RTÉ journo given 15months for sexually assaulting woman as she slept

And like I said, in my second paragraph that you initially quoted, you can discuss the “after the act.”

not my fault you didn’t realise this.

fact is the physical act (from their versions) lasted seconds.

This entire story is a case on point about how we have lost our sense of proportionality around sexual crimes. What the guy did was rude, and I think her initial reaction (texting him to complain about his actions) was fair. But does it merit a custodial sentence? No way. Sorry, but criminal justice system should not exist to punish every single interpersonal dispute. Sometimes calling someone an asshole, telling all your female friends not to date him and never speaking to them again is the appropriate remedy.

So yeah, the guy was a jerk - but she also needs to get over herself. Locking someonel up is a big deal. Quite apart from the impact on his life (he's a jerk, so I don't really care about his feelings) it costs the state a lot of money to keep him in prison for a year. Also, he's not employable anymore so he's likely to rely on social welfare when he gets out. He has gone from being a taxpayer to being dependent on state handouts.So the question is - are her feelings about him being a prick worth all of this? No.

She didn't lock him up though, she reported an assault, and upon investigation the DPP decided there was a case to answer, then at the case, after hearing all the evidence, he was convicted of a crime, then he was sentenced to prison.

If you are in anyway au fait with the DPP, they are fairly reluctant to pursue sexual cases because unless there's violence or cameras, it ultimately boils down to he said she said, which in this case was the same thing, so he locked himself up.

That was an absolute fcuk up on their part, I absolutely agree, and the counterpoint is the failure to proceed against "famous Irish sports person" but the point stands, they are infamously reluctant to pursue sexual cases

And I agree with you...and can completely understand the frustration of women who don't see justice when it comes to serious sexual assault.

But that wasn't a fcuk up...it was deliberate, the DPP is not stopping any cases that involve any element of perceived gendered assault, the legal system is full of cases across the country that include a variety of incidents, the Syl Fox case is not an outlier. So Syl was "lucky" it moved through the system so quickly, most young fellas in the same category of offence can lost 3 -4 years of their life regardless of how spurious the accusation.

This has been tried across US College Campuses over the last decade....most women will not pursue flippant cases, but a few will, as is evidenced by the numbers in the Title 9 cases in the US.

The current DPP is not stopping any cases that involve any degree of gendered violence/assault of any description, the case will proceed to court, that is my understanding, regardless of evidence, in an attempt to increase convictions for Gendered assault/violence, the nation has been whipped into a serious frenzy when it comes to the issue, as evidenced at the time of the tragic Aishling Murphy case but was brewing before that, as evidenced by the Carlow School teacher debacle....

Because of the sheer volume of cases and covid the duration of time it takes for the case to proceed is much longer and getting longer....in short, it's a s##tshow!

It won't

The point about the Murphy case isn’t that it is being brought to court, it is to illustrate the hype/frenzy that people have mentioned about it relating to gender violence.

The DPP are prosecuting this based off nothing but evidence. The poster (Silentcorner) isn’t claiming otherwise.

It doesn’t matter if the man buys her drink or not. If she got herself drunk and makes a complaint the next morning it is still sexual assault. It is not legal to sleep with a drunk person.

It is not possible for a drunk person to consent, so yes it is a crime. There have not been complaints made but like the case we are discussing anyone in that situation can make a complaint at any time.

Hold on. Can you please show me where in law it says it is a crime to sleep with a drunk person?

consent is the key: you’re missing the point.

fmany many many drunk people sleep together. Are we now saying that all these instances were crimes?

For a complaint to be upheld, the law looks at consent. Just because you have taken alcohol, does not automatically mean that you cannot consent.

like I said. You can say you didn’t consent as you were “drunk,” and this will be investigated, and the accused can, of course challenge this.

Agreed. It is very dangerous area for people. For my son when of age, my advice (the way things are going) would be to nearly get a written document done up for some encounters. It can be such a minefield and muddy area to navigate, with a lot of he said/she said.

example of the I was drunk claim: man and woman both drunk or tipsy or whatever way to describe engage in sex. Next day woman says she was drunk and did not consent. Man says he was drunk as well and he and her were both willing participants, and nothing in her demeanour or body language indicated to him that this was not lawful engagement….. this is why it can be so tricky and complex. What is consent here? A written and signed document before engagement? A verbal yes cannot be proved or disproved, unless it was recorded!

other thing: saying/claiming you were drunk is one thing. How can you prove it, unless you did a test? Or had verified and corroborative evidence to show you were.

just saying it doesn’t always mean it’s true and accepted by a court. Otherwise any woman could use alcohol in a complaint against a man. Genuine complaint or false complaint.

I think this may actually be the take away from this whole thread.