Consent (Sexual)

suicide_circus

what was the craic with that mattress girl thing in the states some years back, was she just some loon?

CtevenSrowder

alastair wrote: »

Nothing out of context about it. If you can’t understand that a scenario that allows a trial defence to think there’s mileage in asserting that underwear choice is a mitigating argument in a rape trial, then the failure of comprehension is yours.

Oh look, another person that according to Alastair has a problem with comprehension. Seems to be a running theme.

Why can't we all just be as intellectual as you.

alastair

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Oh look, another person that according to Alastair has a problem with comprehension. Seems to be a running theme.

Why can't we all just be as intellectual as you.

I’m just not into you. Soz.

Wibbs

suicide_circus wrote: »

what was the craic with that mattress girl thing in the states some years back, was she just some loon?

Some loon seems to be the bulk of it.

alastair

Wibbs wrote: »

Some loon seems to be the bulk of it.

Nothing to suggest she’s a loon. She did some performance art as part of an Art degree.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Nothing out of context about it. If you can’t understand that a scenario that allows a trial defence to think there’s mileage in asserting that underwear choice is a mitigating argument in a rape trial, then the failure of comprehension is yours.

How is the failure of comprehension mine when I have explained to you exactly why evidence such as the alleged victims underwear is permitted to be entered into evidence in a trial of the accused?

Goodness knows what you’d make of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 which states -


The judge shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the accused person to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked, that is to say, if he is satisfied that, on the assumption that if the evidence or question was not allowed the jury might reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty, the effect of allowing the evidence or question might reasonably be that they would not be so satisfied.


And the reason for allowing such broad leverage?


Mary Rose Gearty is a senior counsel who prosecutes and defends rape cases and has also represented complainants in section-three applications. She said in many cases the reason for it is to establish the credibility of a complainant such as in DPP v GK (2006), where the woman said she was a virgin before an alleged rape and the defence sought to demonstrate she was lying.

...

Guidelines for lawyers representing complainants in rape cases advise them to “manage the client’s expectations” when advising them on whether to fight a section-three application.

...

The document states: “It should be borne in mind, generally speaking, a person convicted by a jury may appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory. For example the basis on appeal might be that the trial judge erred in admitting/excluding certain evidence.”


Many rape victims still face court questioning on sexual history


I sincerely doubt that you would prefer to see convictions overturned on appeal on the basis that the defendant was not given a fair trial based upon the fact that evidence which could have exonerated them was excluded. Best for everyone concerned that the right decision is made the first time, and in that particular case, the accused was not found guilty of committing rape. Had the evidence not been allowed by the Judge to be introduced, it could easily have led to a conviction being overturned on appeal.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

Nothing to suggest she’s a loon. She did some performance art as part of an Art degree.

The university settled with her "rapist" out of court and she released a sex tape to pornhub.

Lonesomerhodes

bubblypop wrote: »

and no doubt the barrister and her team decided to make that move, just exactly because she is a woman.
seems to have worked on you anyway:rolleyes:

It was wrong and should not be allowed, the underwear a victim has on when raped does not matter, nor does the clothes they are wearing. But, of course, barristers know that.

Not a fan of facts yourself like few on here. What rape?. The young man was found innocent by a court.

No rape occurred.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

How is the failure of comprehension mine when I have explained to you exactly why evidence such as the alleged victims underwear is permitted to be entered into evidence in a trial of the accused?

Goodness knows what you’d make of Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981 which states -


The judge shall give leave if, and only if, he is satisfied that it would be unfair to the accused person to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked, that is to say, if he is satisfied that, on the assumption that if the evidence or question was not allowed the jury might reasonably be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person is guilty, the effect of allowing the evidence or question might reasonably be that they would not be so satisfied.


And the reason for allowing such broad leverage?


Mary Rose Gearty is a senior counsel who prosecutes and defends rape cases and has also represented complainants in section-three applications. She said in many cases the reason for it is to establish the credibility of a complainant such as in DPP v GK (2006), where the woman said she was a virgin before an alleged rape and the defence sought to demonstrate she was lying.

