Why should this judge not be held accountable?

Offy

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gangrape-woman-arrested-during-trial-following-overdose-3017017.html

I asked in a previous thread why judges are not held accountable, it raised a bit of a storm. So now I ask again why are judges allowed to do things like what is pointed out in the newspaper article and not be held accountable.

johnnyskeleton

They were found not guilty. Presumably the jury didn't believe her. Therefore, there is a possibility that she made a false complaint to the gardai, the three accused spent perhaps a year in custody awaiting trial, and then when she realises that she had been found out, tried to evade the authorities.

What would you do, were you the judge in those circumstances?

Ashashi

Justice Carney has been known to stir controversy. Though, the jury found them not guilty so I see no wrong with this apart from Justice Carney speaking his mind.

Offy

Offy wrote: »

Its no wonder so many rapes remain unreported.

Alleged victim and alleged rapists. He was required to apply the law. I don't necessarily agree with the manner in which certain matters were handled but if these men are to be found guilty of a serious crime the jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. If there is confusion as to who precisely the alleged victim says did what then that matter must be clarified.

MagicSean

If the RCC had their way victims would be able to give evidence by way of a written statement. The fact is that the jury have to make a decision on the credibility of the witness and the defence have a right to question them. I don't see how you can call them rapists when it's just as possible she could have been lying.

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

by putting the victim through the horrific ordeal of re-living the event just feet away from the accused. Its no wonder so many rapes remain unreported.

That's not the judge that's the system, and it's a system that exists across the world and has stood the test of time, and for good reason.

Of course, if someone accused you of rape and you were assumed to be guilty, locked up in remand and were denied the opportunity to cross examine, you'd have different complaints then.

In reality, if you accuse someone else of a crime, in the case of rape one of the most serious crimes, you can't just retract it after the accused has spent time in jail because you don't want to be asked any questions that would disprove tour allegations. You have to stand by your allegations, I don't think that is unreasonable.

This comes in the same week that someone was prosecuted for making a demonstrably false allegation of rape. It is often said that an allegation of rape is easyto make but very hard to disprove.

But you might explain why this principle of the presumption of innocence, the right to confront your accuser, the right to test the evidence against you and the right to a fair trial offends youso much?

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Presumably the jury didn't believe her. Therefore, there is a possibility that she made a false complaint to the gardai, the three accused spent perhaps a year in custody awaiting trial, and then when she realises that she had been found out, tried to evade the authorities.

What would you do, were you the judge in those circumstances?

Your making one hell of an asumption there. So nobody that commited a crime ever got away with it? OJ who?

Not really, I never said thy were innocent, just that there is the possibility, you have to accept, thatthe allegation is actually false. Should the judge turn his eye to this very real danger to appease the growing lobby that wishes to make rape trials easier by making the truth finding exercise harder.

But besides, you haven't answered my question, what would you do if you were the judge?

crystalmice

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is often said that an allegation of rape is easyto make but very hard to disprove.

That quote is generally used as an example of the institutional bias against rape victims; while I totally agree that false allegations of rape are appalling, and of course if someone is found innocent than there is a possibility that the accusations were false (among the countless other reasons; rape can be so murky that it is one of the few areas where both parties can genuinely believe they are totally in the right), quoting 18th century sexist jurisprudence is wholly unnecessary and undermines the otherwise good points in the post.

johnnyskeleton

crystalmice wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It is often said that an allegation of rape is easyto make but very hard to disprove.

That quote is generally used as an example of the institutional bias against rape victims; while I totally agree that false allegations of rape are appalling, and of course if someone is found innocent than there is a possibility that the accusations were false (among the countless other reasons; rape can be so murky that it is one of the few areas where both parties can genuinely believe they are totally in the right), quoting 18th century sexist jurisprudence is wholly unnecessary and undermines the otherwise good points in the post.

But it's just as true now as it was when it was uttered, and I am quite disturbed with some of te proposals for reform in this area. Some reforms are good eg proceedigs in camera, counsel for the complainant separate to the prosecution counsel etc. Others are debateable such as requiring leave to cross examine on past sexual history, non mandatory recent complaint warning and so on.

But suffice it to say that substanital efforts have been made to redress the difficulties faced by complainants and it's still not enough for the lobby who won't seem to be happy until the mere assertion of rape is enough to lock someone up for ten to life.

You say there is an institutional bias but where is your evidence that it is an unfair view? The reality is that a complaint of rape is easily made - more easily than a complaint of assault causing harm or of pickpocketing. The reality is also that not all complaints of rape are true. Thus, there has to be a system in place to determine the truth or otherwise.

The RCC lobby will say that the low level of reporting to the police is due to lack of confidence in the system. But really, does that stand up? Is it not also possible that they don't have confidence in their own story? Indeed, if you were genuinely raped would you really put a perception of unfairness in the system ahead of having the case heard? More importantly, would you not if you believed the complaint to be true at least go to the gardai / hospital and report it, even if it goes no further on your request?

