Consent (Sexual)

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

nothing like ruining a man's life for exposure! Dosnt hurt that the auld pair are minted. Either way she appears to have been "red pilled".

He seems to be doing just fine too.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

The verdict was ‘not guilty’ on the basis of a bar of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. No mention of innocence - as is the case in every other trial, ever. No verdict vindicates the presumption of innocence during a trial - it’s nothing to do with that process.

The presumption of innocence is maintained post verdict.

I'll rely on the constitution, precedent, legal scholars and the supreme court for my understanding of what the "not guilty" verdict confirms.

But you crack on with your own view.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

The presumption of innocence is maintained post verdict.

it’s really not. There is no presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2016/573903/EPRS_ATA%282016%29573903_EN.pdf

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

I’ll try one more time - it’s not an issue of what is permitted in court, it’s an issue of what the defence deemed (rightly or wrongly) to be a viable argument to present to a jury - that underwear choice could be presented as a mitigating argument. That doesn’t come from a vacuum. It pre-supposes that the argument is persuasive.

And what’s your issue with that if it is the defendants belief? Because that’s the point of the defendant being on trial, and not the alleged victim. You appear to be more concerned for the alleged victim than the defendants right to a fair trial and perhaps that’s where your misunderstanding stems from and why you’re unwilling to accept that it could have led to a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal on the basis that the defendant did not receive a fair trial, as is their right.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And what’s your issue with that if it is the defendants belief? Because that’s the point of the defendant being on trial, and not the alleged victim. You appear to be more concerned for the alleged victim than the defendants right to a fair trial and perhaps that’s where your misunderstanding stems from and why you’re unwilling to accept that it could have led to a guilty verdict being overturned on appeal on the basis that the defendant did not receive a fair trial, as is their right.

There is no misunderstanding from my end. It’s not about the right to a fair trial, nor about the verdict. Once again - It’s about the presumption that underwear choice could be a persuasive mitigating argument.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

it’s really not. There is no presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial.

It is, it's a very simple recipe too.
innocent until proven guilty

It's a staple of common law and code Napoleon law.
It's a fundamental part of the Universal Declaration of human rights.
11."Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

Indeed even Bunreacht na H'Eireann would counter your view.
Articles 38, 40
And the presumption of innocence in Irish Law is further confirmed by DPP v O'Callaghan 1966 along with the doctrine adopted by the supreme court post O'Callaghan ruling.

All reinforce the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

The recipe is simple, the outcome is that if one is not proven guilty ones presumed innocent persists.

It's not to your liking, but it's the way that the presumption of innocence works.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

It is, it's a very simple recipe too.
innocent until proven guilty

It's a staple of common law and code Napoleon law.
It's a fundamental part of the Universal Declaration of human rights.
11."Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

Indeed even Bunreacht na H'Eireann would counter your view.
Articles 38, 40
And the presumption of innocence in Irish Law is further confirmed by DPP v O'Callaghan 1966 along with the doctrine adopted by the supreme court post O'Callaghan ruling.

All reinforce the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

The recipe is simple, the outcome is that if one is not proven guilty ones presumed innocent persists.

It's not to your liking, but it's the way that the presumption of innocence works.

Ehh:

Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial

There is no presumption of innocence, in Irish, EU or International law, that exists outside the context of a criminal trial. None whatsoever.

Nothing to do with ‘my liking’ - just a matter of fact.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

Ehh:



There is no presumption of innocence, in Irish, EU or International law, that exists outside the context of a criminal trial. None whatsoever.

So he's guilty in your opinion and that's enough for you? Your belief in his guilt persists despite the acquittal?


The presumption of innocence holds until the accused is proven guilty.
A not guilty verdict by its very essence, vindicates the accused presumption.

If you want to present something other than your opinion on that matter I'm happy to debate it, but as I said a few posts ago.
When it comes to the presumption of innocence and it's equation with not guilty I'll rely on other sources until I'm convinced otherwise.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

There is no misunderstanding from my end. It’s not about the right to a fair trial, nor about the verdict. Once again - It’s about the presumption that underwear choice could be a persuasive mitigating argument.