...

Guidelines for lawyers representing complainants in rape cases advise them to “manage the client’s expectations” when advising them on whether to fight a section-three application.

...

The document states: “It should be borne in mind, generally speaking, a person convicted by a jury may appeal to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the conviction is unsafe and unsatisfactory. For example the basis on appeal might be that the trial judge erred in admitting/excluding certain evidence.”


Many rape victims still face court questioning on sexual history


I sincerely doubt that you would prefer to see convictions overturned on appeal on the basis that the defendant was not given a fair trial based upon the fact that evidence which could have exonerated them was excluded. Best for everyone concerned that the right decision is made the first time, and in that particular case, the accused was not found guilty of committing rape. Had the evidence not been allowed by the Judge to be introduced, it could easily have led to a conviction being overturned on appeal.

Once again. The issue isn’t what’s permissible to present in court, it’s what’s deemed as a viable defence strategy to put before a jury. That speaks to an understanding of society which may well share those attitudes. That underwear choice has something to do with mitigating a claim of rape.

alastair

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Not a fan of facts yourself like few on here. What rape?. The young man was found innocent by a court.

No rape occurred.

Just like Nicole Simpson wasn’t murdered, right?

And no, he wasn’t found innocent. Nobody is ever found innocent in a court,

El_Duderino 09

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

You aren't a fan of logic pal. Female barristers promote rape culture?. :rolleyes:

The person who spoke of the thong in court was a female barrister. Not a man, so you are saying female barristers promote rape culture?. It's astonishing how much rape culture feminists headers hate the truth.

Of course a woman or a barrister, or a woman who’s a barrister, could be a part of the problem. I don’t expect barristers to behave morally. I expect them to represent their clients.

I think it would be incredibly naive to think a woman couldn’t be part of the problem or solution. Similar to believing a man couldn’t be part of the Problem or solution. Very strange question.

Why did you think it was a good question?

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

The university settled with her "rapist" out of court and she released a sex tape to pornhub.

The case settled wasn’t to do with rape. And again - she made a video as an art piece. Is everyone on pornhub a ‘loon’?

Lonesomerhodes

Lonesomerhodes wrote: »

Not a fan of facts yourself like few on here. What rape?. The young man was found innocent by a court.

No rape occurred.

jaysis, angry much?
at the time of the court case, the female was the complainant, or if you would, the vicitm.

really doesn't matter, her underwear should not have been used in clsoing statements the way it was, it was disgraceful

banie01

alastair wrote: »

Just like Nicole Simpson wasn’t murdered, right?

And no, he wasn’t found innocent. Nobody is ever found innocent in a court,

As he entered court with a presumption of innocence, a not guilty verdict would confirm that presumption.

So while it is really just semantics, a not guilty verdict is a confirmation of ones innocence on a practical level.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Once again. The issue isn’t what’s permissible to present in court, it’s what’s deemed as a viable defence strategy to put before a jury. That speaks to an understanding of society which may well share those attitudes. That underwear choice has something to do with mitigating a claim of rape.

I’m not sure whether you’re being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely don’t understand that it was the defendants position that what occurred was not rape, and their defence are permitted to introduce evidence to support the defendants belief that what occurred was not rape, and they had no intent to commit rape. It was already determined by the Judge that in order for the defendant to receive a fair trial, the Jury must be allowed to hear the evidence presented by the defence.

You’re arguing from the position that you’ve already determined that what occurred was rape, and on that basis you would have decided that the defendant was guilty without ever hearing all the evidence, and that’s why it’s important for the defence to be permitted to use any evidence to make their case that the defendant should not be found guilty of rape, because to do otherwise would simply lead to an appeal on the basis that any conviction was unsafe.

