Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Wife jailed for 'false retraction' of rape to appeal

Options
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Bad cases don't make good law.

    Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. ..and in a country where they have the death penality...


  • Options
    #33
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    What was the point in posting that second case, have you given up on the first?

    No it is another piece I have found today which I think shows up how screwed up the system is.
    SugarHigh wrote: »
    What legal reason do you have against the accused representing himself and then being able to cross examine a witness?

    Witness intimidation.

    Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.


  • Options
    #34
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    stimpson wrote: »
    It's innocent until proven guilty. And it's an alleged victim.

    You are talking as if the man is guilty in this case. Wasn't it only last year that an irish man was freed after years in jail for a false accusation?

    No Im not. What are you talking about?

    She was the prime witness to the alleged crime. Witnesses pull out all the time. Without witnesses you have no case.


  • Options
    #35
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    Extreme circumstances aren't justification for a bad policy. It is very telling that this thread is based on the assumption of guilt on the accused's behalf, when presumption of innocence or even the possibility of innocence are rejected, we get this thread.

    I appreciate what the OP is saying, but to create a policy where accusations can be raised and dropped repeatedly opens up innocent people to abuse and destruction by the legal system, weilded by any individual willing to do so.

    The justice system isn't ideal but in this case it has worked, either prosecute or do not, either tell the truth in your statement or do not, you cant have it both ways at someone elses expence and the expence of fairness in the legal process.


  • Options
    #36
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    No it is another piece I have found today which I think shows up how screwed up the system is.



    Witness intimidation.

    Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.

    If someone was seen to be intimidating a witness in a court room do you really think it would help their case?

    Your basically saying the right to defend yourself should be removed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Emme
    Registered Users Posts: 4,055 ✭✭✭Emme


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    I think jail time might be a mandatory sentence for this crime so the judge had no choice.

    Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.:confused:

    The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

    There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.


  • Options
    #38
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Emme wrote: »
    Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.:confused:

    The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

    There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.

    The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice [what a paradoxical choice of words for this] but none of intimidation by the inlaws [very hard to prove if its done in a subtle not overtly threatening way].


  • Options
    #39
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Thaedydal wrote: »
    Actually mods given the tenor and tone of the posts in this, might be better to move it to humanities.
    +1

    Can this be done please mods?


  • Options
    #40
    Buceph
    Registered Users Posts: 2,059 ✭✭✭Buceph


    Emme wrote: »
    Isn't jail a sentence for rape? If so why aren't more rapists jailed.:confused:

    Mitigating circumstances, just like how I believe there are mitigating circumstances here and that she shouldn't get a jail sentence.
    The woman concerned was accused of perverting the course of justice, but if she had been intimidated by her husband and others, surely they would also be guilty of perverting the course of justice and equally deserving of a jail sentence.

    Because for that to happen the women would have to make a complaint to the police, or to whoever was in charge of the original case. Seeing as she's been proven to be a liar, and hasn't used the defence of witness intimidation it's obvious she doesn't believe that.
    There would be far more of an outcry on the woman's behalf at this situation 10 or 20 years ago than there is today. This is chilling.



    No. It's the legal system working properly.

    Zulu wrote: »
    +1

    Can this be done please mods?


    If we're going to be back seat modding, then I disagree. This thread was started by a well respected member of the LL, and now that she sees people disagreeing with her viewpoint, wants it erased from LL history.


  • Options
    #41
    LegacyUser
    Registered Users Posts: 166,026 ✭✭✭✭LegacyUser


    There are two injustices which are possible in any legal case, be it a small matter or a large one.

    That an innocent person is charged with a crime they did not commit and is punished for it.

    That a guilty person commits a crime and pays no penalty for it.

    However we go about finding the truth and punishing those who deserve it, we will come up against one or the other of the situations above.

    Our Constitution guaruntees us the right to our good name, so our law decrees that it is more important for innocent people to remain free than for the guilty to get what they deserve.

