What is rape in Ireland?

midlandsmissus

A man has just been found not guilty in Donegal of a rape that he admitted doing in his police interviews.

What are your thoughts on this?

keith16

He raped someone in his police interviews?

What was the interview question, "DID HE RAPE YOU LIKE THIS?"

midlandsmissus

="1" dir="ltr">

keith16 wrote: »

He raped someone in his police interviews?

What was the interview question, "DID HE RAPE YOU LIKE THIS?"

Oh rape jokes, always funny, go you!!

timthumbni

midlandsmissus wrote: »

A man has just been found not guilty in Donegal of a rape that he admitted doing in his police interviews.

What are your thoughts on this?

Have you a link to this please?

Sonics2k

Legally speaking I believe that rape in Ireland can only be done by a male to a female or another male, there has to be non-consensual penetration of the victim.

This site makes it clear. http://www.srcc.ie/frequently-asked-questions-on-rape-or-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault.html

I don't know the case the OP was referring to though, so I've no idea why he would be found not guilty if he previously confessed.

Akrasia

midlandsmissus wrote: »

A man has just been found not guilty in Donegal of a rape that he admitted doing in his police interviews.

What are your thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that I know absolutely nothing about the details of the case so I can't judge either way

Your Face

My thoughts are:
Why would you create this thread?

midlandsmissus

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-acquitted-of-raping-woman-in-donegal-on-night-out-1.2549764

Irelandcool

Sonics2k wrote: »

Legally speaking I believe that rape in Ireland can only be done by a male to a female or another male, there has to be non-consensual penetration of the victim.

This site makes it clear. http://www.srcc.ie/frequently-asked-questions-on-rape-or-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault.html

I don't know the case the OP was referring to though, so I've no idea why he would be found not guilty if he previously confessed.

Actually while it is rarer their have been cases of women committing rape against other women or men.

Sonics2k

Irelandcool wrote: »

Actually while it is rarer their have been cases of women committing rape against other women or men.

I'm pretty sure it's counted as sexual assault when a woman does it to a man, legally it's not rape as there is no penetration.

timthumbni

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Here it is:
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/criminal-court/man-acquitted-of-raping-woman-in-donegal-on-night-out-1.2549764

I think I would probably need the full details with this case due to its nature. After watching stuff like making a murderer on Netflix it showed me that some people would admit to literally anything under police pressure. That doesn't mean they didn't do it but rather that more details are required.

Regarding the issue of rape in terms of just because a girl kisses and does other sexual acts with a fella without wanting full sex then I fully support the girl or person in question.

bodice ripper

Sonics2k wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it's counted as sexual assault when a woman does it to a man, legally it's not rape as there is no penetration.

Fairly certain I have been penetrated by another woman. It sure seemed that way.

LETHAL LADY

Without knowing the full facts of the case I would assume from the article that the garda seems to have messed it up.

28064212

Actual law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/32/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

4.—(1) In this Act “rape under section 4” means a sexual assault that includes—
(a) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or
(b) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

So it's not possible for a woman to rape a man. All other "combinations" (M->M, F->F, M->F) are possible.

In relation to the case referred to in the OP, a confession given by an 18 year old during an interview in which "a garda aggressively questioned and swore at the accused" is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a court of law, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the accuser.

fatknacker

"He's very very sorry and won't do it again"

Is this one of these threads where posters will say she should go away behind bars for a few years instead for trying to destroy his life?

the_syco

The defence said the garda used very crude language and phrases and spoke over the accused during his interview. The garda said in evidence his interviewing manner was “firm but fair”.

Sounds like he got yelled at until he "admitted" to it? Not sure regarding the woman trying to recant the claim.

Very fishy altogether.

ceadaoin.

During cross-examination Shane Costelloe SC, defending, put it to the now 22-year-old woman that she made up a story about being raped because she was embarrassed when friends asked her about a blood stain on her dress afterwards.
“I put it to you that the rape allegation was a response to you being mocked,” counsel said. The woman denied this.

It's stuff like this that deters rape victims from coming forward. After this guy admitted having sex with her without her consent she is still subjected to this rubbish

LETHAL LADY

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's stuff like this that deters rape victims from coming forward. After this guy admitted having sex with her without her consent she is still subjected to this rubbish

Surely this would be a standard defense tactic?

Ice Maiden

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Surely this would be a standard defense tactic?

It's a bit of a leap though, in my opinion.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod:

Folks, be careful of any accusations made against the defendant. Remember that this man was found innocent in a court of law.

osarusan

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Mod:

Remember that this man was found innocent in a court of law.

Not guilty, rather than innocent.

That's not a comment on this case, but on the actual terms.

There is a difference, and there's a reason it is 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'.





Mod note: No. He is innocent. The case is closed and under Irish law, the two terms are interchangeable.

Also, don't discuss moderation on thread. Report a moderator's post if it needs attention.

PinkLemonade

Was he found innocent or not guilty?
From what I read, it seems as though the victim believed she were raped (during the incident), but the accused didn't realise what he was doing at the time.
I think both of accused and defendant in this case suffered as a result of what happened that night and have a lot of regrets.
The case seems like a grey area-from what I've read, it makes the case for consent classes in colleges....

