Consent (Sexual)

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

It’s not my opinion. It’s objectively seen in the raw data.
The intent of the system isn’t matched by the consequent justice served.

The raw data is not objective? Of course it’s still only your opinion that the intent of the judiciary isn’t matched by the consequent justice served with regards to the victims of rape. An objective view would regard the outcomes of trials for both the accused and the accuser.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The raw data is not objective? Of course it’s still only your opinion that the intent of the judiciary isn’t matched by the consequent justice served with regards to the victims of rape. An objective view would regard the outcomes of trials for both the accused and the accuser.

The raw data is objective. Conviction rates are completely out of whack with any other crime where the accused is identified by the victim. Compare the instances of reporting of the crimes to other areas. There’s no equivalent reluctance to engage with the process in other crimes on the person. So unless you’re proposing that 90% of accused rapists who face trial are falsely accused (despite the view of the DPP that there’s sufficient evidence to prosecute), then the fault lies with the system.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

The raw data is objective. Convictions are completely out of whack with any other crime where the accused is identified by the victim. Compare the instances of reporting of the crimes to other areas. There’s no equivalent reluctance to engage with the process in other crimes on the person. So unless you’re proposing that 90% of accused rapists who face trial are falsely accused (despite the view of the DPP that there’s sufficient evidence to prosecute), then the fault lies with the system.

I have no idea what you’re driving at with the first part of your post, but If it helps I have no interest in comparing conviction rates for offences of a sexual nature with other offences as I don’t regard them to be in any way similar in the first place. The law doesn’t either. The reluctance to engage with the process isn’t a fault of the judicial process, it’s a fault of some people’s perception that justice as they see it will not be administered in their favour.

As for the part in bold, no, I wouldn’t suggest that 90% of defendants who are found not guilty are falsely accused. It simply means that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to convince a jury that a defendant was guilty of the crime which they are charged with, beyond reasonable doubt. That’s actually a good thing with regard to the administration of justice as it means that people who are presumed innocent maintain the presumption of innocence, as opposed to being unjustly convicted and deprived of their liberty.

I’m sure if you were in the dock accused of a criminal offence of which you didn’t believe you were guilty, your attitude would quickly change. Then you might understand that the intent of the judiciary isn’t just to serve the victims of crime, but to administer justice for the good of all members of society.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

A notion at odds with the Gardai records and the CSO. They are recorded as crimes of rape - nothing else. They form part of the crime statistics for each year. Same as my car theft crime was - despite no prosecution.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-rc/recordedcrimeq12019/

You're awfully selective in what you term reporting.

https://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/methods/recordedcrime/Crime_Counting_Rules.pdf

A.1
A criminal offence is recorded when there is a reasonable probability that a criminal offence took place and there is no credible evidence to the contrary. The test is that of a reasonable probability -whether it is more likely than not that a criminal offence took place.
A.2
A criminal offence is recorded by recording an appropriate PULSE Crime Incident subject to the rules below.
A.3
If the criteria to record are satisfied (reasonable probability and no credible evidence to the contrary) and the victim does not want the matter taken any further, a criminal offence should be recorded.
A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.
A.5
If a person reports that he/she has been the victim of a criminal offence and subsequently withdraws the report by stating that the criminal act did not take place, the criminal offence should be marked invalid on PULSE, unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.
A.6
A criminal offence should be recorded (and counted) against the Garda Sub-district in which the particular offence was committed. Where the place of commission cannot be determined the offence should be recorded against the Garda Sub-district in which it was reported. Criminal offences under Irish law that are committed abroad (such as those under the Sexual Offences
Jurisdiction) Act, 1996) should be recorded against the Garda Sub-district in which it was reported.
A.7
If a criminal offence has been recorded and a Garda investigation subsequently determines that acriminal offence did not take place the criminal offence should be marked invalid on PULSE.

For someone who claims others are taking leave with reality... and for reasonable evidence to exist that a crime took place, an investigation would be needed. :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You're awfully selective in what you term reporting.



For someone who claims others are taking leave with reality... :rolleyes:

Perhaps you don't understand.
Every crime reported to Gardai is recorded as a crime.
They do not investigate to verify that claim. They investigate to bring an offender to justice.
If during the investigation it turns out that there was a false report, then that is the investigation. Obviously the original false report is no longer a crime.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

You're awfully selective in what you term reporting.



For someone who claims others are taking leave with reality... and for reasonable evidence to exist that a crime took place, an investigation would be needed. :rolleyes:

You seem to believe your highlighted text says something it doesn’t. There’s precisely zero in your post to contradict what I wrote.

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

Perhaps you don't understand.
Every crime reported to Gardai is recorded as a crime.

They are recorded as a crime in the statistics "when there is a reasonable probability that a criminal offence took place and there is no credible evidence to the contrary"

In the case of rape,
A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

It's there in the notes.

Show me some notes/links that support your belief, otherwise, I'll go with what I said.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

You seem to believe your highlighted text says something it doesn’t. There’s precisely zero in your post to contradict what I wrote.