    Yes, this means that there are men and women who rape get off scot free for lack of evidence. It also means that innocent men and women who have accusations made against them are shown for what they are, innocent.

    It is an unjust, imperfect system. but it's the best of a bad lot.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice but none of intimidation by the inlaws.
    So the justice system worked!
    The despicable thing here is the damage this cad of woman has done to every legitimate poor victim of rape. It's people like her that make it easier for guilty people to walk free. Her sentence is barley good enough for her tbh.


  • Options
    #43
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    No Im not. What are you talking about?

    She was the prime witness to the alleged crime. Witnesses pull out all the time. Without witnesses you have no case.

    You said innocent before being proved guilty. There is a difference. You also referred to her as a victim, the implication being that she had been raped, which has not been proven.

    And she didn't just "pull out". She admitted to making false statements to the police.


  • Options
    #44
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Zulu wrote: »
    +1

    Can this be done please mods?

    Please do not move this to Humanties. Humanities is exclusively for debating and other forms of dialogue are not welcome. I would rather this stay in the LL.


  • Options
    #45
    Emme
    Registered Users Posts: 4,055 ✭✭✭Emme


    Buceph wrote: »
    Seeing as she's been proven to be a liar, and hasn't used the defence of witness intimidation it's obvious she doesn't believe that.history.

    The victim wasn't proven to be a liar, she was proven to be perverting the course of justice.

    The victim brought a rape case to court (no mean feat) and then for reasons only known to the defendent and the accused, retracted the statement several times. It has not been proven whether she was raped or not, so she has not been proven to be a liar.


  • Options
    #46
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Buceph wrote: »
    If we're going to be back seat modding, then I disagree. This thread was started by a well respected member of the LL, and now that she sees people disagreeing with her viewpoint, wants it erased from LL history.
    who's doing the back seat modding? I supported a request, which would open the conversation significantly.


  • Options
    #47
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    stimpson wrote: »
    You said innocent before being proved guilty. There is a difference. You also referred to her as a victim, the implication being that she had been raped, which has not been proven.

    Ok I should refer to her as the accuser.


  • Options
    #48
    Stercus Accidit
    Registered Users Posts: 8,758 ✭✭✭Stercus Accidit


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    The thing is they had proof of her perverting justice [what a paradoxical choice of words for this] but none of intimidation by the inlaws [very hard to prove if its done in a subtle not overtly threatening way].

    Only one person has been shown to have been guilty of a crime, the others have had their cases quashed because the accuser had repeatedly changed their statements or retracted them.

    If people were calling for better witness protection, I'd understand, better womens shelters, I'd understand, but calling for the right to make false or otherwise accusations repeatedly and withdraw them without consequence? Thats lunacy, what you are calling for would open the floodgates and squash the protections we all have under the law.


  • Options
    #49
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Zulu wrote: »
    So the justice system worked!
    The despicable thing here is the damage this cad of woman has done to every legitimate poor victim of rape. It's people like her that make it easier for guilty people to walk free. Her sentence is barley good enough for her tbh.

    It does not mean it has worked at all. We dont know if it has worked or not because we dont know if there is a rapist walking free or not.


  • Options
    #50
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Emme wrote: »
    The victim wasn't proven to be a liar, she was proven to be perverting the course of justice.
    which kinda equates to the same thing no?
    The victim brought a rape case to court
    I think the victim was brought to court accused of rape, no?


  • Options
    #51
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Good points have been made about how dropping the accusation puts the innocent accused in an awful position, it also does sound like she repeatedly messed about with the police and they needed to do something

    But the awful thing is the message that will be absorbed by the masses is that if you report a rape you are risking prison on some level.

    Rape victims could end up thinking ''If I can't go through with this úntil the end I could end up in prison myself, probably best I just don't report it''

    I know she did actually pervert the course of justice, but the circumstances actually make that more semantics than fact. Really think a suspended sentence would have been a much better option here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Stercus Accidit wrote: »
    Only one person has been shown to have been guilty of a crime, the others have had their cases quashed because the accuser had repeatedly changed their statements or retracted them.

