Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ll have to point out for me which section in Irish law you’re referring to? I think it’s reasonable to assume that the barrister in question is far more familiar with Irish law than Ms. Coppinger for example, who appears to be entirely ignorant of Irish law and criminal trial procedures.

You do realise that the courts are capable of allowing questionable pieces of evidence that they are capable of making mistakes in terms of what's acceptable? We have had judges for example that have given suspended sentences for attempted rape because sure reputational damage is enough... Coppinger has highlighted practices that the likes of the Rape Crisis Center have raised in the past, there's no indication that she's ignorant.

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

You do realise that the courts are capable of allowing questionable pieces of evidence that they are capable of making mistakes in terms of what's acceptable? We have had judges for example that have given suspended sentences for attempted rape because sure reputational damage is enough... Coppinger has highlighted practices that the likes of the Rape Crisis Center have raised in the past, there's no indication that she's ignorant.

I do of course realise and acknowledge that our judicial system is far from perfect, and is flawed in many, many ways (any system which relies on humans to make decisions is fundamentally flawed).

However I will respectfully disagree with you that there is no indication that Ms. Coppinger is ignorant of the law, when her most recent stunt in the Dail is every indication that she is ignorant of the law. I’m not sure she’s actually ignorant of the law, but her most recent actions and statements regarding this case in particular alone, indicate that she is indeed ignorant of the law.

I suspect that her efforts may well be political spin to further her own political aims, and she is relying upon people’s ignorance of the law to further her political aims.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do of course realise and acknowledge that our judicial system is far from perfect, and is flawed in many, many ways (any system which relies on humans to make decisions is fundamentally flawed).

However I will respectfully disagree with you that there is no indication that Ms. Coppinger is ignorant of the law, when her most recent stunt in the Dail is every indication that she is ignorant of the law. I’m not sure she’s actually ignorant of the law, but her most recent actions and statements regarding this case in particular alone, indicate that she is indeed ignorant of the law.

I suspect that her efforts may well be political spin to further her own political aims, and she is relying upon people’s ignorance of the law to further her political aims.

No, it doesn't amount to her being ignorant of the law. You are merely irritated that she's highlighted what amounts to trying to smear a victim based on their underwear choice.

FunLover18

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Women can also experience vaginal tears during consensual sex. This is not uncommon. It is by no means proof that a complainant was raped.



The jury is not required to quantify their degree of certitude in such a manner, though. There are only two outcomes: guilty or not guilty. If the accused is found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then he is cleared of the charges and is not a rapist. And if he is not a rapist, there was no rape, unless it can somehow be argued that the rape was committed by someone other than the accused.



If a defendant is acquitted, then, from a legal standpoint, the woman was not raped. The rape cannot be registered in official crime statistics and so on.

I know juries don't have to (or should have to) quantify their degree of certitude but it makes sense that 100% is beyond reasonable doubt and anything below that should technically lead to a not guilty verdict, I merely chose 99% as an arbitrary number to make a point. In the same way that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", I find it hard to equate "there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict" with "there was no rape". It just doesn't feel right that as a result of the acquittal, the victims therefore weren't raped ... but I'm aware that that may just be down to my own personal feelings.

Can you elaborate on the crime statistics; if from a legal standpoint a rape can only be classified as rape once someone has been convicted, then that must mean Ireland has a 100% conviction rate

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

No, it doesn't amount to her being ignorant of the law. You are merely irritated that she's highlighted what amounts to trying to smear a victim based on their underwear choice.

You have no objective basis for that assertion. I have an objective basis for my assertion given her most recent publicity stunt, to support my assertion that she is ignorant of the law. We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not she is actually ignorant of the law, or if she is simply feigning ignorance because it goes down well with a certain cohort of the Irish public who appear to be just as ignorant of the law and court procedures as she is.

I’m certainly not irritated by anything Ms. Coppinger does, the woman has what is practically the opposite of the Midas touch - everything she associates herself with turns to shìt, IMO (your opinion will undoubtedly differ), and I have no reason to regard her as being capable of anything more than shìt-stirring to further her own political aims for herself.

mickrock

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

What are you talking about?