Rose tinted glasses. Ok. Got it.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I have no idea what you’re driving at with the first part of your post, but If it helps I have no interest in comparing conviction rates for offences of a sexual nature with other offences as I don’t regard them to be in any way similar in the first place. The law doesn’t either. The reluctance to engage with the process isn’t a fault of the judicial process, it’s a fault of some people’s perception that justice as they see it will not be administered in their favour.

As for the part in bold, no, I wouldn’t suggest that 90% of defendants who are found not guilty are falsely accused. It simply means that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required to convince a jury that a defendant was guilty of the crime which they are charged with, beyond reasonable doubt. That’s actually a good thing with regard to the administration of justice as it means that people who are presumed innocent maintain the presumption of innocence, as opposed to being unjustly convicted and deprived of their liberty.

I’m sure if you were in the dock accused of a criminal offence of which you didn’t believe you were guilty, your attitude would quickly change. Then you might understand that the intent of the judiciary isn’t just to serve the victims of crime, but to administer justice for the good of all members of society.

A system that fails to convict 90% of prosecuted rapists, and where a majority of victims don’t have enough faith in the system to actually report the crime, is not a good system. The same would be true of murderers too. That’s not justice.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Rose tinted glasses. Ok. Got it.

You clearly don’t get it. 🤷🏻*♂️

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

They are recorded as a crime in the statistics "when there is a reasonable probability that a criminal offence took place and there is no credible evidence to the contrary"

In the case of rape,
A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

It's there in the notes.

Show me some notes/links that support your belief, otherwise, I'll go with what I said.

What is it you think is there in the notes?

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They are recorded as a crime in the statistics "when there is a reasonable probability that a criminal offence took place and there is no credible evidence to the contrary"

In the case of rape,
A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

It's there in the notes.

Show me some notes/links that support your belief, otherwise, I'll go with what I said.

When a person makes a complaint, they make a statement in writing & sign it.
That's the evidence.
It is reported as a crime.

alastair

bubblypop wrote: »

When a person makes a complaint, they make a statement in writing & sign it.
That's the evidence.
It is reported as a crime.

He’s flailing about to try and support his unfounded belief that crime stats are comprised of ‘claims’ rather than crimes, when the CSO document he quotes makes entirely clear they are recorded as crimes.

creditcarder

Christ, take a pill alistair

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

The ‘studies’ don’t exist to read.

Search 1 in 4. This is absurd tbh. Do you honstly think I have made them up?

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

A system that fails to convict 90% of prosecuted rapists, and where a majority of victims don’t have enough faith in the system to actually report the crime, is not a good system. The same would be true of murderers too. That’s not justice.

Whoa, whoa! Stall on there now. A system which fails to convict in 90% of cases where the person is accused of a criminal offence suggests that the system is working properly as the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is receiving a fair trial, and those 10% who are convicted, their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don’t know anything about the majority of victims opinions one way or the other of our judicial system and neither do you, but a victims reluctance to report a criminal offence isn’t a failure of the system, it’s a failure of a person to report a crime. Justice can only be served when a possible crime is investigated by the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed in the first place before it can progress to the Courts if the accused pleads not guilty.

I don’t understand the reference to murderers, surely by virtue of the nature of the offence, the victim is in no position to make a complaint to the authorities?

bubblypop

bubblypop wrote: »

When a person makes a complaint, they make a statement in writing & sign it.
That's the evidence.
It is reported as a crime.

Exactly. A statement is made. An official record of the claim. No argument there. It is reported as a crime.. but not entered into the statistics as a committed crime unless there is evidence to support it. Hence an investigation of the claim. If there's not enough evidence, it's entered as invalid. The record is made, but not as a crime to be placed alongside proven crimes.

alastair wrote:

He’s flailing about to try and support his unfounded belief that crime stats are comprised of ‘claims’ rather than crimes, when the CSO document he quotes makes entirely clear they are recorded as crimes.

Nope, I'm still waiting for you to convince me that your interpretation is correct... and you've failed.

A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

But I'm done going around in circles with you.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

Sure. Contrary to his claim.

Contrary to what claim?

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

Search 1 in 4. This is absurd tbh. Do you honstly think I have made them up?

Yes.

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

Contrary to what claim?

This car crash: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112703207&postcount=285

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

Yes.

Thats grand. There is no point discussing somebody who is searching for female approval.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

This car crash: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=112703207&postcount=285

Read the one in 4.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Exactly. A statement is made. An official record of the claim. No argument there. It is reported as a crime.. but not entered into the statistics as a committed crime unless there is evidence to support it. Hence an investigation of the claim. If there's not enough evidence, it's entered as invalid. The record is made, but not as a crime to be placed alongside proven crimes.



Nope, I'm still waiting for you to convince me that your interpretation is correct... and you've failed.

A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

But I'm done going around in circles with you.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
I know you are somehow trying to defend your belief. But you are wrong.
A statement in writing is taken from an injured party & a crime is recorded.
The only way that it is marked invalid is if it is shown that the report was false.