I don’t know about you, but I wear my Sunday vest when there may be the hope (however slight) that I may later be engaged in sexual activities. It’s not unreasonable to assume that other people do the same thing. Is your argument that it’s an unreasonable assumption on my part that someone would wear their Sunday best as it were if they were intending on later engaging in sexual activities?

I think everyone understands that doesn’t invite anyone to commit rape. That would be an unreasonable assumption. If that’s what you mean by an idea which hasn’t developed in a vacuum you’d be entirely correct - people generally associate what is considered by many reasonable people to be sexy underwear when they are intending to engage in sexual activities.

However, you’re basing your argument that the underwear somehow becomes irrelevant when a person is accused of rape, after the fact. And that’s why I said that the defence using that strategy was risky, as I would certainly have found the implication distasteful in light of what had transpired. However, in a trial where it is the state of mind of the defendant is in question, and whether they had an honest belief that the encounter was consensual, then the Jury must be allowed to be presented with the evidence to support that belief, as distasteful as it may be for some people.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

So he's guilty in your opinion and that's enough for you? Your belief in his guilt persists despite the acquittal?


The presumption of innocence holds until the accused is proven guilty.
A not guilty verdict by its very essence, vindicates the accused presumption.

If you want to present something other than your opinion on that matter I'm happy to debate it, but as I said a few posts ago.
When it comes to the presumption of innocence and it's equation with not guilty I'll rely on other sources until I'm convinced otherwise.

I’m not presenting any opinion - it’s a fact that there is no presumption of innocence outside a trial. Therefore any verdict has no power to vindicate such a presumption, post-trial - it doesn’t exist. Every piece of legislation you refer to is framed by a criminal trial. That’s the only time and place it exists.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know about you, but I wear my Sunday vest when there may be the hope (however slight) that I may later be engaged in sexual activities. It’s not unreasonable to assume that other people do the same thing. Is your argument that it’s an unreasonable assumption on my part that someone would wear their Sunday best as it were if they were intending on later engaging in sexual activities?

I think everyone understands that doesn’t invite anyone to commit rape. That would be an unreasonable assumption. If that’s what you mean by an idea which hasn’t developed in a vacuum you’d be entirely correct - people generally associate what is considered by many reasonable people to be sexy underwear when they are intending to engage in sexual activities.

However, you’re basing your argument that the underwear somehow becomes irrelevant when a person is accused of rape, after the fact. And that’s why I said that the defence using that strategy was risky, as I would certainly have found the implication distasteful in light of what had transpired. However, in a trial where it is the state of mind of the defendant is in question, and whether they had an honest belief that the encounter was consensual, then the Jury must be allowed to be presented with the evidence to support that belief, as distasteful as it may be for some people.

Your vest has no more impact on your consent than any other item of clothing.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

I’m not presenting any opinion - it’s a fact that there is no presumption of innocence outside a trial. Therefore any verdict has no power to vindicate such a presumption - it doesn’t exist. Every piece of legislation you refer to is framed by a criminal trial. That’s the only time and place it exists.

That's nonsense.

The burden is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty?
I'm grasping at what your aim is here, the are criminally innocent? But morally guilty?

That some civil penalty should apply?


They were not proven guilty, the consensus of the Common Law, multiple supreme court's and long legal practice holds that in such an instance the accused is innocent.

What do you feel their status should be?

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

That's nonsense.

The burden is that the accused is innocent until proven guilty?
I'm grasping at what your aim is here, the are criminally innocent? But morally guilty?

That some civil penalty should apply?


They were not proven guilty, the consensus of the Common Law, multiple supreme court's and long legal practice holds that in such an instance the accused is innocent.

What do you feel their status should be?

They have no legal status beyond being acquitted of the charges brought during the trial. Just as OJ Simpson was. It doesn’t make him innocent, since that’s not the job of a trial to determine.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

What ’blurring of the definition of rape’ do you believe has occurred?
Who do you believe is ‘bumping up statistics’?

A lack of constant verbal consent being classed as rape (which it has in studies and has in sweden)


Groping and other forms of sexual assault being classed as rape. In some studies, sexual harrasment is also classed as rape.



