how you might feel.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In case you missed it in my earlier post -

Rape study shows female dominated juries don’t convict

My post was highlighting the gender violence and the fact that its a problem, Its not an attack on you or men. Why shouldnt women be concerned for their safety given the rates of murders and rapes that take place in this country? and its not just the odd news story. Every one of my female friends has on multiple occasions throughout their lives experienced some level of sexual assault or harassment, most of my female friends have been followed home, spiked on nights out, some have been raped. My aunty went for a run the other evening and a man came up behind her and tried to grab her. Women arent safe. Denying this wont make it go away, all youre attempting to do is to shut women up about serious issues that effect them regularly and put their lives and well being in danger.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Part of the reason for why women do not report rape is their fear of being judged, and it's actually their own judgement of women that have been raped that causes this conflict where up until the point they were raped, they too believed so many of the myths about women who are raped.

You dont know why women dont report rape because 1. your not a woman.
2. Will never have to experience what its like to be a female rape victim. Ever.
3. Women dont have a hive mentality, they dont come forward for a multitude of reasons, the recent rape trials were women are victim blamed being a number one reason as to why women dont come forward about rape or sexual harassment.
If I got raped id be terrified to report it because the chances of my rapist getting convicted are slim while my personal sexual history would be aired for all the country to see. That is something you as a man, never have to worry about because the chances of it happening to you are slim to none. While women are being taught how not to get raped from the minute they are old enough to be let out by themselves. Why isnt the rapists sexual history open for public scrutiny? Why is it always the woman or in this case, child, humiliated and scrutinized?
Blaming other women for rape victims not coming forward is a total cop out and shifts the blame onto anyone but the men who rape, attack, abuse and treat women as less than human.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What's very wrong there is your claim that the alleged victim is on trial. They aren't. There are no legal consequences for the alleged victim unless they choose to attempt to pervert the course of justice by giving false testimony as a witness for the State in the States case against the accused, who maintains the presumption of innocence until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of having committed the crime of which they are accused. In most cases they also have the right to appeal a conviction.

They turned the trial on the rape victim, attempted to bring up her sexual past and her use of contraception to discredit her. Under no other circumstances is a perpetrator of a crime let free because of innocent, irrelevant actions and behaviors by a victim, it only happens in cases of rape against women.

Nermal

IMO there have been a few cases recently where a long history of previous was only revealed after a guilty verdict.

I've no problem with past behaviour being questioned by the defence, but I want to hear the same from the prosecution. If he's a wrong'un, I want to know about it.

One eyed Jack

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

You cant deny that theres an imbalance in male and female victims. When something like this happens every so often you put it down to a random attack, when its a weekly event, sometimes multiple times a week that a strong indication of something very serious is taking place. Ignoring it, avoiding the conversation and undermining it with whataboutery is part of the problem. This isnt about gender wars or women whining about not being equal, women and girls are literally being murdered and raped on a weekly bases in this country. Put yourself into the shoes of the woman - imagine reading these news headlines every week and imagine how you might feel.

I never denied there was an imbalance in male and female victims? I was addressing the point you made that if men were being raped in the same numbers as women, by women, that men would be up in arms about it. I don't agree that they would, only I had hoped not to be so crass as to point out that men's reaction would be more likely to be "Niiiiiice", along the lines of the South Park meme.

You say the conversation isn't about whataboutery or gender wars or women whining about not being equal, and I agree with you, it isn't about that, so don't ask me to put myself in women's shoes and expect that I could actually imagine what it is like to be a woman in those circumstances. If you're pointing out to me later on in your post that I can't know what something is like for a woman, because I'm not a woman, surely by your own standards then your thought experiment would be completely useless?

My post was highlighting the gender violence and the fact that its a problem, Its not an attack on you or men. Why shouldnt women be concerned for their safety given the rates of murders and rapes that take place in this country? and its not just the odd news story. Every one of my female friends has on multiple occasions throughout their lives experienced some level of sexual assault or harassment, most of my female friends have been followed home, spiked on nights out, some have been raped. My aunty went for a run the other evening and a man came up behind her and tried to grab her. Women arent safe. Denying this wont make it go away, all youre attempting to do is to shut women up about serious issues that effect them regularly and put their lives and well being in danger.

You say the issue isn't about gender wars, and then immediately seek to make it about gender. I know it's not an attack on me personally and I don't take it that way, but it is undeniably an attack on the basis of gender.

You ask me why shouldn't women be afraid of something that contrary to your opinion is unlikely ever to happen to them, and I'll tell you that's exactly why they shouldn't be afraid of something that is unlikely ever to happen to them. I'm absolutely not trying to shut you up at all, I'm simply pointing out to you that when you're more attuned to something, you can tend to think it's more likely to happen to you than it is in reality. The Chicken Licken effect I call it. Others more formally call it Moral panic:

A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".

If you pick up a newspaper and you're drawn to headlines which catch your attention, to the extent that you ignore the rest of the newspaper, then all you're doing is reinforcing your already held belief that an issue is more prevalent in society than it actually is in reality. Unsatisfied with the fact that most women aren't living in fear of their lives daily, you have to try and generate something for them to be fearful of. It doesn't work, and the reason it doesn't work is because the potential likelihood of it ever happening is so unlikely as to be hardly worth considering.

