Consent (Sexual)

creditcarder

alastair wrote: »

Demonstration of ‘bad stats’ - zilch.
Evidence of campus ****show? - none.

Honestly, your not coming across well in this thread.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

I don’t believe in the notion of presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial. Primarily because no such thing exists in any legislation, anywhere. I’m entirely happy that it exists within criminal trials. Perhaps the ‘serious danger’ is flat earth beliefs such as universal presumption of innocence?

The only one with flat earther beliefs is you. You've been referred to the Irish constitution on numerous occasions by OEJ. Continue with your belief if you must. One must wonder how you fit libel into your world view, considering one isn't considered innocent of a potentially false claim in your eyes.

CtevenSrowder

creditcarder wrote: »

Honestly, your not coming across well in this thread.

He's an example of one who thinks he's above others, smarter. A bit of a narccisist. Look at the amount of times in this thread he's bemoaned other people's comprehension ability, as if the problem is not him.

Lonesomerhodes

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The only one with flat earther beliefs is you. You've been referred to the Irish constitution on numerous occasions by OEJ. Continue with your belief if you must. One must wonder how you fit libel into your world view, considering one isn't considered innocent of a potentially false claim in your eyes.

These folk will make up any ould shyte simply because they cannot debate us on facts reason or logic. Never have never will.

All Ad hominem attacks.

The amount of people on this who go on and on and on and on about for example Gemma O Doherty or flat Earth or something else to discredit anyone they disagree with yet no one brought these topics up they did is truly amazing.

creditcarder

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

He's an example of one who thinks he's above others, smarter. A bit of a narccisist. Look at the amount of times in this thread he's bemoaned other people's comprehension ability, as if the problem is not him.

Nah, just a male feminist. He's most probably getting patted on the back for his opinions by women, but they wouldn't touch him wiht a barge pole. You only have to look at how Joss Whedon was treated to see the future for a 'man' such as him

El_Duderino 09

creditcarder wrote: »

I have two comments about the incel comment.



1) Incels are more likely to be the pro-feminist men as they are so starved for female attention.



2) I feel bad for incels. they have been told to act a certain way to get laid for hte past twenty years, and it is not attractive to women. In the same way a woman who wants male approval isn't attractive imo.

How would you know that incels tend to be feminists? The only times the cone to prominence is in their forums where they really, really don’t come across as feminists.

I tend to think incels are incels because they don’t really get social interactions -or a bloke with a face like a melted welly. In either case, I’ve no interest in having a go at them. Sounds like they have it tough enough without me piling in too.

El_Duderino 09

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Heres a question.

Would people be in favour of consent classes if it was a man teaching it to women?.

Other way around people thinks fine but this way I gurantee peoples political correct brainwashing kicks in and they wouldn't like it.

Kinda of people who genuinely believe men cant be sexually assualted or preyed upon by women.

Double standards at its finest/worst!.

I think I would be fine with a man or woman facilitating the discussion.

I’m in favour of discussions about consent. I think this kind of thing should be part of a much broader discussion about sex, relationships and how to think about what you actually want to do, how to choose specifically what you do and don’t want to do and, very importantly, how to express that.

This all seems very simple stuff to me.

El_Duderino 09

tillyfilly wrote: »

ma!e feminism in on the rise

I’d imagine so. Feminism is prominent in the culture. It’s in mass media art like tv and movies. It’s just a shame men don’t support men’s issues with similar gusto. If they did then I’d imagine that in time female men’s rights proponents would be on the rise too.

Quantum Erasure

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

I'm focusing on the OP pal.
.

I'm not your pal, mate.

Try reading what I wrote, maybe

Lonesomerhodes

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

I'm not your pal, mate.

Try reading what I wrote, maybe

I'm not you pal mate LOL:rolleyes:

Baby throwing rattle out of the pram?

Quantum Erasure

No man, just saying, maybe these hen parties could do with some consent classes instead of cocktail making classes...

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

90% of people accused of committing the criminal offence of rape aren’t escaping convictions though, they’re being found not guilty in the majority of cases, because the prosecution are failing to make their case in order for a jury of their peers to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That to me suggests that the system works to uphold people’s rights.

It certainly isn’t a system that’s working to uphold victim’s rights. The nonsense of pointing out that it works under it’s own terms is rather missing the point. Witch dunking trials are 100% effective under their own terms too - but nobody is going to mistake them for a mechanism for justice. A system which can only penalise 10% of the minority of accused rapists is not serving the needs or rights of victims - and they, last time I checked, are part of the people too. Like the rest of life, if you have a mechanism which is not fit for purpose - you reassess and re-work until it is fit for purpose.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What exactly are you suggesting then? Because it certainly seems like you’re suggesting people who are accused of the criminal offence of rape should be found guilty based solely on the word of the alleged victims in order to address the low conviction rate for people accused of the criminal offence of rape. At the very least it sounds like you’re suggesting that people accused of the criminal offence of rape should be denied the right to a fair trial.

