Hypocrisy over two recent news stories.

MakeEmLaugh

Recently, there were two rather unpleasant stories in the Irish media. I won't use the names of people involved – which may seem pointless, as five seconds on Google will lead you to them.

In the first case, a woman, let's call her Woman X, recorded a video of herself talking about the domestic abuse she had suffered at the hands of her (now ex) partner. She had a black eye in the video, and spoke of how the father of her two children had punched her on more than one occasion, been unfaithful and fathered a child with another woman.

Some people began naming and shaming the man in question, and websites (like Boards.ie) were quick to remove such posts, and point out that he he had not been tried, and that “trial by Facebook” was not the way to go. Importantly, Woman X never once identified the man in question. Only people who knew who she was could identify him.

This may seem fair enough, but days later, ANOTHER story surfaced, of a woman – Woman Y - who had been raped by her ex-boyfriend several times while she slept. The man who raped Woman Y pleaded guilty, but will not serve any jail time. He was given a seven year suspended sentence.

Immediately, the man who raped Woman Y had his face all over the internet (several different sources on Facebook posted it in the course of 24 hours). People were sharing Change.org petitions to have his sentence appealed. His name and visage are now drilled into the consciousness of anyone paying attention to the news in Ireland.

Eventually, the man referenced in the Woman X story admitted he had hit her in a newspaper interview, saying "I should never have raised my hand to her. You should never hit a woman or use violence". He has been formally interviewed by the Gardaí.

My question is, why are some people quick to express their disgust at one action, but are evasive when it comes to another? Both were cases of partner on partner assault. Is the crime of badly beating a woman that much less severe than then crime of raping a woman? If the man involved with Woman X pleads guilty and is given a suspended sentence for assault, will people be so quick to share petitions attacking him?

I would assume that it is because physical and sexual violence are treated completely differently. It shouldn't be, but that's the way it is, unfortunately.

sullivlo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would assume that it is because physical and sexual violence are treated completely differently. It shouldn't be, but that's the way it is, unfortunately.

And perhaps because the rapist was charged and given a suspended sentence! As for the other man, innocent until proven guilty.

FloatingVoter

The X case is ongoing.

The Y case has concluded and sentence passed.

Legal advice will have been taken by the media regarding both cases.

keith16

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

In the first case, a woman, let's call her Woman X

For privacy sake, lets call her "Lisa S.".... No that's too obvious... uuh. Let's say "L. Simpson"

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

I think in fairness the condemnation was quite severe for both stories,: in so far as they could with one case still pending

MakeEmLaugh

sullivlo wrote: »

And perhaps because the rapist was charged and given a suspended sentence! As for the other man, innocent until proven guilty.

He has admitted his guilt in a newspaper interview.

Don't Chute!

Didn't "y" waive her anonymity so he could be named?

syklops

Case Y, as we are calling it, I have to say I found really bizarre. There are a number of bizarre elements to it. Not least that she must be some hell of a deep sleeper to not wake up during it.

Man x wasn't plastered all over boards so the chances of him having a fair trial with fewer complications were higher, guilt or otherwise. He can claim jury bias and walk away if he's identified and tried by media can't he? Or make it that much harder?
My understanding was that he was easily identifiable

Whereas in your post man y was already tried

eviltwin

syklops wrote: »

Case Y, as we are calling it, I have to say I found really bizarre. There are a number of bizarre elements to it. Not least that she must be some hell of a deep sleeper to not wake up during it.

She was drugged

syklops

eviltwin wrote: »

She was drugged

Didn't know that. I heard her on Joe Duffy during the week and she didnt mention that aspect of it. She did mention him having a fap in bed beside her which I also thought was a bit bizarre - her mentioning it, not him doing it.

edit: Drugged in what way? Are we talking roofies? If so, that changes things dramatically.

sullivlo

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

He has admitted his guilt in a newspaper interview.

But he hasn't been tried by a court or charged even.

eviltwin

syklops wrote: »

Didn't know that. I heard her on Joe Duffy during the week and she didnt mention that aspect of it. She did mention him having a fap in bed beside her which I also thought was a bit bizarre - her mentioning it, not him doing it.

edit: Drugged in what way? Are we talking roofies? If so, that changes things dramatically.