That's why when it does happen to a woman, their reaction is often one of confusion and shock. Because they didn't expect it would ever happen to them, and why would they, when it's actually as rare in Irish society as it is.

You dont know why women dont report rape because 1. your not a woman.

You'll have to forgive me for breaking this down, but I want to address the number of points you make one by one and address each one specifically. I don't have to be a woman to know why women don't report rape. I can simply ask them why they don't, and I have done, which is why I said that part of the reason why women don't report rape is their fear of being judged. I can examine evidence to see whether this fear of being judged is actually justified, and where this judgement comes from, and the evidence suggests that female dominated juries are less likely to convict men for rape than male dominated juries. Their fear of judgement is entirely justified, but the question is who is judging them? It turns out it's more likely to be women than men.

That's not blaming women for other women who are raped, it's pointing out the fact that one of the reasons for the low conviction rate and the reason why women are justified in believing that they won't be believed, is because they wouldn't believe themselves! This is due to the fact that women are even more likely to believe myths about victims of rape whereas men if they get so much as a sniff of a man violating a woman are more likely to want to bypass judicial procedures and kick seven shades of shyte out of the male perpetrator. They're more likely to convict in the hope that he gets exactly what's coming to him in prison.

2. Will never have to experience what its like to be a female rape victim. Ever.

So much for this not being about gender wars? You're absolutely right of course that I will never have to experience what it's like to be a female rape victim. The reason for that is simply because I'm not female. However, if we weren't to make this about gender, then you would have to acknowledge that it actually is possible that I could have experience of what it is to be a victim of rape. My experience and my processing of that experience would be entirely different to a woman's experiences, but I'll never use that to try and one-up a woman talking about her experiences, because I don't just say it's not about gender wars and then go on to fuel the gender wars.

3. Women dont have a hive mentality, they dont come forward for a multitude of reasons, the recent rape trials were women are victim blamed being a number one reason as to why women dont come forward about rape or sexual harassment.

Isn't that what I said? I said that part of the reason why women don't report rape is their fear of being judged, and as I've pointed out numerous times now, most of that judgement comes from women themselves, who believe myths about women who are raped, and hold women who are raped responsible for getting themselves raped, far, far more than men do.

If I got raped id be terrified to report it because the chances of my rapist getting convicted are slim while my personal sexual history would be aired for all the country to see. That is something you as a man, never have to worry about because the chances of it happening to you are slim to none.

I can understand why you feel that way given what you've previously written already. However, your beliefs as to how you would be treated, and whether or not the man who raped you would be convicted, are based upon myths perpetuated by other people who have their own biases, like those people who wish to turn the issue of rape into into a gender war. They say it isn't about a gender war, but they don't appear to be aware of just how biased they actually are, and therefore they either fail to do even the most basic research, or simply aren't interested in evidence which contradicts their beliefs, in order to determine the actual facts, and separate myths from reality about rape, rapists, victims of rape, the law, criminal trial procedures and potential outcomes of individual cases.

The reason I will never make a report is not because I worry about the possibility of a conviction or not, and it's not because I worry about my personal sexual history being made public. No, the reason I don't report it is because I simply don't need people knowing that about me. I'd rather people treat me as if they never knew, because once people know, they tend to treat a person differently. That's something that I, as a person, have chosen to live with. The fact that I'm a man is completely irrelevant. The fact that you would claim it's something I as a man would never have to worry about is simply showing up your own bias.

There are plenty of men who have no wish to share their personal experiences on a public forum for all the world to scrutinize and humiliate them for it. That doesn't mean the chances of it happening to men are any less likely or even slim to none, it simply means you aren't aware of their experiences which might lead you to come out with statements like suggesting that being raped is not something I have to worry about because the chances of it happening to me are slim to none, because I'm a man.

You couldn't possibly have known that though, not because you're a woman, but simply because it didn't occur to you to ask. I don't take it personally though and I don't blame you for not asking. I can understand why you wouldn't ask, it's generally not the first thing occurs to anyone to ask that question of... anyone!

While women are being taught how not to get raped from the minute they are old enough to be let out by themselves.

Who is teaching them that crap? Genuinely, I'm interested to know, because I've only ever encountered a minority of women who say they were taught that by their mothers and grandmothers in some cases. It's one of the reasons why women who are raped experience guilt, trauma, and blame themselves for what happened to them, because the way they understood it if they followed all the rules their mothers and grandmothers taught them, they wouldn't get raped, only women who don't follow the rules get raped. Victims of rape often afraid to admit to anyone they've been raped for fear of being told "Well if you hadn't done this..." or "If you hadn't done that... you wouldn't have been raped", as though it's their fault they were raped because they "didn't follow the rules".

It's complete nonsense btw, because a rapist is always more aware of their environment than their victim, they have the advantage that their victims aren't bloody expecting it to happen to them! That's the key difference between theory and reality - a person simply can't be aware of what they're not expecting to happen! The woman who imagines she's protecting herself by carrying her car keys in her hand to fight off a rapist is probably unaware that she's more likely to have her arm broken and then raped, than she is ever likely to actually protect herself from being raped. It's the same logic as carrying a knife or a gun to protect yourself from attack - far more likely to be used on you than you're actually likely ever to be able to use it to protect yourself.