A study in canada that said unwanted looking was a form of sexual violence.



Pretty much anything in the one in 4 women are raped fallacy.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know about you, but I wear my Sunday vest when there may be the hope (however slight) that I may later be engaged in sexual activities. It’s not unreasonable to assume that other people do the same thing. Is your argument that it’s an unreasonable assumption on my part that someone would wear their Sunday best as it were if they were intending on later engaging in sexual activities?

I think everyone understands that doesn’t invite anyone to commit rape. That would be an unreasonable assumption. If that’s what you mean by an idea which hasn’t developed in a vacuum you’d be entirely correct - people generally associate what is considered by many reasonable people to be sexy underwear when they are intending to engage in sexual activities.

However, you’re basing your argument that the underwear somehow becomes irrelevant when a person is accused of rape, after the fact. And that’s why I said that the defence using that strategy was risky, as I would certainly have found the implication distasteful in light of what had transpired. However, in a trial where it is the state of mind of the defendant is in question, and whether they had an honest belief that the encounter was consensual, then the Jury must be allowed to be presented with the evidence to support that belief, as distasteful as it may be for some people.

the underwear wasn't brought into evidence during the trial, where, the prosecution could argue against it.
It was brought in by the barrister in her closing statement.
so, although it was part of evidence, the same as all the clothes the female was wearing, it wasn't brought in during the trial, as some kind of evidence that the female was possibly open to sex.

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

A lack of constant verbal consent being classed as rape (which it has in studies and has in sweden)


Groping and other forms of sexual assault being classed as rape. In some studies, sexual harrasment is also classed as rape.



A study in canada that said unwanted looking was a form of sexual violence.



Pretty much anything in the one in 4 women are raped fallacy.

And any links to these ‘studies’? Any link to this ‘1 in 4 women raped’ claim?

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

Your vest has no more impact on your consent than any other item of clothing.

I disagree. If a court case is building up an argument that the woman consented, then a woman wearing sexual underwear increases the likelihood that she would have consented by a small percentage.



You'd swear the lawyuer was actually saying rape was okay because she was wearing underwear. The lawyer was actually just trying to prove, in a throwaway comment, that consent was likely based on a variety of factors.

creditcarder

creditcarder wrote: »

Groping and other forms of sexual assault being classed as rape. In some studies, sexual harrasment is also classed as rape.

.

In Ireland sexual assault and rape are clearly defined in law. So, not something you need to worry about.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

And any links to these ‘studies’? Any link to this ‘1 in 4 women raped’ claim?

Hmmm, because you put it in comma do you agree that the studies are not trustworthy



I don't like this reply, but you can find it online pretty easily.

alastair

bubblypop wrote: »

the underwear wasn't brought into evidence during the trial, where, the prosecution could argue against it.
It was brought in by the barrister in her closing statement.
so, although it was part of evidence, the same as all the clothes the female was wearing, it wasn't brought in during the trial, as some kind of evidence that the female was possibly open to sex.

It doesn’t matter when she produced them. It matters that she thought it was a credible defence argument. The strategy of the trial is less damning than the mere notion that a jury could be persuaded that sexy underwear is any mitigation in a rape claim.

creditcarder

creditcarder wrote: »

I disagree. If a court case is building up an argument that the woman consented, then a woman wearing sexual underwear increases the likelihood that she would have consented by a small percentage.

You'd swear the lawyuer was actually saying rape was okay because she was wearing underwear. The lawyer was actually just trying to prove, in a throwaway comment, that consent was likely based on a variety of factors.

what exactly is your understanding of this?

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

I’m not presenting any opinion - it’s a fact that there is no presumption of innocence outside a trial. Therefore any verdict has no power to vindicate such a presumption, post-trial - it doesn’t exist. Every piece of legislation you refer to is framed by a criminal trial. That’s the only time and place it exists.

In Irish constitutional law it exists as a fundamental right under article 40, which places a duty on the State to protect and vindicate a citizens good name -


The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.