I’m suggesting no such thing, and I have made this clear to you more than once. Do you generally have such difficulty with dialogue? Refer to the post where I did highlight a number of mechanisms which would help redress the rape prosecution process in favour of victims, while retaining all rights if the accused. And I’d suggest your tendency for hanging on to strawman arguments highlights the weakness in your position.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The only one with flat earther beliefs is you. You've been referred to the Irish constitution on numerous occasions by OEJ. Continue with your belief if you must. One must wonder how you fit libel into your world view, considering one isn't considered innocent of a potentially false claim in your eyes.

Nothing in the constitution supports the notion of presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial. Nothing. It’s not my belief - it’s simply the legislative reality.

creditcarder

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

How would you know that incels tend to be feminists? The only times the cone to prominence is in their forums where they really, really don’t come across as feminists.

I tend to think incels are incels because they don’t really get social interactions -or a bloke with a face like a melted welly. In either case, I’ve no interest in having a go at them. Sounds like they have it tough enough without me piling in too.

Involuntary celibate rather than 'incel'. I hope I don't have to explain the difference?



I dunno, femenist men really come across as starved for female attention.

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Nothing in the constitution supports the notion of presumption of innocence outside a criminal trial. Nothing. It’s not my belief - it’s simply the legislative reality.

The constitution does:

Finally, in an Irish context, it is appropriate to consider the broader
constitutional framework within which the presumption of innocence is located.
While the presumption probably has the strongest association with Article 38.1 of
the Constitution, which guarantees that no person shall be tried on a criminal charge
except in “due course of law,” it should also be considered in the light of the
commitment by the state in the Preamble to promote the common good “with due
observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity so that the dignity and freedom of the
individual may be assured.” This approach was clearly endorsed by O’Higgins C.J. in
State (Healy) v. Donoghue who invoked the Preamble in support of the courts’ view of
‘fair procedures’: “n my view the Preamble makes it clear that rights given by the
Constitution must be considered in accordance with concepts of prudence, justice
and charity.

http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/5997/1/CH-Presumption-Innocence.pdf

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

The constitution does:



http://mural.maynoothuniversity.ie/5997/1/CH-Presumption-Innocence.pdf

Yeah. And once again - that is entirely framed within the context of a defendant in a criminal trial. It applies nowhere else - not in a civil case, not in any context outside a defence in a criminal trial.

The Presumption of Innocence in Irish Criminal Law: Recent Trends and Possible Explanations
Dr. C. Hamilton

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Yeah. And once again - that is entirely framed within the context of a defendant in a criminal trial. It applies nowhere else - not in a civil case, not in any context outside a defence in a criminal trial.

No it isn't, it's framed as a generality. You didn't even bother to read the abstract.

"... the presumption of innocent generally..."

OEJ gave the text earlier in the thread. The constitution specifies it in general, and not merely in the context of a criminal trial.

A civil case is based on the idea that the accused is telling the truth ie not guilty, and the prosecter has to show they are. Just the burden of proof is less.

El_Duderino 09

creditcarder wrote: »

Involuntary celibate rather than 'incel'. I hope I don't have to explain the difference?



I dunno, femenist men really come across as starved for female attention.

I thought incels were blokes who were involuntary celibate. I don’t really keep up with the terminology but I’m fascinated to see there’s been a split. I don’t know the difference so please do explain it.

You dunno. That’s a fair answer if you dunno.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

No it isn't, it's framed as a generality. You didn't even bother to read the abstract.

"... the presumption of innocent generally..."

OEJ gave the text earlier in the thread. The constitution specifies it in general, and not merely in the context of a criminal trial.

A civil case is based on the idea that the accused is telling the truth ie not guilty, and the prosecter has to show they are. Just the burden of proof is less.

I read it - and understood it. The ‘generality’ is entirely framed by the criminal trial process. The clue being the title of the paper, along with every other reference to the criminal judicial process in the paper.

The constitution does not specify any right to a presumption of innocence outside the context of a defence in a criminal trial. Fact. There is no presumption of innocence in a civil case. Fact.

creditcarder

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I thought incels were blokes who were involuntary celibate. I don’t really keep up with the terminology but I’m fascinated to see there’s been a split. I don’t know the difference so please do explain it.

You dunno. That’s a fair answer if you dunno.

That's nice el dude.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

It certainly isn’t a system that’s working to uphold victim’s rights. The nonsense of pointing out that it works under it’s own terms is rather missing the point. Witch dunking trials are 100% effective under their own terms too - but nobody is going to mistake them for a mechanism for justice. A system which can only penalise 10% of the minority of accused rapists is not serving the needs or rights of victims - and they, last time I checked, are part of the people too. Like the rest of life, if you have a mechanism which is not fit for purpose - you reassess and re-work until it is fit for purpose.

I’ve already explained that the judicial system is not solely concerned with victims rights. When someone is accused of committing a criminal offence, they are accused of committing a crime against the public at large -

Criminal actions concern conduct against the community at large not just one individual as a result enforcement is not left to the victim but to the State. With Civil law any breach of it is purely a matter for the injured party. They may decide to sue, settle or discontinue the proceedings. With criminal law whether the prosecution of an accused is to go ahead or not is determined by the State. The prosecution of a crime involves a public prosecutor, usually the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP conducts criminal prosecutions on behalf of the State, in the public interest.