It’s unsavoury for the alleged victims, no doubt, but far more unsavoury and an even bigger problem for society would be the idea of depriving innocent people of their liberty on the basis of an unsafe conviction for rape.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m not sure whether you’re being deliberately obtuse, or you genuinely don’t understand that it was the defendants position that what occurred was not rape, and their defence are permitted to introduce evidence to support the defendants belief that what occurred was not rape, and they had no intent to commit rape. It was already determined by the Judge that in order for the defendant to receive a fair trial, the Jury must be allowed to hear the evidence presented by the defence.

You’re arguing from the position that you’ve already determined that what occurred was rape, and on that basis you would have decided that the defendant was guilty without ever hearing all the evidence, and that’s why it’s important for the defence to be permitted to use any evidence to make their case that the defendant should not be found guilty of rape, because to do otherwise would simply lead to an appeal on the basis that any conviction was unsafe.

It’s unsavoury for the alleged victims, no doubt, but far more unsavoury and an even bigger problem for society would be the idea of denying innocent people of their liberty on the basis of an unsafe conviction for rape.

Every defendants position is that they’re not guilty of the crime. That - once again, is not the point. The point is that the strategy was felt, by the defence to be one of merit. That underwear choice is a mitigating argument.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

The case settled wasn’t to do with rape. And again - she made a video as an art piece. Is everyone on pornhub a ‘loon’?

lol, art piece. lets just say you'd be wise not to allow yourself to be in a room alone with her.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

As he entered court with a presumption of innocence, a not guilty verdict would confirm that presumption.

So while it is really just semantics, a not guilty verdict is a confirmation of ones innocence on a practical level.

No trial confirms a presumption of innocence. It’s not a state that exists outside a courtroom. The presumption of innocence only lasts the duration of trial and deliberation.

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

lol, art piece. lets just say you'd be wise not to allow yourself to be in a room alone with her.

Art student does art performances. If you’re concerned about this activity, steer clear of art colleges.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

Every defendants position is that they’re not guilty of the crime. That - once again, is not the point. The point is that the strategy was felt, by the defence to be one of merit. That underwear choice is a mitigating argument.

And it was determined by the Judge that the Jury should be permitted to consider that evidence in their deliberations. I completely get your argument that the evidence shouldn’t have been allowed to be presented or used by the defence in the way it was, I said myself at the time that it was a dangerous strategy that could have gone either way to influence the Jury, my point being that we simply have no way of knowing whether that piece of evidence specifically influenced the Jury one way or the other. It could have been any evidence, or a combination of evidence, but to have prohibited it could have led to a conviction which could have been overturned on appeal.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

Art student does art performances. If you’re concerned about this activity, steer clear of art colleges.

good advice. people used to graduate art colleges with an actual trade. now most are less employable than when they went in.

alastair

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And it was determined by the Judge that the Jury should be permitted to consider that evidence in their deliberations. I completely get your argument that the evidence shouldn’t have been allowed to be presented or used by the defence in the way it was, I said myself at the time that it was a dangerous strategy that could have gone either way to influence the Jury, my point being that we simply have no way of knowing whether that piece of evidence specifically influenced the Jury one way or the other. It could have been any evidence, or a combination of evidence, but to have prohibited it could have led to a conviction which could have been overturned on appeal.

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.

banie01

alastair wrote: »

Every defendants position is that they’re not guilty of the crime. That - once again, is not the point. The point is that the strategy was felt, by the defence to be one of merit. That underwear choice is a mitigating argument.

As much as it is distasteful, in rape cases the defendent has the opportunity to introduce a defence of "honest belief" as to the complainant's consent.
It is open to the defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was their belief at the time of the alleged offence.

That the defence strategy had merit in N.I is a matter for any appeal to consider. Its a bit naive however to presume that the acquital was solely due to her thong.

alastair wrote: »

No trial confirms a presumption of innocence. It’s not a state that exists outside a courtroom. The presumption of innocence only lasts the duration of trial and deliberation.

The presumption of innocence is paramount in ANY criminal proceeding.

One is innocent until proven guilty, leaving court with a "not guilty" verdict is a vindication of that presumption.
The accused faced the evidence, and on the presentation of the prosecution case was found not guilty.