The next stage of attrition is the numbers going from the gardai to the dpp. Again, the institutional bias is claimed. But what are gardai to do where there is no person identified as the accused, or where there is some other reason for it not to be sent to the dpp.

Next, there is the percied bias in the dpps office in deciding whether to proescute. Well, let's see if the new does anything different but if there is no real chance of a conviction why put someone through a trial.

Finally there is the trial. Bu if the complaint here is that the accused gets to cross examine the complainant I see no problem with that.

So I stand by the view that it is easy to allege hard to disprove. I have seen no unbiased evidence to suggest otherwise or how the system can be improved without losing the protections of a fair trial.

ResearchWill

Offy wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gangrape-woman-arrested-during-trial-following-overdose-3017017.html

I asked in a previous thread why judges are not held accountable, it raised a bit of a storm. So now I ask again why are judges allowed to do things like what is pointed out in the newspaper article and not be held accountable for aiding rapists and tormenting victims?

All I can say after reading that report, is that there is something missing from the reporting. Carney is the main judge in the Central, do most rapes go through his court. From what I know he is a very fair judge, while he is know for his outbursts from what I have seen many of them are at best incorrectly reported.

I just don't think we are getting the full story here, not because the Jorno is misleading us but because he does not have the full story either. Rape cases are the hardest cases to be involved in be you victim, lawyers, judge or jury and while there is need for some further reform, that reform cannot tilt the balance unfairly against the accused.

That story can also be looked at another way, because of a persons refusal to turn up and give evidence the accused cannot really clear their name in fact if it had been reported that this event happened and trial collapsed due to no show a lot of people would have thought witness was knobbled.

theAwakening

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But it's just as true now as it was when it was uttered, and I am quite disturbed with some of te proposals for reform in this area. Some reforms are good eg proceedigs in camera, counsel for the complainant separate to the prosecution counsel etc. Others are debateable such as requiring leave to cross examine on past sexual history, non mandatory recent complaint warning and so on.

johnny just wondering could u elaborate on requiring leave to cross examine on past sexual history & non mandatory recent complaint warning you've mentioned....what are the rules or where is it legislated?

berrypendel

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Presumably the jury didn't believe her. Therefore, there is a possibility that she made a false complaint to the gardai, the three accused spent perhaps a year in custody awaiting trial, and then when she realises that she had been found out, tried to evade the authorities.

What would you do, were you the judge in those circumstances?

would there not be forensic evidence from when she reported it to the gardai?

dermot_sheehan

I've had to edit this thread and I want to add this to be very clear.

Alleging that someone who has been acquitted of a crime is actually guilty of the crime can be considered defamatory and if it interferes with the administration of justice a contempt of the court that acquitted the accused.

Alleging that a trial judge purposively aids perpetrators of serious crimes and harms victims can be considered defamatory of the judge in question and if it interferes with the administration of justice a contempt of the court the judge presides over.

johnnyskeleton

theAwakening wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But it's just as true now as it was when it was uttered, and I am quite disturbed with some of te proposals for reform in this area. Some reforms are good eg proceedigs in camera, counsel for the complainant separate to the prosecution counsel etc. Others are debateable such as requiring leave to cross examine on past sexual history, non mandatory recent complaint warning and so on.

johnny just wondering could u elaborate on requiring leave to cross examine on past sexual history & non mandatory recent complaint warning you've mentioned....what are the rules or where is it legislated?

certainly

past sexual history not permitted without the leave of court s 3 1981 rape act

non mandatory warning s7 1990 rape act, it's now in the judges discretion.

Lists of case law on each but some judges take the view that no cross examination on prev history unless absolutely essential and take the view that there should never be a recent complaint warning, the latter o believe was upheld by the cca.

Certainly the recent complaint warning is a tricky issue, it allows the prosecution to call hearsay which can be seen as a previous consistent statement. Equally, any inconsistencies in the other persons recollection might be unfairly held against the complainant. Better rid of the law overall.

In re: cross examination restrictions, as long a this is done fairly there is no major problem in my view. Establishing a history of untrue rape allegations or of consensual liasons with the accused are probably relevant, allegations of being a fast woman are almost certainly not.

The point being there are already major restrictions that don't exist in other prosecutions.

johnnyskeleton

berrypendel wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

They were found not guilty. Presumably the jury didn't believe her. Therefore, there is a possibility that she made a false complaint to the gardai, the three accused spent perhaps a year in custody awaiting trial, and then when she realises that she had been found out, tried to evade the authorities.

What would you do, were you the judge in those circumstances?

would there not be forensic evidence from when she reported it to the gardai?

Maybe. I don't know if there was or not.

But the jury evidently were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Just to be clear, that doesn't mean her complaint was false, just that the judge was reasonable to inquire

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not really, I never said thy were innocent, just that there is the possibility, you have to accept, thatthe allegation is actually false. Should the judge turn his eye to this very real danger to appease the growing lobby that wishes to make rape trials easier by making the truth finding exercise harder.

But besides, you haven't answered my question, what would you do if you were the judge?