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

That’s a really sad story. Feel free to report my posts then instead of detailing the thread with your attention seeking.

And there you go again..

Posting on a discussion board isn't attention seeking.

If it is, you have a lot more posts on this thread then I do.

You also have 5 times my post count despite joining boards 5 year later.

You know, it is possible to debate without getting personal.

tritium

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

So you either know details of the individuals in this case that are completely out of the public domain (and it would be highly likely that the news media wouldn’t find this fact out and report it, as they have in many other cases), or you’re speculating based on third hand information you’ve heard elsewhere. Which is it?

Sleeper12

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

I totally agree with you on the underwear part & I believe that this young girl was treated very badly by our court system but I don't think it right saying things that aren't already in the public domain. He was found not guilty & we have to live with that. His name & photo will be passed around social media. He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally agree with you on the underwear part & I believe that this young girl was treated very badly by our court system but I don't think it right saying things that aren't already in the public domain. He was found not guilty & we have to live with that. His name & photo will be passed around social media. He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

Tbh we can't say he’s brought shame anywhere. We know nothing about his circumstances bar idle speculation. Is he married? Separated? Has he prior convictions? At worst he may be a serial adulterer with a long line of convictions who got lucky in court. At best he may be a young man wrongly accused of a terrible crime and put through an awful ordeal. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate that lack of certainty should hold us from assuming any shame on to him or his family.

Homer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

tritium

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

And around we go in circles again

It would be lovely if just once people on both sides understood that both parties can be telling their absolute truth in a rape trial and still be at opposite sides. No one lying, no false allegation, no Knowledge of raping anyone, and two very different views of events

Sonics2k

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

He was found Not Guilty. He wasn't found to be Innocent.

Learn the difference because it's very important.

Sleeper12

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

Now why would you even say that?



The jury had reasonable doubt. They weren't 100 percent certain so by law they had to acquit. They might have been 95 percent certin of his guilt but thats not enough. There WAS enough evidence for the DPP to bring him to court yet there is NOT enough evidence to bring her to court for making false accusations.


Don't forget OJ was NOT convicted in a criminal court four murder because of reasonable doubt. Yet a civil court requiring a less burden of proof the family successfully sued him. It's hard to convince 12 jury members 100 percent of anything.

Sleeper12

tritium wrote: »

Tbh we can't say he’s brought shame anywhere. We know nothing about his circumstances bar idle speculation. Is he married? Separated? Has he prior convictions? At worst he may be a serial adulterer with a long line of convictions who got lucky in court. At best he may be a young man wrongly accused of a terrible crime and put through an awful ordeal. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate that lack of certainty should hold us from assuming any shame on to him or his family.

Ah we can. He cheated on his wife with a minor. This came out in court I believe according to other posters. Forget about the rape case. Cheating alone has brought shame on his family.

tritium wrote: »

And around we go in circles again

It would be lovely if just once people on both sides understood that both parties can be telling their absolute truth in a rape trial and still be at opposite sides. No one lying, no false allegation, no Knowledge of raping anyone, and two very different views of events

The Belfast case is a classic example to prove your point. The jury acquitted the lads. The lads believed they had consent. Several jury members were at pains to explain since that just because the lads believed they had consent didn't mean the the lady in the case gave consent. If it's not a random rape it's a very hard case because DNA goes out the window when both parties admit that sex took place. You then end up with a case about consent. Its very hard to get 100 percent certainty in cases like this.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Have you a link to this???

No because there is absolutely no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence he is married.

But that doesn't stop people from spreading it.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

No because there is absolutely no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence he is married.

I'm sorry for saying that he was married. Several posters said that it was brought up in court as a way to discredit him. I thought this was fact. As for saying that he has a previous conviction for rape, I think that is a very dangerous thing to post. The man's name will be all over social media if it isn't already. He could be beaten up in the street based on these posts.