Barring Scotland, where "not proven" is an available verdict every single not guilty verdict ever returned, is an affirmation of the accussed presumption of innocence!

That of course does not mean that they have not transgressed, but it does mean that they are legally innocent of the accusation.

Some common law jurisdictions are thankfully re-visiting the double jeopardy principle and where new evidence can be presented in UK cases and the Irish LRC has made recommendations for irish review on this topic.

That you do not like the verdict, doesn't really matter.
in so far as the criminal law is concerned, the accused by dint of a not guilty is vindicated and confirmed in the presumption of their innocence.

alastair

suicide_circus wrote: »

good advice. people used to graduate art colleges with an actual trade. now most are less employable than when they went in.

She seems to be doing just fine - residency in a Whitney post-grad and solo exhibitions.

alastair

banie01 wrote: »

As much as it is distasteful, in rape cases the defendent has the opportunity to introduce a defence of "honest belief" as to the complainant's consent.
It is open to the defendant to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was their belief at the time of the alleged offence.

That the defence strategy had merit in N.I is a matter for any appeal to consider. Its a bit naive however to presume that the acquital was solely due to her thong.





The presumption of innocence is paramount in ANY criminal proceeding.

One is innocent until proven guilty, leaving court with a "not guilty" verdict is a vindication of that presumption.
The accused faced the evidence, and on the presentation of the prosecution case was found not guilty.

Barring Scotland, where "not proven" is an available verdict every single not guilty verdict ever returned, is an affirmation of the accussed presumption of innocence!

That of course does not mean that they have not transgressed, but it does mean that they are legally innocent of the accusation.

Some common law jurisdictions are thankfully re-visiting the double jeopardy principle and where new evidence can be presented in UK cases and the Irish LRC has made recommendations for irish review on this topic.

That you do not like the verdict, doesn't really matter.
in so far as the criminal law is concerned, the accused by dint of a not guilty is vindicated and confirmed in the presumption of their innocence.

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.

creditcarder

meeeeh wrote: »

All statistics point to the fact that rape is incredibly hard to prosecute and under reported. So rational conclusion is it's highly unlikely you will ever be prosecuted even if you commit rape and there is even less of a chance it will be successful. And yet there seems to be some sort of insane paranoia that men will be falsely and successfully accused of rape left right and centre by unhinged women. A bit more rational thinking wouldn't go amiss.

Or you can live in fear of your gf or wife reporting you for rape every Saturday you want to have a bit of action. Are we really bringing on a generation of men who like to be imaginary victims just because their role in society is changing?

Sure, why don't you furnish those statistics and allow somebody who has no real education in creating studies to tear it apart in a few minutes for being absurd as it is. I mean, just because somebody reports a rape doesn't mean the rape actually happened especially with the blurring of definitions to bump up the statistics.



I find you rlast comment interesting. Just because of rising suicides, lack of employment, discrimination and various other factors. I guess they should just sit in the corner and be bellitled :P

creditcarder

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

I assume nobody is seriously insinuating that you can retrospectively withdraw consent, right?

Hmmmm, none of the regular posters are saying that you can't tbh.

One eyed Jack

alastair wrote: »

No trial confirms a presumption of innocence. It’s not a state that exists outside a courtroom. The presumption of innocence only lasts the duration of trial and deliberation.

That’s not correct. The right to the presumption of innocence is conferred by law on every citizen, and it is maintained when a person is found not guilty in a court of law. Therefore it’s entirely correct to say that a trial confirms the presumption of innocence if a person is found not guilty - they had that right already, as does everyone.

suicide_circus

alastair wrote: »

She seems to be doing just fine - residency in a Whitney post-grad and solo exhibitions.

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".

alastair

creditcarder wrote: »

Sure, why don't you furnish those statistics and allow somebody who has no real education in creating studies to tear it apart in a few minutes for being absurd as it is. I mean, just because somebody reports a rape doesn't mean the rape actually happened especially with the blurring of definitions to bump up the statistics.

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