I do not have to accept any such thing as it happens. What the judge should do imo is remain professional and unemotional, he did not do so in either this case or previous cases.
As to what I would do if I was the judge, how do you suggest anyone can answer this? I would have to have been in court for every sitting and have all evidence made available to me to answer that question. Are you offering a complete transcript along with all evidence or are you trying to shine the spotlight away from my point?
I certainly would not "arrested and imprisoned during the trial" any potential victim "because she refused to give evidence". That is an act of a bully and anyone that makes it to the position of judge should be above such draconian behaviour. So once again I ask why a judge that is at work should not be held accountable for their actions?

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not really, I never said thy were innocent, just that there is the possibility, you have to accept, thatthe allegation is actually false. Should the judge turn his eye to this very real danger to appease the growing lobby that wishes to make rape trials easier by making the truth finding exercise harder.

But besides, you haven't answered my question, what would you do if you were the judge?

I do not have to accept any such thing as it happens. What the judge should do imo is remain professional and unemotional, he did not do so in either this case or previous cases.
As to what I would do if I was the judge, how do you suggest anyone can answer this? I would have to have been in court for every sitting and have all evidence made available to me to answer that question. Are you offering a complete transcript along with all evidence or are you trying to shine the spotlight away from my point?
I certainly would not "arrested and imprisoned during the trial" any potential victim "because she refused to give evidence". That is an act of a bully and anyone that makes it to the position of judge should be above such draconian behaviour. So once again I ask why a judge that is at work should not be held accountable for their actions?

So you don't acceptthat a false allegation of rape could possibly occur? I see now what your issue is, you think everyone is guitly. I can tell you with absolute certainty that you're in the minority there.

Likewise, you make no sense in saying you can't say what should have been done because you weren't in court, but can tell us what shouldn't be done?

In fact, you have skipped all analysis of what should or should not happen and have gone straight to the conclusion that putting someone in prison to secure their attendance in court is bullying tactics. How else do you secure a persons attendance other than by bringing them to court when they will not voluntarily go?

I really don't se any substance to your criticisms, since you cannot say what the alternative should be.

So how can you ask that he be held to account when you can't web articulate why what you think he did was wrong.

MagicSean

berrypendel wrote: »

would there not be forensic evidence from when she reported it to the gardai?

Evidence of sex is not evidence of rape. Rape requires an absense of consent and no amount of physical evidence on its own can prove that conclusively

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So you don't acceptthat a false allegation of rape could possibly occur? I see now what your issue is, you think everyone is guitly. I can tell you with absolute certainty that you're in the minority there.

Likewise, you make no sense in saying you can't say what should have been done because you weren't in court, but can tell us what shouldn't be done?

In fact, you have skipped all analysis of what should or should not happen and have gone straight to the conclusion that putting someone in prison to secure their attendance in court is bullying tactics. How else do you secure a persons attendance other than by bringing them to court when they will not voluntarily go?

I really don't se any substance to your criticisms, since you cannot say what the alternative should be.

So how can you ask that he be held to account when you can't web articulate why what you think he did was wrong.

Have you ever heard of an adjournment? Perhaps give the woman a little time (and therapy if necessary) to compose herself? Or are you of the belief that someone can be raped and immediately recover to the extent they can give a coherent statement? Perhaps you think a year is enough time to recover from a rape? That is a question to you by the way.
I do accept that a false allegation of rape or any other crime for that matter can be made. Would you like to continue to attempt to twist my words in an attempt to win a debate? You sir have spent too many years in court twisting and manipulating facts to win cases I suspect. A tactic that many solicitors employ, this isn’t court, this is the real world.
If her complaint is untrue then imho she should be put in jail but that is a SEPERATE case of false allegation. This case was about rape not false allegation.
“During the trial the eastern European woman was made stand directly in front of the three accused and identify each one, a highly unusual practice. The next day she left a note for her partner saying she was so terrified she could not face coming to court again.” The judge put her in a horrible position and she cracked, understandable imo.
“When gardai tracked her down she was rushed to hospital after they found she had taken sleeping pills along with half a bottle of vodka.”
Typical behaviour of a rape victim.
“The trial was abandoned and she was brought before the court the next day in custody. She was kept in the holding cells for the day until a jury could be sworn in for a second trial.”
Why was the trial abandoned? Was it because she cracked under the pressure the judge put her under? Do you approve of this tactic?
"Don't be mad, I can't go today," the note read. "I'm terrified. I love you. I will be with my friends."
She simply wanted support, understandable for any rape victim.
“Ellen O'Malley Dunlop of the Rape Crisis Centre criticised a trial process as making the complainants "feel they are the ones on trial and not the accused".”
I agree.
"One of the main reasons for this high fallout rate is because complainants decide not to put themselves through what they say is a re-victimising experience of a court process."
Do you accept this is the case or would you argue differently?

I will also add for the record that the newspaper that reported this case is often inaccurate in its facts, I fully accept this. Regardless of this I believe this woman behaviour matches the behaviour of rape victims therefore in this instance I believe the report.