Not sure tbh, I haven't really been paying attention to the case. I don't know if it was medication she was on or drugs he slipped her in order to knock her out. They must have been strong, she was unaware the attacks had taken place.

strandroad

syklops wrote: »

edit: Drugged in what way? Are we talking roofies? If so, that changes things dramatically.

She was on medication causing her to be out of it for the night, and he knew it.

Greenmachine

In the case of X, the guy was easily identified, which may or may not have been the intent of the woman. It is certainly the case here that he could be tried by social media. My understanding is the guy in question admitted pushing her but not hitting her, which is not the same thing. Not justifying his action, but without knowing the circumstances, it is impossible to identify his level of culpability. I think speculation on the nature of the altercation, could only further interfere with the due process.
Would not be surprised if the DPP, themselves appeal the outcome of the 2nd case.

hatrickpatrick

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Both were cases of partner on partner assault.

No they weren't. One was a proven case of assault, with a court conviction. The other was an unproven allegation which attempted to smear an individual before giving him any chance to defend his name. Totally different situations.

hatrickpatrick

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

He has admitted his guilt in a newspaper interview.

Actually he didn't. He specifically denied the allegation made and admitted to a far less serious action.

MakeEmLaugh

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Both were cases of partner on partner assault.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No they weren't. One was a proven case of assault, with a court conviction. The other was an unproven allegation which attempted to smear an individual before giving him any chance to defend his name. Totally different situations.

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

He has admitted his guilt in a newspaper interview.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Actually he didn't. He specifically denied the allegation made and admitted to a far less serious action.

This is what the man who allegedly hit Woman X had to say.

“I lost the head and basically pushed her straight in the face. I shoved her in the face. It was a real forceful shove in the face. I connected with her face... It was uncalled for, I don’t condone it... It was very hard. I pushed her really hard in the face. It was so quick that it would have been the strongest part of my hand... It was pretty violent and there’s no excuse at all and I’m extremely sorry for that.... No man should hit a woman. It was a situation where I was in the wrong”.

If you still think this is "unproven allegation" and that he hasn't "admitted his guilt", that's on you.

HeidiHeidi

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

This is what the man who allegedly hit Woman X had to say.



If you still think this is "unproven allegation" and that he hasn't "admitted his guilt", that's on you.

He can turn around in the morning and say "nah, never did it, I was just joking".

Until he's charged and convicted by a court, he remains innocent in the eyes of the law.

The other man had been convicted, and the victim waived her anonymity so that he could be named.

meeeeh

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

If you still think this is "unproven allegation" and that he hasn't "admitted his guilt", that's on you.

Only court can decide weather allegation is proven, nobody else. Otherwise you have a mob rule.

MakeEmLaugh

meeeeh wrote: »

Only court can decide weather allegation is proven, nobody else. Otherwise you have a mob rule.

So, what you're saying is, we shouldn't share images or the name of a person until he is given a fair trial?

And then, if he is given a trial, and we don't like the outcome, we can share images of this person to our heart's content?

NachoBusiness

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

Eventually, the man referenced in the Woman X story admitted he had hit her in a newspaper interview, saying "I should never have raised my hand to her. You should never hit a woman or use violence".

MakeEmLaugh wrote: »

He has admitted his guilt in a newspaper interview.

Eh, no, he hasn't. Emma has accused him of punching her and splitting her head open on another occasion. He denies this.

You quoted only a small portion of what he said. Here is the rest:

"What happened was basically Emma and I were having an argument all day on Friday. She came to the gym and she asked to use my work phone because she had no phone.

"She used the work phone to ring my friend who I had spent Father's Day with.

"My friend has been quite sick for a while, he has been in and out of psychiatric hospitals lately, and he forgets things from time to time.

"Basically, she rang my friend and he told her, 'no, we didn't spend that day together' and Emma thought that I was having an affair. She basically threw the work phone at an angle in my direction and it smashed on the floor.

"I lost the head and basically pushed her straight in the face. I shoved her in the face. It was a real forceful shove in the face. I connected with her face.

"It was so quick that it would have been the strongest part of my hand, it was with an open hand. It was more of a push, a real hard push. It was pretty violent and there's no excuse at all and I'm extremely sorry for that."