I saw a headline during the week two innocent guys beaten (to death in think) by a Facebook mob

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If it's not a random rape it's a very hard case because DNA goes out the window when both parties admit that sex took place.

This was an alleged "random rape".

The allegation was of physical and sexual assault and rape.

Again that is based on very little detail in a very poor court report article.

But.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html

When the complainant’s evidence that he dragged her over 30 metres to the spot where the alleged rape occurred, was put to him he said he "didn’t drag anyone anywhere.”

The allegation was nothing to do with "confusion" over consent, it was an allegation of a brutal attack and rape. It's not stated what other charges he was facing or if it was just one, it would have had to be more you would think given the allegation.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm sorry for saying that he was married. Several posters said that it was brought up in court as a way to discredit him. I thought this was fact. As for saying that he has a previous conviction for rape, I think that is a very dangerous thing to post. The man's name will be all over social media if it isn't already. He could be beaten up in the street based on these posts.

I saw a headline during the week two innocent guys beaten (to death in think) by a Facebook mob

Tbh if the prosecution said he was married to discredit him then it would seem at the very least that prosecution and defence stooped to equally ****ty win at all costs tactics

Anyone complaining about the thong care to explain the evidential value of that?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

This was an alleged "random rape".

The allegation was of physical and sexual assault and rape.

Again that is based on very little detail in a very poor court report article.

But.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html



The allegation was nothing to do with "confusion" over consent, it was an allegation of a brutal attack and rape. It's not stated what other charges he was facing or if it was just one, it would have had to be more you would think given the allegation.

What I meant is when both parties admit sex took place then DNA plays very little part in the case & it becomes he said, she said. It's very difficult to get a conviction in such cases.

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have no objective basis for that assertion. I have an objective basis for my assertion given her most recent publicity stunt, to support my assertion that she is ignorant of the law. We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not she is actually ignorant of the law, or if she is simply feigning ignorance because it goes down well with a certain cohort of the Irish public who appear to be just as ignorant of the law and court procedures as she is.

I’m certainly not irritated by anything Ms. Coppinger does, the woman has what is practically the opposite of the Midas touch - everything she associates herself with turns to shìt, IMO (your opinion will undoubtedly differ), and I have no reason to regard her as being capable of anything more than shìt-stirring to further her own political aims for herself.

Can you illustrate the ignorance? Eg what she brought up is the exact same sort of stuff that the rape crisis center have bringing up for years. Do you think they are also ignorant of the law?

Here's two law lecturers from Ucc calling for reform of rape trials, are you now classifying them as ignorant of the law? But you are far more of an expert? Neither view it as one occurrence and rather an ongoing issue in rape trials...
https://www.irishlegal.com/article/experts-back-rape-trial-reform-after-cork-trial-protests

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

Wonder if Rennaws will be rushing in to shout "defamation" at this user. Not enough evidence does not amount to lying, Homer....

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

What I meant is when both parties admit sex took place then DNA plays very little part in the case & it becomes he said, she said. It's very difficult to get a conviction in such cases.

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.

That is the most obvious question for me, why was it dominated by the issue of consent?

Also there seemed to have been a key witness named in court who was not called. Why not?

FishOnABike

FunLover18 wrote: »

I know juries don't have to (or should have to) quantify their degree of certitude but it makes sense that 100% is beyond reasonable doubt and anything below that should technically lead to a not guilty verdict, I merely chose 99% as an arbitrary number to make a point. In the same way that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", I find it hard to equate "there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict" with "there was no rape". It just doesn't feel right that as a result of the acquittal, the victims therefore weren't raped ... but I'm aware that that may just be down to my own personal feelings.

Can you elaborate on the crime statistics; if from a legal standpoint a rape can only be classified as rape once someone has been convicted, then that must mean Ireland has a 100% conviction rate

It might surprise you to find that research has shown " reasonable doubt" to be as low as 50% by some.