LETHAL LADY

Ice Maiden wrote: »

It's a bit of a leap though, in my opinion.

I'm not justifying it though. Any case, regardless of its nature and since it was brought before the Central Criminal Court I'd assume tough questioning was par for the course.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

osarusan wrote: »

Not guilty, rather than innocent.

That's not a comment on this case, but on the actual terms.

There is a difference, and there's a reason it is 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'.

Technically, there's no such thing as innocent from a legal point of view.

Hannibelle Smeeeth

Admitting it in a police interview is not enough. Do you want me to mention Brendan Dassey?

Your Face

Hannibelle Smeeeth wrote: »

Admitting it in a police interview is not enough. Do you want me to mention Brendan Dassey?

You just did.

biko

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVcyNANK5cY

Hannibelle Smeeeth

Your Face wrote: »

You just did.

Best email notification ever....'Your face has just posted the following in after hours' :pac:

Tigger

PinkLemonade wrote: »

Was he found innocent or not guilty?
From what I read, it seems as though the victim believed she were raped (during the incident), but the accused didn't realise what he was doing at the time.
I think both of accused and defendant in this case suffered as a result of what happened that night and have a lot of regrets.
The case seems like a grey area-from what I've read, it makes the case for consent classes in colleges....

consent classes are stupid, i think he thought what he was doing he'd get away with and it turns out he did.

armaghlad

Without any more detail it's a case of his word against hers. Guards seem to have messed things up. Unfortunate for the victim that even when he basically admits his guilt he still gets away with it. I don't care what any guard shouts at you, if you're innocent you'll not cave.

Tipperary Fairy

armaghlad wrote: »

I don't care what any guard shouts at you, if you're innocent you'll not cave.

Face palm

armaghlad

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Face palm

I think it's a reasonable statement. Palm away there.

Tipperary Fairy

armaghlad wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable statement. Palm away there.

Of course you think it's a reasonable statement, you're the one who said that it. Doesn't make it true though.

armaghlad

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Of course you think it's a reasonable statement, you're the one who said that it. Doesn't make it true though.

Are you trying to tell me that someone who is innocent of a crime will take the hit on it all because Sergeant McGinley from Letterkenny garda station shouted at them in an interview?

josephryan1989

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's stuff like this that deters rape victims from coming forward. After this guy admitted having sex with her without her consent she is still subjected to this rubbish

What's rubbish about it?

You cannot safely convict someone of a crime just because he confesses.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that first of all a crime was committed and second of all that he did do it.

The prosecution did neither.

There is a possibility the girl had consensual sex with the accused and the blood on her clothes led to her making up a rape story to cover up her embarrassment.

The accused was not convicted of rape because of insufficient evidence.

Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove and therefore there will always be low conviction rates however there cannot be unsafe convictions of men based on suspicion without evidence.

midlandsmissus

josephryan1989 wrote: »

What's rubbish about it?

You cannot safely convict someone of a crime just because he confesses.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that first of all a crime was committed and second of all that he did do it.

The prosecution did neither.

There is a possibility the girl had consensual sex with the accused and the blood on her clothes led to her making up a rape story to cover up her embarrassment.

The accused was not convicted of rape because of insufficient evidence.

Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove and therefore there will always be low conviction rates however there cannot be unsafe convictions of men based on suspicion without evidence.

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!


Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

Dirty Dingus McGee

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!


Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

That's a defence lawyers job.You can't have someone making an accusation and then not having to go before a court, it would lead to a ridiculous situation where people could be accused and simply have to accept their fate without their accuser being challenged.

LDN_Irish

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

BalcombeSt4

Wow, the guards interviewing the accused sound like complete morons who just f*cked the whole case up for the victim.

tritium

armaghlad wrote: »

Without any more detail it's a case of his word against hers. Guards seem to have messed things up. Unfortunate for the victim that even when he basically admits his guilt he still gets away with it. I don't care what any guard shouts at you, if you're innocent you'll not cave.

Not a comment in this case but your last statement is one of the dumbest things ive seen on after hours recently. Why its dumb is the reason that so much focus is put on how a confession is obtained...


Commenting on the case, I think (and not having been party to all the evidence) the judge himself made a very telling if sad statement at then end

.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt told the jury in such cases any verdict would be hurtful to someone. “I suspect that’s why I see what I see this morning,” he said, referring to the woman’s distressed state.
He said all rape trials were difficult but cases where “consensual things are alleged to have turned into something else are extraordinarily difficult to probe”.

midlandsmissus

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

He said in his police interview 'I'm sorry I tried to have sex with her without her consent'.
She had blood on her clothes.

You really think she had her period, really?!!! Honestly, sometimes I feel like banging my head of a brick wall with this bloody country!

She wept bitterly in court, I feel so sorry for this girl.

tritium

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!


Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

So you propose to change the burden of proof and innocent for until proven guilty requirements that form the basis of our legal system? Just for rape or for all crimes?