Putting an alleged rape victim in prison because they are having trouble coping is bullying. Period. If she was lying then clear the names of the accused. Put her on trial and then if and only if she is found guilty put her in prison.

johnnyskeleton

Just quickly,

1. An adjournment would mean the men remain in custody for six months to a year, after perhaps a year in custody already. Hardly fair on them.

2. I never claimed to be speaking from court experience, but from basic common sense. How else do the courts function other than by issuing a bench warrant to secure her attendance?

3. Could she not have told the gardai or the proecution or her own barrister or her own solicitor or the rape crisis centre or her rape crsis centre court assistant or her mother or her boyfriend or a randomer onthese streets rather than just running away?

4. How come people don't have the same problems in other types of case?

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

1. An adjournment would mean the men remain in custody for six months to a year, after perhaps a year in custody already. Hardly fair on them.

When was either life or law fair? Fair has nothing to do with law. Law is about whats written down in black and white and is very often unfair. Such is life and such is the law.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

2. I never claimed to be speaking from court experience, but from basic common sense. How else do the courts function other than by issuing a bench warrant to secure her attendance?

Adjournments are common in court cases. It can take a rape victim a lifetime to heal, whats the problem with the courts been patient? The article said the hospital released her after an attempted suicide and stated she was fit for a court case. Id like to know what kind of doctor made this claim and are they qualified to deal with the mental and emotional aspect of rape or do they simply pump out stomachs and certify that there is no immediate danger of overdose from the pharmaceuticals ingested? The latter has no place in stating that she was fit to testify.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

3. Could she not have told the gardai or the proecution or her own barrister or her own solicitor or the rape crisis centre or her rape crsis centre court assistant or her mother or her boyfriend or a randomer onthese streets rather than just running away?

Do you know any rape victims? Sometimes they have difficulty coping. If you want them to give coherent meaningful evidence you cant bully them into it, that just wont work. You have to wait until they are ready. Once you break someone’s mind it can take years of support to piece back together. Judges should know this from experience or alternatively from experts that should be used in rape cases. Just because judges have absolute power over human laws does not mean they have absolute power over the laws of science. They in reality have no power over the laws of science. The mind is to fragile a thing the dictate when it will work and when it wont.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

4. How come people don't have the same problems in other types of case?

Perhaps because rape condemns the victim for a life of absolute hell. I compare it to murder except the victim is not medically dead, they have to live the rest of their life in hell. The effects of rape destroys not only the victim but also their family and friends added to the many people they have to interact with for the rest of their life.

Procrastastudy

Offy wrote: »

When was either life or law fair? Fair has nothing to do with law. Law is about whats written down in black and white and is very often unfair. Such is life and such is the law.

What a lot of rubbish spend 5 minutes researching the Common Law system and the Irish Constitution.

Offy wrote: »

Adjournments are common in court cases. It can take a rape victim a lifetime to heal, whats the problem with the courts been patient? The article said the hospital released her after an attempted suicide and stated she was fit for a court case. Id like to know what kind of doctor made this claim and are they qualified to deal with the mental and emotional aspect of rape or do they simply pump out stomachs and certify that there is no immediate danger of overdose from the pharmaceuticals ingested? The latter has no place in stating that she was fit to testify.

So you know ore than the Judge and a Doctor now. Jesus I had half the degrees you seem to!

Offy wrote: »

Do you know any rape victims? Sometimes they have difficulty coping. If you want them to give coherent meaningful evidence you cant bully them into it, that just wont work. You have to wait until they are ready. Once you break someone’s mind it can take years of support to piece back together. Judges should know this from experience or alternatively from experts that should be used in rape cases. Just because judges have absolute power over human laws does not mean they have absolute power over the laws of science. They in reality have no power over the laws of science. The mind is to fragile a thing the dictate when it will work and when it wont.

Do you know anyone who was falsely accused of rape? The stigma this attaches. The fact that it ruins someones life because people just assume they are guilty.

Offy wrote: »

Perhaps because rape condemns the victim for a life of absolute hell. I compare it to murder except the victim is not medically dead, they have to live the rest of their life in hell. The effects of rape destroys not only the victim but also their family and friends added to the many people they have to interact with for the rest of their life.

I get the impression that your impassioned but unreasoned arguments are due to a personal / family trauma. I hope you find closure but I'm not sure boards is the place to look for it.

investment

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just quickly,

1. An adjournment would mean the men remain in custody for six months to a year, after perhaps a year in custody already. Hardly fair on them.

Spot on horse....

He made the right call..how he called it will always be debatable from the left

Reloc8

Feckin' judges grrrrrrr

Offy wrote: »

Id like to know what kind of doctor made this claim and are they qualified to deal with the mental and emotional aspect of rape or do they simply pump out stomachs and certify that there is no immediate danger of overdose from the pharmaceuticals ingested? The latter has no place in stating that she was fit to testify.

Feckin' doctors grrrrrrrrrrrrr


Down with this sort of thing !