And again, AGS do not prove crimes.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly. A statement is made. An official record of the claim. No argument there. It is reported as a crime.. but not entered into the statistics as a committed crime unless there is evidence to support it. Hence an investigation of the claim. If there's not enough evidence, it's entered as invalid. The record is made, but not as a crime to be placed alongside proven crimes.



Nope, I'm still waiting for you to convince me that your interpretation is correct... and you've failed.

A.4
The following rule applies to criminal offences where victim confirmation is required to complete the offence e.g. assault and fraud. Where the alleged victim (or a person reasonably assumed to be acting on his/her behalf), declines to confirm that a criminal offence took place, or cannot be traced, a
criminal offence should not be recorded unless there is evidence to suggest that there is a reasonable probability that the criminal offence took place.

But I'm done going around in circles with you.

Jaysus. I’m loath to point out an issue of written comprehension again - but the crime is recorded on the basis of probability. The only evidence referenced beyond that is if there is contradictory evidence introduced. Your A.4 note requires the victim, or a representative, to make a statement - that’s all. There is no investigation required.

Every entry in the database is a crime. Not a ‘claim’ - a crime.

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

Read the one in 4.

I have posted the stats for Ireland, and someone else has posted US stats. Maybe you should have a read of the actual data, and not keep churning out misinformation?

Triceratops Ballet

One eyed Jack wrote:

Whoa, whoa! Stall on there now. A system which fails to convict in 90% of cases where the person is accused of a criminal offence suggests that the system is working properly as the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is receiving a fair trial, and those 10% who are convicted, their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don’t know anything about the majority of victims opinions one way or the other of our judicial system and neither do you, but a victims reluctance to report a criminal offence isn’t a failure of the system, it’s a failure of a person to report a crime. Justice can only be served when a possible crime is investigated by the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed in the first place before it can progress to the Courts if the accused pleads not guilty.

One eyed Jack wrote:

I don’t understand the reference to murderers, surely by virtue of the nature of the offence, the victim is in no position to make a complaint to the authorities?

I think if the objective measure you're using to determine the success of the justice system is that a fair trial is received by the defendant, then yes this looks like a successful system, however if we're saying that only 10% of cases prosecuted result in conviction AND that we don't believe that the other 90% of cases are all false accusations (ie some of those women were actually raped)
Then surely you can see why it does not appear to be a just system.

Even if we said that only 50% of that 90% were genuine cases, that is an awfully high percentage of people who endured whatever the nature of the attack was, then endured the investigation, where they are little more than a piece of evidence, then sat through the trial where they are discussed in whatever fashion deemed necessary to make the case for defence, and then if the burden of evidence is not met by the state they go on to endure the stigma of "being a liar" and "trying to ruin someone's life" (and we're talking about the genuine cases here). Surely you can see how that does not seem like justice to a genuine victim of rape, it doesn't seem like justice to me, and to be honest I'm not sure I'd report it if it happened to me, I don't blame anyone who doesn't report it.
I don't know how anyone manages to report it or has the emotional fortitude to go through that for nothing in most cases.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whoa, whoa! Stall on there now. A system which fails to convict in 90% of cases where the person is accused of a criminal offence suggests that the system is working properly as the defendant who has the presumption of innocence is receiving a fair trial, and those 10% who are convicted, their guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don’t know anything about the majority of victims opinions one way or the other of our judicial system and neither do you, but a victims reluctance to report a criminal offence isn’t a failure of the system, it’s a failure of a person to report a crime. Justice can only be served when a possible crime is investigated by the authorities to determine whether or not a crime has been committed in the first place before it can progress to the Courts if the accused pleads not guilty.

I don’t understand the reference to murderers, surely by virtue of the nature of the offence, the victim is in no position to make a complaint to the authorities?

Remarkable coincidence that 67% of rape victims are reluctant to report this crime, not off anything institutional, but rather personal circumstances. We are both aware that more victims are not of the opinion that the system can serve their needs, since they opt out of it. Murders have victims beyond the murdered individual - if 90% of murder prosecutions failed to achieve convictions, you can be sure that there wouldn’t be any compunction by victims in stating the system was not providing justice. Because they would be right.

alastair

Mariohario wrote: »

Most cases of rape won't result in a conviction, it's usually one person's word against the word of another. This is simply reality, it's not the fault of the judicial system.

It is the fault of that system that justice is not served. It’s not fit for purpose by that measure. The solution is to fix the system so there is a greater chance of justice being served.

timhenn

This thread appears to be an incel party, please don't invite me.

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

It is the fault of that system that justice is not served. It’s not fit for purpose by that measure. The solution is to fix the system so there is a greater chance of justice being served.

Lads, we actually have somebody saying that justice should be changed so that there is more justice. Well, if your a man who has sex with a womanwho had a glass of wine or did not say an explicit yest to every act, than I hope you enjoy your justice.