    If people were calling for better witness protection, I'd understand, better womens shelters, I'd understand, but calling for the right to make false or otherwise accusations repeatedly and withdraw them without consequence? Thats lunacy, what you are calling for would open the floodgates and squash the protections we all have under the law.

    I am not calling for any of that and not saying there should be no consequences. What I am saying is that the whole picture needs reform. And until there is better witness protection than this kind of thing is going to keep happenning and rape victims will stop coming forward.


  • Options
    #53
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    It does not mean it has worked at all. We dont know if it has worked or not because we dont know if there is a rapist walking free or not.
    Sure we do. We know someone was falsely accused of rape, and was vindicated & we know that their was a scurrilous liar who was found guilty.


  • Options
    #54
    stimpson
    Registered Users Posts: 7,815 ✭✭✭stimpson


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    It does not mean it has worked at all. We dont know if it has worked or not because we dont know if there is a rapist walking free or not.

    ...or if an innocent man has had his reputation destroyed because of false accusations.


  • Options
    #55
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Zulu wrote: »
    Sure we do. We know someone was falsely accused of rape, and was vindicated & we know that their was a scurrilous liar who was found guilty.

    We do? We know he was innocent? Can you point that out to me? I missed it.


  • Options
    #56
    IITYWYBMAD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    Zulu wrote: »
    Sure we do. We know someone was falsely accused of rape, and was vindicated & we know that their was a scurrilous liar who was found guilty.

    With all due respect, we don't know that. We do know she wasted a lot of police and CPS time and resource, we do not know if she was raped or not.


  • Options
    #57
    IITYWYBMAD
    Registered Users Posts: 1,035 ✭✭✭IITYWYBMAD


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Good points have been made about how dropping the accusation puts the innocent accused in an awful position, it also does sound like she repeatedly messed about with the police and they needed to do something

    But the awful thing is the message that will be absorbed by the masses is that if you report a rape you are risking prison on some level.

    Rape victims could end up thinking ''If I can't go through with this úntil the end I could end up in prison myself, probably best I just don't report it''

    I know she did actually pervert the course of justice, but the circumstances actually make that more semantics than fact. Really think a suspended sentence would have been a much better option here.

    I don't believe that that is the case at all. I think the word repeatedly is very telling in this case.


  • Options
    #58
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    Buceph wrote: »
    If we're going to be back seat modding, then I disagree. This thread was started by a well respected member of the LL, and now that she sees people disagreeing with her viewpoint, wants it erased from LL history.

    Hang on if I wanted it erased I could just delete my first post and deleted the whole thread.

    This had turned into a debate around certain issues which I think may be better suited to humanities so I made a request, to move it to open up the debate so the many male voices here wont' be hindered by the rules of this forum.


  • Options
    #59
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    We do? We know he was innocent? Can you point that out to me? I missed it.
    Well if he wasn't found guilty Metrovelvet he's considered innocent.
    IITYWYBMAD wrote: »
    With all due respect, we don't know that.
    :confused: I understood from the article that he wasn't found guilty, & that she was found guilty of obstructing the course of justice by repeatedly making false claims of rape. Did I get it wrong?


  • Options
    #60
    Emme
    Registered Users Posts: 4,055 ✭✭✭Emme


    Regardless of whether this woman was raped or not (and this HASN'T been proven), the present outcome of her case will discourage other victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting these crimes.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    Zulu wrote: »
    Sure we do. We know someone was falsely accused of rape, and was vindicated & we know that their was a scurrilous liar who was found guilty.

    Not true at all
    The wife, from Powys, was jailed at Mold Crown Court for admitting she had perverted the course of justice.

    But she was cleared of making a false allegation of rape.

    ...
    "We entered a not guilty plea on the false allegation of rape, which had been accepted.

    "In other words, the Crown accepted they fully believed her claim of rape.


Advertisement