Ah no seriously I wouldn't agree with you at all. Mind yourself now

johnnyskeleton

Offy wrote: »

When was either life or law fair? Fair has nothing to do with law. Law is about whats written down in black and white and is very often unfair. Such is life and such is the law.

You are asserting fairness for the complainant but will conveniently ignore fairness for the accused. Fairness, in my view means that if the court can imprison an accused in order to get them to attend, they can also imprison a complainant who does not show up.

Adjournments are common in court cases. It can take a rape victim a lifetime to heal, whats the problem with the courts been patient? The article said the hospital released her after an attempted suicide and stated she was fit for a court case. Id like to know what kind of doctor made this claim and are they qualified to deal with the mental and emotional aspect of rape or do they simply pump out stomachs and certify that there is no immediate danger of overdose from the pharmaceuticals ingested? The latter has no place in stating that she was fit to testify.

Cases where the accused is in custody should take priority. They had probably already waited a year.

Do you know any rape victims? Sometimes they have difficulty coping. If you want them to give coherent meaningful evidence you cant bully them into it, that just wont work. You have to wait until they are ready. Once you break someone’s mind it can take years of support to piece back together. Judges should know this from experience or alternatively from experts that should be used in rape cases. Just because judges have absolute power over human laws does not mean they have absolute power over the laws of science. They in reality have no power over the laws of science. The mind is to fragile a thing the dictate when it will work and when it wont.



Perhaps because rape condemns the victim for a life of absolute hell. I compare it to murder except the victim is not medically dead, they have to live the rest of their life in hell. The effects of rape destroys not only the victim but also their family and friends added to the many people they have to interact with for the rest of their life.

And yet violent assault / robbery / burglary etc does not have the same effect? I think rape has become too much of a political issue and a disproportionate weight is out on the horrors of going to court. The horrors of being accused of a crime are much worse than those of being a prosecution witness, lets be honest about that.

Offy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

What a lot of rubbish spend 5 minutes researching the Common Law system and the Irish Constitution.

Keep studying mate.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

So you know ore than the Judge and a Doctor now. Jesus I had half the degrees you seem to!

Ive only two and nether are in law. I dont claim to know more about the law than any judge nor do I claim to know more about medicine than any doctor. Can you point out where Ive made such claims?

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Do you know anyone who was falsely accused of rape? The stigma this attaches. The fact that it ruins someones life because people just assume they are guilty.

I do as it happens and Im of the opinion that they got over it a lot quicker than any rape victim that I know of.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I get the impression that your impassioned but unreasoned arguments are due to a personal / family trauma. I hope you find closure but I'm not sure boards is the place to look for it.

I dont think that can happen as my wife committed suicide several years ago. Both myself and our children have to live with that for the rest of our lives. Your lack of empathy for rape victims and the fact that your studying law is really scary.

Offy

Reloc8 wrote: »

Feckin' judges grrrrrrr



Feckin' doctors grrrrrrrrrrrrr


Down with this sort of thing !

Ah no seriously I wouldn't agree with you at all. Mind yourself now

Thanks for the laugh, I needed that

Offy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You are asserting fairness for the complainant but will conveniently ignore fairness for the accused. Fairness, in my view means that if the court can imprison an accused in order to get them to attend, they can also imprison a complainant who does not show up.

Fair point. Surly if they were imprisoned for so long there had to be some suspicion of guilt?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Cases where the accused is in custody should take priority. They had probably already waited a year.

I acept that fully.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

And yet violent assault / robbery / burglary etc does not have the same effect? I think rape has become too much of a political issue and a disproportionate weight is out on the horrors of going to court. The horrors of being accused of a crime are much worse than those of being a prosecution witness, lets be honest about that.

I dont believe it has as long a lasting an effect if Im to be honest. I also disagree with your comment about the horrors of being accused of such a crime being much worse than those of being the prosecution witness, assuming the prosecution witness is a rape victim. Are such cases not held in camera? Does that not mean the identity of the accused remain secret? Whether a rape victims identity remains a secret or not does not help a rape victim deal with the trauma of being raped. At lease with a false accusation the accused identity isnt known to anyone thats not directly related to the case. Even if nobody knows someone was raped it doesn’t help deal with the trauma of being raped now does it?

Procrastastudy

My lack of empathy - where have I shown a lack of empathy? You in your very first post suggested professionalism and leaving emotions out of it.

You've made many baseless indictments of the Irish legal system without considering both sides. Your advocacy of the victims rights should probably be applauded - it becomes very difficult to do so when you take on the role of a fanatic - failing to see that there are two sides to every story. You also fail to consider the complexities of individual circumstances. One woman may handle a rape better that another, and in the same way one falsely accused may handle the situation better than another.

Take the scenario that tomorrow a guy is falsely accused of a rape - thinking that he won't get a fair trial and facing time on remand in appalling prisons he hangs himself. The whole system HAS to be a balancing act. You can't just make a sweeping generalisation that one party should have more rights than the other.

The problem with rape as has been stated above, is that evidence of sex is not evidence of rape. You jump to conclusions about this womans behaviour based on a single newspaper article. Her actions could just as easily be attributable to someone who had falsely accused several men of rape and now couldn't deal with the guilt.