/www.lawcom.govt..._76_159_PP37Vol2.pdf
- page 54

Quote:
However, many jurors said that they, and the jury as a whole, were uncertain
what “beyond reasonable doubt” meant. They generally thought in terms of
percentages, and debated and disagreed with each other about the percentage
certainty required for “beyond reasonable doubt”, variously interpreting it as
100 per cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent, and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this
produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof.

While 100% is definitely beyond reasonable doubt, depending on who you ask (and who is on a jury) it could be anything from 50% up.

Zulu

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

Jesus fu*kin christ; shameful post

retro:electro

Rennaws wrote: »

And there you go again..

Posting on a discussion board isn't attention seeking.

If it is, you have a lot more posts on this thread then I do.

You also have 5 times my post count despite joining boards 5 year later.

You know, it is possible to debate without getting personal.

Are those your debating skills? Amazing.

retro:electro

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

Do you have proof they were false? You need to get in touch with the Gardai if so. And by proof I don’t mean “he was found innocent”, because as well as that term being technically incorrect, it’s also moronic to assume his acquittal implies she’s a liar. A bit like assuming her knickers imply she wants sex. But there you go.

Roger Hassenforder

Sonics2k wrote: »

He was found Not Guilty. He wasn't found to be Innocent.

Learn the difference because it's very important.

He was acquited, found not guilty, therefore he is innocent.
He walked into court innocent, and walked out innocent.

Homer

Zulu wrote: »

Jesus fu*kin christ; shameful post

It was a tongue in cheek reply to the poster that claimed he had brought shame on his family :rolleyes: you can put your toys back in your pram now

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

Are those your debating skills? Amazing.

And the personal insults just keep coming..

retro:electro

Homer wrote: »

It was a tongue in cheek reply to the poster that claimed he had brought shame on his family :rolleyes: you can put your toys back in your pram now

You need to work on your wit, Homer.

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

You need to work on your wit, Homer.

You need to work on debating without constantly resorting to personal attacks.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you have proof

Speaking of which.

---

Boggles wrote: »

Do you feel for the defendant?

retro:electro wrote: »

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

Boggles wrote: »

You know there has been absolutely no proof presented on here that he was married, it came from one poster, there was also a claim it wasn't his first time been accused of rape. Again no proof.

There is absolutely no difference between that unsubstantiated rubbish and someone coming on here suggesting the girl has had multiple sexual partners and this isn't her first time alleging rape. It's equally as disgusting and absolutely pointless.

Would you agree?

Well would you agree?

Since then he has been upgraded to a convicted rapist in another case.

Does your outrage meter only going in one direction?

batgoat

Rennaws wrote: »

And the personal insults just keep coming..

He was actually responding to your personal insults. In fact you seem to use this topics for insult or just simply attempt to shut down discussion with defamation claims.

tritium

retro:electro wrote: »

Do you have proof they were false? You need to get in touch with the Gardai if so. And by proof I don’t mean “he was found innocent”, because as well as that term being technically incorrect, it’s also moronic to assume his acquittal implies she’s a liar. A bit like assuming her knickers imply she wants sex. But there you go.

Or a prosecutor trying to imply that the fact he’s already married makes him a rapist? Would that also be moronic and outrageous?

retro:electro

Rennaws wrote: »

You need to work on debating without constantly resorting to personal attacks.

Are you just going to follow me around stalking my posts and post count? Report my posts if you have an issue.

The Bishop Basher

batgoat wrote: »

He was actually responding to your personal insults.

Which insults ?

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

Are you just going to follow me around stalking my posts

This is a discussion board.

Posting on one is neither stalking nor attention seeking.

As a rule, I don't report posts and I don't use the ignore function.

I've made an exception for you with regard to reporting posts.

I won't respond to you again.

retro:electro

Thanks for letting me know.

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

Can you illustrate the ignorance? Eg what she brought up is the exact same sort of stuff that the rape crisis center have bringing up for years. Do you think they are also ignorant of the law?