Every citizen maintains the right to their good name, and enumerated in that right is the presumption of innocence, not just before a court of law, but in Irish law, period.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

They have no legal status beyond being acquitted of the charges brought during the trial. Just as OJ Simpson was. It doesn’t make him innocent, since that’s not the job of a trial to determine.

The trial, does not need to determine innocence as the entire process is predicated on its presumption.

Yes there are unfortunate instances when procedural or evidential processes lead to wrongful acquittal.
That however still means the accused was/is legally innocent.

The bereaved in some jurisdictions, such as with the OJ case can then pursue damages via a wrongful death suit.
That would hold a degree of responsibility based on a lower evidential standard.

One can be responsible for the death but still innocent of a crime.

The presumption of innocence is fundamental to criminal procedure.
It doesn't need to "exist" outside of it, as its sole concern is criminal trial.
However as I mentioned earlier the Irish constitution dies confer the right to all people and in all circumstances.

But for a laugh, why not tweet the person concerned that they are a rapist and guilty of such?
Then seek to rely on your reasoning as your defence?

I'll honestly even help crowdfund your defence if it goes to trial?

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

Hmmm, because you put it in comma do you agree that the studies are not trustworthy



I don't like this reply, but you can find it online pretty easily.

The studies, like the 1 in 4 thing - is a product of your vivid imagination. Nothing more.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In Irish constitutional law it exists as a fundamental right under article 40, which places a duty on the State to protect and vindicate a citizens good name -


The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.


Every citizen maintains the right to their good name, and enumerated in that right is the presumption of innocence, not just before a court of law, but in Irish law, period.

None of the above implies any assumption of innocence. What exactly do you think ‘in the case of injustice’ means?

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

The studies, like the 1 in 4 thing - is a product of your vivid imagination. Nothing more.

Well, that's me sorted.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Your vest has no more impact on your consent than any other item of clothing.

That’s your belief, which is entirely reasonable. What’s also reasonable is the belief that my vest has an impact on whether or not I was intending to have sex. That was the argument that was being made, on the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual. That may not seem reasonable to you, but it’s an entirely reasonable assumption for most people. As you suggested earlier yourself - it doesn’t come from a vacuum.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

The trial, does not need to determine innocence as the entire process is predicated on its presumption.

Yes there are unfortunate instances when procedural or evidential processes lead to wrongful acquittal.
That however still means the accused was/is legally innocent.

The bereaved in some jurisdictions, such as with the OJ case can then pursue damages via a wrongful death suit.
That would hold a degree of responsibility based on a lower evidential standard.

One can be responsible for the death but still innocent of a crime.

The presumption of innocence is fundamental to criminal procedure.
It doesn't need to "exist" outside of it, as its sole concern is criminal trial.
However as I mentioned earlier the Irish constitution dies confer the right to all people and in all circumstances.

But for a laugh, why not tweet the person concerned that they are a rapist and guilty of such?
Then seek to rely on your reasoning as your defence?

I'll honestly even help crowdfund your defence if it goes to trial?

The trial process is predicated by an assumption of innocence - sure. But nothing beyond that frame. OJ was never deemed to be innocent as a consequence of his acquittal - just the same as every other defendant who gets acquitted.

The constitution - like all the other legislation you point to, makes no claim to a presumption of innocence under any context but a criminal trial. None whatsoever.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

None of the above implies any assumption of innocence. What exactly do you think ‘in the case of injustice’ means?

No, it implies the presumption of innocence, that all citizens are presumed innocent and entitled to their good name, and in the case of an injustice such as being found guilty on the basis of an argument that they did not receive a fair trial, they are entitled to an appeal to restore their good name and vindicate the presumption of innocence.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s your belief, which is entirely reasonable. What’s also reasonable is the belief that my vest has an impact on whether or not I was intending to have sex. That was the argument that was being made, on the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual. That may not seem reasonable to you, but it’s an entirely reasonable assumption for most people. As you suggested earlier yourself - it doesn’t come from a vacuum.

The reasonable assumption to make is that there’s merit in presenting underwear choice as a mitigating defence in a context of a rape claim. And that’s a social problem.