I'm interested to hear what your suggestions are for reform - reforms that should be fair to all parties. As for judges being held accountable, there are juries, there are appeals and there is the option to take out a private civil prosecution. None of these are infallible - to either side.

Offy

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Take the scenario that tomorrow a guy is falsely accused of a rape - thinking that he won't get a fair trial and facing time on remand in appalling prisons he hangs himself. The whole system HAS to be a balancing act. You can't just make a sweeping generalisation that one party should have more rights than the other.

Im not saying one party should have more rights than the other. What I said was "I dont believe it has as long a lasting an effect if Im to be honest." The effect of false accusation and the effect of rape has nothing to do with the rights of each. Again what I said is being twisted to suit the needs of the debate.

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

The problem with rape as has been stated above, is that evidence of sex is not evidence of rape. You jump to conclusions about this womans behaviour based on a single newspaper article. Her actions could just as easily be attributable to someone who had falsely accused several men of rape and now couldn't deal with the guilt.

All of the above is true but your not taking into account something called "behavioural profiling" which is commonly used by detectives to determine innocent or guild. The newspaper describes actions typical of a rape victim which is why I suspect she is a rape victim. Regardless I dont believe the judges actions, ie imprisoning her in order to get her to testify could ever work with a rape victim. Rape victims cocoon themselves and once in a cocoon only a trained professional has any chance of getting through to them. Thats what psychoanalyst are for. Judges typically are not trained to do this so why not let the professionals do their job instead of using draconian methods to extract a testimony?

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

I'm interested to hear what your suggestions are for reform - reforms that should be fair to all parties. As for judges being held accountable, there are juries, there are appeals and there is the option to take out a private civil prosecution. None of these are infallible - to either side.

As to reform, make everyone accountable for their actions. There was a post here recently where a politician used the constitution to evade drink driving charges and I didnt see one person say he was right to do so. Why should any member of society be above the law? I see nothing unfair to any party about that, do you?

Lets suppose just for one minute that the woman was in a car crash on her way to court the day of that court case. Would the judge not adjourn the case if that happened on medical reasons? But she wasnt in a car crash, she had some kind of mental or emotional breakdown and I am supposed to believe that thats not a medical condition? So why not get the relevant professionals to determine if she faking it rather than throwing her in a cell? If someone was actually in a car crash on their way to a court case and they got thrown in a cell because they didn’t appear what you your opinion of that be? Would you approve?

source

Offy wrote: »

Im not saying one party should have more rights than the other.

Offy, I'm sorry but I have to call shenanigans on this, Below are the relevant quotes where you intimate that the alleged victim should have more rights than the alleged perpetrators.

Firstly you asked if Johnnyskeleton had ever heard of an adjournment in order to give the alleged victim more time to prepare for the case.

Offy wrote: »

Have you ever heard of an adjournment? Perhaps give the woman a little time (and therapy if necessary) to compose herself? Or are you of the belief that someone can be raped and immediately recover to the extent they can give a coherent statement? Perhaps you think a year

Johnnyskeleton then explained to you that it would mean the alleged perpetrators would have to remain in custody for the duration of the adjournment, and that this wouldn't be fair to the alleged perpetrators.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Just quickly,

1. An adjournment would mean the men remain in custody for six months to a year, after perhaps a year in custody already. Hardly fair on them.

To which you replied:

Offy wrote: »

When was either life or law fair? Fair has nothing to do with law. Law is about whats written down in black and white and is very often unfair. Such is life and such is the law.


Adjournments are common in court cases. It can take a rape victim a lifetime to heal, whats the problem with the courts been patient?

So in one breath you're saying that the alleged victim should have more time to heal (up to and including a lifetime), and with the next you believe that the alleged perpetrators should remain behind bars while the alleged victim gets herself together, and your response to the fact that it's not fair on the alleged perpetrators, is that life isn't fair????

Come on Offy, you quite obviously believe that the alleged victim should have more rights than the alleged perpetrators.

Procrastastudy

Offy wrote: »

I'm not saying one party should have more rights than the other. What I said was "I don't believe it has as long a lasting an effect if I'm to be honest." The effect of false accusation and the effect of rape has nothing to do with the rights of each. Again what I said is being twisted to suit the needs of the debate.

I really don't think your words are being twisted but I concede that we have perhaps moved off the central point which is the way the case was managed.

Offy wrote: »

All of the above is true but your not taking into account something called "behavioural profiling" which is commonly used by detectives to determine innocent or guild.

I think this is what worries me a bit about your point of view. A court determines innocence and guilt.

Offy wrote: »

Judges typically are not trained to do this so why not let the professionals do their job instead of using draconian methods to extract a testimony?

There has to be a balance between the rights of the victim and accused. I won't comment on an individual case but you have a point that this balance isn't always correctly struck.

Offy wrote: »

As to reform, make everyone accountable for their actions. There was a post here recently where a politician used the constitution to evade drink driving charges and I didn't see one person say he was right to do so. Why should any member of society be above the law? I see nothing unfair to any party about that, do you?