Yes, I can illustrate the ignorance in that in my opinion at least, Ms. Coppingers stunt was an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to fair procedures in our Constitution, a right which every citizen is entitled to -


The right to fair procedures

The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

•The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

•You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side.


And Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -


Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

Here's two law lecturers from Ucc calling for reform of rape trials, are you now classifying them as ignorant of the law? But you are far more of an expert? Neither view it as one occurrence and rather an ongoing issue in rape trials...
https://www.irishlegal.com/article/experts-back-rape-trial-reform-after-cork-trial-protests

I’m getting a 404 on that link. However I was talking specifically about Ms. Coppingers actions. The opinions of law lecturers (and I’m familiar with plenty of them) who are not Ms. Coppinger, is an entirely separate matter, and trying to turn it round on me, is also a separate matter. We were discussing indications of Ms. Coppingers ignorance of the law, not anyone else’s, and that’s what you asked for my opinion on, and that’s all you’re getting my opinion on. Focusing on anyone else’s opinion is a completely separate matter. They are not who we were discussing.

In saying that, I have no doubt that in person Ms. Coppinger is lovely, I would have no issue with her in a personal capacity, but as a public representative, she has a responsibility to respect the law and the decisions of the Courts, and Irish citizens, all of them, especially those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. She did not do that in these circumstances when she used her public platform to undermine the Irish Constitution and human rights law, and gave the appearance at least, that IMO she is ignorant of the law.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, I can illustrate the ignorance in that in my opinion at least, Ms. Coppingers stunt was an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to fair procedures in our Constitution, a right which every citizen is entitled to -


The right to fair procedures

The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure.

•The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased.

•You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side.


And Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -


Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).





I’m getting a 404 on that link. However I was talking specifically about Ms. Coppingers actions. The opinions of law lecturers (and I’m familiar with plenty of them) who are not Ms. Coppinger, is an entirely separate matter, and trying to turn it round on me, is also a separate matter. We were discussing indications of Ms. Coppingers ignorance of the law, not anyone else’s, and that’s what you asked for my opinion on, and that’s all you’re getting my opinion on. Focusing on anyone else’s opinion is a completely separate matter. They are not who we were discussing.

In saying that, I have no doubt that in person Ms. Coppinger is lovely, I would have no issue with her in a personal capacity, but as a public representative, she has a responsibility to respect the law and the decisions of the Courts, and Irish citizens, all of them, especially those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. She did not do that in these circumstances when she used her public platform to undermine the Irish Constitution and human rights law, and gave the appearance at least, that IMO she is ignorant of the law.

Link works fine for me,just clicked on it via my browser. The case is of public interest as it highlights how rape trials are conducted. It is concluded so a politician commenting doesn't undermine it. We already withhold evidence when it's viewed as not pertinent to the case. What a woman is wearing is not pertinent to a rape. You may think it is but it categorically is not. Irish legal scholars have supported her on the issue.

I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.

I would also suggest that you really reconsider your own ignorant assumptions on how and why women dress as they choose to. Thongs don't represent some big desire to have sex. Likewise skirts etc.

Roger Hassenforder

batgoat wrote: »

I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.

"Conducted differently"...

So how should a rape trial be run to protect the enotional well being of a complainant without impacting on the emotional wellbeing of a defendant who may well believe they are 100% innocent?

Would you afford these same protections to alleged victims of nonsexual violence..?

Genuinely curious...

Bigbagofcans

JohnCreedon81 wrote: »

Those aren't even thongs :eek:

eagle eye

He got protection. The trial was conducted 'in camera' which means no names are released unless a guilty verdict is reached and the victim agrees to release particular names.

JohnCreedon81

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Those aren't even thongs :eek:

Feckin Sisco I tellz ya!

batgoat

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

"Conducted differently"...

So how should a rape trial be run to protect the enotional well being of a complainant without impacting on the emotional wellbeing of a defendant who may well believe they are 100% innocent?

Would you afford these same protections to alleged victims of nonsexual violence..?