The system is also concerned with the rights of the accused, and ensuring that the accused rights are upheld. You appear to be under the impression that the judiciary is concerned with pursuing justice solely for the alleged victims, but it’s not. That’s not justice, it’s retribution. The judiciary’s fundamental purpose is to administer justice in the interests of society as a whole.

Any system can only penalise those who are found guilty of committing a criminal offence. In spite of your continued implying that they are rapists, the law does not see things the way you do as the presumption of innocence applies to the accused, unless the accused pleads guilty or the prosecution convinces a jury that the defendant is guilty. Because they are appearing as witnesses for the prosecution, they are referred to as alleged victims of the accused who is on trial. There are no repercussions in law for the alleged victims.

alastair wrote: »

I’m suggesting no such thing, and I have made this clear to you more than once. Do you generally have such difficulty with dialogue? Refer to the post where I did highlight a number of mechanisms which would help redress the rape prosecution process in favour of victims, while retaining all rights if the accused. And I’d suggest your tendency for hanging on to strawman arguments highlights the weakness in your position.

Not usually, no, but it has been brought to my attention on more than one occasion and even recently so, as though I wasn’t acutely more aware of my shortcomings than the person making the observation. As you can imagine it’s not something I would readily admit to as I consider it my own personal business, but I don’t think you’re asking the question with any malicious intent.

I missed that particular post though, if you wouldn’t mind posting it again? I can certainly think of a multitude of ways the victims can be supported that would not interfere with the rights of the accused, but I’d be interested in reading what in your opinion could be changed about the process from the time a victim makes a complaint in order to support them through the process that you feel isn’t being done already. One suggestion that was put forward recently was that Gardaí should immediately arrest people who made emotional outbursts and threaten witnesses after the verdict has been delivered, but the Gardaí already do arrest people who make threats on people’s lives -


Woman jailed for threatening to kill rape victim


A rape victim who was due to give evidence in a criminal trial was threatened that, if the rapist was convicted, she would be dead within a week.

...

Judge David Riordan sentenced her yesterday to two years in prison with the last 14 months suspended on condition that she would stay away from the victim for at least three years and comply with the directions of the probation service for eight months after her release from prison.


EDIT: There’s also this btw, but I’m not sure if it covers what you may have been referring to already -

Criminal Justice (Victims of Crime) Act 2017

El_Duderino 09

creditcarder wrote: »

That's nice el dude.

Yeah. It doesn’t explain the difference between incels and blokes who are involuntary celibate.

I asked you to explain what the difference is.

Lonesomerhodes

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

No man, just saying, maybe these hen parties could do with some consent classes instead of cocktail making classes...

Ok but the point I'm making that no one can dispute is consent classes are aimed only at men, thus it's insinuating and bias.

Thinly veiled misandry if you will.

El_Duderino 09

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Ok but the point I'm making that no one can dispute is consent classes are aimed only at men, thus it's insinuating and bias.

Thinly veiled misandry if you will.

That’s not true. I think it should be built into broader sex education at school. It should be age appropriate and ongoing. I see no value in only including men.

Lonesomerhodes

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That’s not true. I think it should be built into broader sex education at school. It should be age appropriate and ongoing. I see no value in only including men.

OK well if what I type is untrue can you provide evidence of consent classes for women in Ireland to me please?.

Thanks

Lonesomerhodes

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

OK well if what I type is untrue can you provide evidence of consent classes for women in Ireland to me please?.

Thanks

Consent is being taught as part of a wider course given to children in school yes?
I believe after it was a success in 3rd level

is there such a thing as consent classes for men only?
Where do these take place? and who exactly goes to them?

El_Duderino 09

bubblypop wrote: »

Consent is being taught as part of a wider course given to children in school yes?
I believe after it was a success in 3rd level

is there such a thing as consent classes for men only?
Where do these take place? and who exactly goes to them?

Yeah there’s the one delivered by Richie Sadlier and Elaine Byrnes. They managed to get it done in his old school St Benildus school which happens to be an all boys school. He says it’s definitely not just for boys. But what would he know? He just delivers the actual course.

Ardillaun

Whatever about presumption of innocence, we can read accounts of a trial and come to our own conclusions. For example, there have been cases in the financial sector where a defendant is acquitted because of some technicality about the evidence but would not be considered innocent of the crime by any sane person afterwards.

Feisar

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Yeah. It doesn’t explain the difference between incels and blokes who are involuntary celibate.

I asked you to explain what the difference is.

IMHO:

Incels - lads who can't get the ride and get all bitter and twisted about it

Involuntary Celibate - lads who can't get the ride

El_Duderino 09

Feisar wrote: »

IMHO:

Incels - lads who can't get the ride and get all bitter and twisted about it

Involuntary Celibate - lads who can't get the ride

Oh look, I have absolutely no way to measures the different levels of bitterness and twistedness in a bloke.

So e people might see that as a useful distinction but it's useless to me.