People often confuse the defference to the court system with it being above the Law and unaccountable. There are various methods for holding the system to account but again a balance has to be struck. Unfortunately there will always be someone who abuses a system. I think its interesting you mention a TD who is selected by the people. These little blighter's always seem to be in some sort of trouble. Now we all know that there have been some bad apples on the bench but you see a lot less "misbehaviour" from Judges - who go though a rigorous selection process than you do from the TDs!

Offy wrote: »

Lets suppose just for one minute that the woman was in a car crash on her way to court the day of that court case. Would the judge not adjourn the case if that happened on medical reasons? But she wasn't in a car crash, she had some kind of mental or emotional breakdown and I am supposed to believe that thats not a medical condition? So why not get the relevant professionals to determine if she faking it rather than throwing her in a cell? If someone was actually in a car crash on their way to a court case and they got thrown in a cell because they didn't’t appear what you your opinion of that be? Would you approve?

The point here as stated in the article - she was certified medically fit. If she wasn't I hope she takes are imperfect Legal system and uses it to file a malpractice suit.

ResearchWill

Offy wrote: »

Fair point. Surly if they were imprisoned for so long there had to be some suspicion of guilt?


I acept that fully.


I dont believe it has as long a lasting an effect if Im to be honest. I also disagree with your comment about the horrors of being accused of such a crime being much worse than those of being the prosecution witness, assuming the prosecution witness is a rape victim. Are such cases not held in camera? Does that not mean the identity of the accused remain secret? Whether a rape victims identity remains a secret or not does not help a rape victim deal with the trauma of being raped. At lease with a false accusation the accused identity isnt known to anyone thats not directly related to the case. Even if nobody knows someone was raped it doesn’t help deal with the trauma of being raped now does it?

I am going to comment on the bail issue. A person in Irish law is absolute presumed innocent until a judge or jury say otherwise after a fair trial. Any accused is by right entitled to walk the streets freely unless there is a flight risk, there is a risk that the accused will interfere with a witness or the accused will commit crimes while on bail. It these accused did not have bail I would say one of those 3 issues was proven to the court and I would assume it was flight risk. The judge at a bail hearing can not and will not assess guilt.

The accused identity usually only stays a secret if to revel it would identify the victim. While Irish news papers usually don't identify rape accused before end of trial, The big issue even if victim and accused are not identified in papers is that the local community often do know who both are which can bring a whole different set if problems.

In relation to the OP I still think something is missing there is some information we don't have. While Judge Carney can come across as gruff, he is in fact very compassionate and would happily give a victim or any witness time to compose herself, if required. I just think when you add up all the facts we know there is more to this story, I'm not saying the allegations where false or true, all I can currently say is that the accused are by a jury verdict not guilty.

benway

From experience, sexual cases are very, very difficult, it often comes down to a "beauty contest" between the complainant and the accused - who's the jury find more likable they go with, pretty much.

Personally, I see this as a typical Indo "out of touch judiciary" story - their coverage is consistently hysterical in tenor, painting judges as bleeding heart liberals, with no basis whatsoever in fact. Hanging 'em high being the only reasonable solution ... even in cases such as this where the Defendants have inconveniently been found not guilty. These same facts could be reported in a very different way, if it suited the paper's agenda.

Our media seems to grant an elevated, almost sanctified status to those making a claim to victimhood. But, again, the criminal justice system is only interested in ascertaining the truth, and assigning an appropriate punishment, if necessary, rather than vindicating and championing the alleged victim.

Ellen O'Malley Dunlop of the Rape Crisis Centre criticised a trial process as making the complainants "feel they are the ones on trial and not the accused".

I think the problem, even more so, is that, owing to unrealistic media portrayals, victims seem to think that the criminal justice system is about achieving vengeance for them, essentially, and that the system will be on their side by virtue of their having made a complaint. The system doesn't work like this, and maybe if complainants were fully briefed for the real-life workings of the system, it might make things easier for them.

The complainant's evidence should be thoroughly tested, as should the accused's account - it's about doing justice for all parties.

Victor

There was another story a few days ago, presumably on the same case. Between them, they paint an image of manipulation by one (male?) individual and substance abuse, possibly by all involved.

It might actually have been to the complainant's advantage to have been arrested, rather than be the subject to further substance abuse.

We don't know whether the sleeping pills and vodka were taken voluntarily.

It sounds like it was a horrible case, that had no easy answers.

castie

Not sure but wasnt it claimed by the accused that there was an orgy?

Hence that would explain any physical evidence?
And also that her BF was assaulted by one of the guys?

Something just doesnt add up for me and seems like she cracked over reliving the alleged incident.


In general if 3 guys rape a girl and then claim it was an "orgy". How hard is it going to be to get a conviction?
Im not saying these guys are guilty, just think a 3v1 in court would be hard to get beyond reasonable doubt?

johnnyskeleton

I don't necessarily think it is harder to get a conviction in such circumstances. A jury could believe they concocked the story, making a conviction just as likely.

benway

I'd say the odds would be stacked against the guys in such circumstances - a jury being told that three grown men ganged up on a woman? Would have thought she'd have had a serious head start in the beauty contest there ... leads me to suspect that her evidence must have been really, really weak.