Why isnt the rapists sexual history open for public scrutiny?

It is?


Evidence of Patrick Nevin's Tinder use allowed in rape case because of 'similar modus operandi'

THE SIMILARITY OF alleged attacks against three separate victims allowed a High Court judge in the trial of convicted sex offender Patrick Nevin to rule that the jury could hear the evidence of those allegations.

Patrick Nevin (36), had pleaded not guilty at the Central Criminal Court to rape of one woman at a location in Bellewstown, Co Meath on July 12, 2014 and was facing a three-week trial.
Nevin was due to stand trial this week for the Bellewstown attack but after a legal ruling yesterday which allowed the prosecution to introduce evidence of the other allegations, he changed his plea to guilty.

I'd like to understand why you thought it wasn't, because that's another myth I've come across that some people believe and perpetuate which simply isn't true.

Why is it always the woman or in this case, child, humiliated and scrutinized?

I think you're only seeing one side there. It isn't always either the alleged victim or the defendant who is humiliated and scrutinised while the other gets a free pass. Individual opinions vary wildly depending upon the individuals own prejudices and biases, but what we can do is look at the bigger picture, and spot patterns of behaviour and attitudes towards both the alleged victim and the defendant, and we notice that contrary to gender studies theorists biased opinions which aren't supported by evidence, it turns out women are indeed their own worst enemy because they are less likely to convict than male jurors.

See for example the recent treatment of the men in the Belfast rape trial who even though they were found not guilty, the IRFU, an organisation mostly comprised of men, ended their contracts and effectively told them they could politely fcuk off, that their types aren't wanted around here, and the IRFU as an organisation had no wish to be associated with them. This decision was taken on the basis of what came out about them during the trial. The fact that they were found not guilty was irrelevant. It was their conduct and their attitudes towards women provided every reason why they were rightfully condemned and ostracised.

Blaming other women for rape victims not coming forward is a total cop out and shifts the blame onto anyone but the men who rape, attack, abuse and treat women as less than human.

The men who commit rape, and the reasons for why women don't report being raped are two entirely separate things.

I didn't shift the blame for women being raped off the men who raped them at all. I hold those men who commit rape entirely responsible for their actions. I don't imagine men are a hive mind any more than you point out women aren't a hive mind. My point simply relates to the reasons why women don't report their rape, I said nothing about why they are raped, and I certainly didn't hold them responsible for being raped. I'm not interested in making it about gender wars as I know that the issues of male on male rape and male on female rape are also two entirely different things that can't ever be lumped under the one heading. I also know that the issues of female on male sexual assault and female on female sexual assault are entirely different things and I don't lump them under the same heading either.

It would be a cop out if we were talking about rape and victims of rape and you decided you only wanted to talk about circumstances where the victim is female and the perpetrator is male. If you want to have that conversation, we can have it, absolutely, and I can restrict myself to talking solely about male on female rape, sexual assaults and attacks by men on women. I don't have any problem having that conversation, but when you attempt to make blanket assertions that imply men are of a hive mind, or that women are a hive mind, we're going to run into problems fairly quickly, because you're far more likely to contradict yourself than I am.

They turned the trial on the rape victim, attempted to bring up her sexual past and her use of contraception to discredit her. Under no other circumstances is a perpetrator of a crime let free because of innocent, irrelevant actions and behaviors by a victim, it only happens in cases of rape against women.

No, this is wrong. Nobody turned the trial on the alleged victim, because the girl in this case was not on trial. The defence absolutely attempted to discredit her, and it's an incredibly risky strategy because it can make the defence look like an awful pack of ignorant fcukwits and turn the jury against the defendant.

I also disagree with you that under no other circumstances is a perpetrator of a crime let free because of innocent and irrelevant actions and behaviours by a victim. It doesn't just happen in cases of rape where the victim is a woman. That's why I said earlier in this thread I would be saying the same thing if the victim were a 40 year old man (I'm 41, but who's counting?). I'm not making about gender, I never have and I never do, but you are, and it's unlikely you're even aware of it. It's due to your own biases, and it's those same biases that are present in ordinary members of the public when they form opinions about either the alleged victim or the accused, not just in rape trials, but in any criminal case where ordinary members of the public make up the jury.

Fact is, if you want more women to come forward and report attacks, sexual assault and rape, and you want to see a higher conviction rate in the courts, you're going to have to address the myths that women believe about victims of rape which are based on their own biases about women, biases which are fundamentally based in the assumption that women other than themselves think exactly the same way they do, solely by virtue of the fact that they are women. If you want to talk about men who commit rape against women, that's an entirely different conversation. I wouldn't attempt to shut you out of that conversation on the basis that because you're not a man you couldn't possibly know why men commit rape. I don't think like that, because that kind of thinking leads to echo chambers and group think where myths that make sense to the individual are perpetuated as fact, reinforcing biases and misguided thinking.