Genuinely curious...

Do you get equally outraged when paedophilia cases get conducted differently to product victims.

Seems to be some genuinely warped views towards rape when people think this thong evidence is viewed as fine...

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

Link works fine for me,just clicked on it via my browser. The case is of public interest as it highlights how rape trials are conducted. It is concluded so a politician commenting doesn't undermine it. We already withhold evidence when it's viewed as not pertinent to the case. What a woman is wearing is not pertinent to a rape. You may think it is but it categorically is not. Irish legal scholars have supported her on the issue.

You are perfectly entitled to your opinion, as are the law lecturers whom you agree with. However, in this specific case, the barrister who was representing the defendant is also familiar with the law, as was the barrister representing the State, and they disagreed, so I’m not sure what point you think you’re making by pointing out that your google skills are better than mine. I’ll stake money on it that even though you said they were both law lecturers in UCC, one of them likely to be Susan Leahy, who is a lecturer in law in UL, and writes regularly on Irish law regarding sex offences and criminal trial procedures.

I have categorically stated numerous times btw that what a woman wears is not pertinent to rape. However, that does not apply in a criminal case where a person is on trial accused of rape. In those circumstances, what a complainant was wearing at the time of the alleged offence committed by the defendant, forms part of the evidence, and whether it’s a description of the evidence in question, or physical evidence, it forms part of the evidence which the defendant may use to assist in their own defence.

You may regard specific evidence which is regarded as relevant in each specific case, as irrelevant in all cases, but that doesn’t make your opinion any more factual than it wasn’t already.

I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.

I at least am perfectly aware of how other judicial systems operate, and on that basis I don’t share your suspicions. We do it to various degrees here too, just not to the degree you would like, as it’s often determined that the exclusion of evidence which would assist the defendant in their own defence is prejudicial to their right to a fair trial. That’s why we don’t often prohibit evidence which the defendant maintains would aid in their own defence, and why it’s exactly the same procedures in other Common Law jurisdictions.

I would also suggest that you really reconsider your own ignorant assumptions on how and why women dress as they choose to. Thongs don't represent some big desire to have sex. Likewise skirts etc.

I’ve taken your suggestion into consideration, and dismissed it as the utter nonsense it is. How a person dresses is often a representation of their desire to have sex. It is never an indication however, that anyone has any permission to commit rape. There’s a big distinction between the two concepts that I feel you’re feigning ignorance of in order to support your position and claim that it’s my assumptions about something else entirely are ignorant, in spite of all the evidence in the real world that suggests how a person dresses is an indication of how they wish to be perceived.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’ve taken your suggestion into consideration, and dismissed it as the utter nonsense it is. How a person dresses is often a representation of their desire to have sex. It is never an indication however, that anyone has any permission to commit rape. There’s a big distinction between the two concepts that I feel you’re feigning ignorance of in order to support your position and claim that it’s my assumptions about something else entirely are ignorant, in spite of all the evidence in the real world that suggests how a person dresses is an indication of how they wish to be perceived.

You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.

I never said any such thing.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not my logic. All of your hypothetical scenarios are based upon events preceding the encounter, whereas any disagreement over whether or not consent was present is argued after the encounter.

Determining whether or not consent is present preceding any encounter is irrelevant to any argument regarding whether or not consent was present after the encounter.

In a case where the defendant claims that the encounter was consensual, then we are obligated to investigate the basis for their belief, by asking them, and allowing them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whatever criteria the defendant explains as the basis for their honest belief can only be determined as reasonable or unreasonable only after we hear their justification for their honest belief. If the defence for their honest belief relates to what the complainant was wearing, then what the defendant was wearing at the time of the encounter is relevant evidence in assisting the defendant in their own defence, whether or not that makes the complainant uncomfortable and casts doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant.

Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

Because you seem to be making this up.

One eyed Jack

LLMMLL wrote: »

Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief?

Because you seem to be making this up.

Her comment relates directly to the defendants belief, as she was, y’know, representing the defendant.