Mr. Presentable

Offy wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/gangrape-woman-arrested-during-trial-following-overdose-3017017.html

I asked in a previous thread why judges are not held accountable, it raised a bit of a storm. So now I ask again why are judges allowed to do things like what is pointed out in the newspaper article and not be held accountable.

So what would you like the Judge held accountable for? He did everything according to requirements with the interests of the accuser and the consideration that the accused are innocent until proven otherwise.

I have the utmost sympathy for a victim, but if you are going to make an accusation you have to back it up - other people's lives are also in a position to be ruined.

In this case a jury decided there was no victim, just an accuser, so perhaps this pertains to her reluctance to put her case?

draiocht23

There's a column on that case in the Examiner today - takes something of a dim view of the alleged victim's treatment.

http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/traumatised-rape-victims-should-be-supported-through-legal-process-183830.html

Surprised that the case hasn't received more attention.

johnnyskeleton

draiocht23 wrote: »

There's a column on that case in the Examiner today - takes something of a dim view of the alleged victim's treatment.

http://www.examiner.ie/opinion/columnists/colette-browne/traumatised-rape-victims-should-be-supported-through-legal-process-183830.html

Surprised that the case hasn't received more attention.

That's actually quite a funny article, because every point is predicated on her story being true, but the legal checker has advised they put in "allegedly" before every reference to rape or victim. The author of the article seems to think that the fact that they are not guilty is a mere irrelevance.

ResearchWill

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's actually quite a funny article, because every point is predicated on her story being true, but the legal checker has advised they put in "allegedly" before every reference to rape or victim. The author of the article seems to think that the fact that they are not guilty is a mere irrelevance.

But is not every person brought before the court guilty no matter what the silly Jury say. The old adage stands dont let the facts get in the way of a good story.

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's actually quite a funny article, because every point is predicated on her story being true, but the legal checker has advised they put in "allegedly" before every reference to rape or victim. The author of the article seems to think that the fact that they are not guilty is a mere irrelevance.

Collette Brown really is quite embarrassing in that article. The opening line is so prejudicial it almost makes the inclusion of "alleged" everywhere redundant.

draiocht23

I think the point of the Examiner piece is that the jailing of the woman, after she appeared to try to take her own life, preceded the verdict - it's more about this case highlighting the failings of the legal system rather than the case itself. If an (alleged) rape victim was before the court tomorrow the same thing could happen even if a different, guilty verdict, was eventually returned.

johnnyskeleton

draiocht23 wrote: »

I think the point of the Examiner piece is that the jailing of the woman, after she appeared to try to take her own life, preceded the verdict - it's more about this case highlighting the failings of the legal system rather than the case itself. If an (alleged) rape victim was before the court tomorrow the same thing could happen even if a different, guilty verdict, was eventually returned.

I don't think this would have happened if it were not a custody case. But surely you can imagine the frustration of an innocent man locked up for a year or more awaiting trial, only for the person whose untrue allegations put them there to decide that they are not going ahead with their untrue allegations. Not saying this is what happened here, just that the court has to guard against all possibilities.

In one sense I'd agree, no one should be locked up to secure their attendance unless they have a proven record of unexcused non appearance on more than one occasion. This would mean not treating witnesses like that, but it would also mean not refusing bail to people unless it was abundantly clear they would not show up.

draiocht23

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I don't think this would have happened if it were not a custody case. But surely you can imagine the frustration of an innocent man locked up for a year or more awaiting trial, only for the person whose untrue allegations put them there to decide that they are not going ahead with their untrue allegations. Not saying this is what happened here, just that the court has to guard against all possibilities.

In one sense I'd agree, no one should be locked up to secure their attendance unless they have a proven record of unexcused non appearance on more than one occasion. This would mean not treating witnesses like that, but it would also mean not refusing bail to people unless it was abundantly clear they would not show up.

Yeah, I agree that it's hard to balance competing rights here - obviously the defendants have the right to a fair and speedy trial and have the right to face their accuser in court. The fact that they were remanded in jail (which, I think, is pretty unusual for rape cases) was also a complicating factor - added imperative for trial to proceed as quickly as possible.

I do think that some regard should be had for the nature of the crime and requiring the woman to approach the defendants in the box is unusual - original article never really explained why this was deemed necessary. After the gardai executed the warrant, and brought the woman to court, maybe it would have been possible to warn her that she would be jailed unless she co-operated, without actually remanding her in a cell for most of the day. Just seems a bit heartless - even if there is no room for emotion in court rooms - and could put other people off reporting the crime for fear of what could happen during the trial.

It is the case that defendants can choose to defend themselves and this could result in a situation whereby a rape victim could end up being cross-examined by his/her attacker in court. I think the Rape Crisis Network have called for this to be disallowed.