I assume all witnesses will now get a free pass on any critical cross examination of their testimony?

And as a matter of interest, if subjecting the alleged victim to this level of questioning is unfair in your view, do you also view the level of questioning the alleged attacker was subjected to as unfair?

midlandsmissus

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's a defence lawyers job.You can't have someone making an accusation and then not having to go before a court, it would lead to a ridiculous situation where people could be accused and simply have to accept their fate without their accuser being challenged.

I disagree, there's always room for change.

It's a ludicrous and stone age defense. It's not even a good defense, using any good evidence or detective work!

Imagine you were beaten up by a man in an alley, and you had blood on your shirt, you bring him to court, and the defence says 'you claim to have beaten up because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your shirt'.

There's no evidence it came anywhere but from the defense lawyer's mind. 'You were embarrassed to have blood on your dress'. So how is something that is an opinion that he thought, allowed to be a defense?

midlandsmissus

tritium wrote: »

So you propose to change the burden of proof and innocent for until proven guilty requirements that form the basis of our legal system? Just for rape or for all crimes?

I assume all witnesses will now get a free pass on any critical cross examination of their testimony?

Critical cross examination = 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your dress'?????

Did he pick this out of thin air. In what sense whatsoever is this a critical cross examination? How is his opinion allowed in court?

josephryan1989

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

A woman who is a virgin can bleed but not always.
Some women bleed after vigorous sex.
And of course some women are in the middle of their period.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to (1) prove a rape occurred (2) prove the accused committed the rape.

Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

The defendant has the right to the presumption of innocence.
The onus is on the prosecution to present the evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused is guilty.
The accuser of rape as a witness can expect to be cross examined in the witness stand and if her story is inconsistent the prosecution has the right to find the inconsistencies.
If this leads to the accused being acquitted then so be it.
That's how justice works.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.
There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

The defense has no right to cross examine witnesses?
Should the cross examination stop just because the alleged victim turns on the tears when holes are torn in her story?

volchitsa

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

You're confusing bleeding caused by injuries with menstrual blood. It would take a very special 18 year old to go to A and E with menstrual bleeding, never mind expect to use that in evidence later. No doctor would sign such a cert.

josephryan1989

volchitsa wrote: »

You're confusing bleeding caused by injuries with menstrual blood. It would take a very special 18 year old to go to A and E with menstrual bleeding, never mind expect to use that in evidence later. No doctor would sign such a cert.

Blood on clothes proves nothing as it does not prove a rape has occurred. It may be suspicious but it doesn't prove rape conclusively and unless the rape is proven beyond reasonable doubt then no rape can be said to have occurred and the defendant walks.

josephryan1989

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Wow, the guards interviewing the accused sound like complete morons who just f*cked the whole case up for the victim.

What victim? Was she proven to be a victim of rape? Did a rape occur? Did the accused commit a rape or not? If you can't answer those questions conclusively then you cannot convict.

tritium

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Critical cross examination = 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your dress'?????

Did he pick this out of thin air. In what sense whatsoever is this a critical cross examination? How is his opinion allowed in court?

From reading the linked report you seem to have taken a very narrow piece of the reported cross examination and pit an even narrower interpretation on it. Rightly or wrongly (and neither of us I suspect have heard all the testimony) the crux of the cross examination seems to be that the accuser had attempted to withdraw the allegation later, and I can kind of see why a defence counsel would hone in on this

midlandsmissus

josephryan1989 wrote: »

A woman who is a virgin can bleed but not always.
Some women bleed after vigorous sex.
And of course some women are in the middle of their period.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to (1) prove a rape occurred (2) prove the accused committed the rape.



The defendant has the right to the presumption of innocence.
The onus is on the prosecution to present the evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused is guilty.
The accuser of rape as a witness can expect to be cross examined in the witness stand and if her story is inconsistent the prosecution has the right to find the inconsistencies.
If this leads to the accused being acquitted then so be it.
That's how justice works.



The defense has no right to cross examine witnesses?
Should the cross examination stop just because the alleged victim turns on the tears when holes are torn in her story?

Hi Joseph Ryan,

Can you explain, how the defense argument of, 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed to have blood on your clothes', is anything but the defense lawyer's opinion?

This is not checking her story for discrepancies.
This is not challenging her recollection of events with evidence from any other source.
This is the defense lawyer's opinion that he has arrived at by no other way other than looking for a way to call her a liar.

So why is his subjective and biased opinion allowed in court? It is not backed u with any factual evidence.

Dirty Dingus McGee

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I disagree, there's always room for change.

It's a ludicrous and stone age defense. It's not even a good defense, using any good evidence or detective work!

Imagine you were beaten up by a man in an alley, and you had blood on your shirt, you bring him to court, and the defence says 'you claim to have beaten up because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your shirt'.

There's no evidence it came anywhere but from the defense lawyer's mind. 'You were embarrassed to have blood on your dress'. So how is something that is an opinion that he thought, allowed to be a defense?

That is a defence lawyers job.

It may not be nice but it's their job to try and discredit the victims claims.