Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

sightband

FrancieBrady wrote: »

How do you propose proving 'clear consent' by the way, if there is a dispute.

A written drawn up contract signed by both parties in the presence of a witness pre coitus. To make it watertight in order to protect both parties, a further post coitus contract may be required. This is probably the only way...

Although in this digital age I’m thinking about getting to work on a ‘consent app’ using digital finger print recognition available on most phones, have labia and ball sacks got individual features similar to finger prints that could be used?

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The reason the idea of 'clear consent' or 'written consent' is highly problematic is that it makes it really hard for one of the participants to subsequently change their mind.

If you consent to sex in writing and then change your mind, what court is going to believe you with a signed document saying otherwise?

By all accounts, we need to change how we prosecute sex crime by adopting new definitions and categories, but you can't also force a complete change in human nature.

Oh come on, do you really think it means you need signature for everything. Most normal people are able to negotiate sex without any confusion. However it might mean that someone who is too drunk to talk isn't exactly consenting because they can't mumble no.

BrianBoru00

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't see how I said that at all.

.
.

Mrsmum wrote: »

To be more specific I think the defendant would have to prove how and to what extent the alleged victim participated so not ever that s(he) didn't say no but that s(he) did say yes and how that yes was made known to defendant. And not by interest shown hours earlier but at the moment of dispute.

tretorn

There is noevidence Jackson was sexually active at all, there wasnt a speck of semen found anywhere.

He said he had consensual oral sex and he fingered the woman. He didnt even come to ejaculation.

The jury believed him.

I think at this stage due to wild inconsistencies in the womans evidence it is safer not to lend any of it much credibility.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Still not answering the very simple question: How do you prove there was 'clear consent' in the event of a dispute.

How do you prove anything in a rape case? You listen to two sides, all the evidence and then decide. Nobody ever said it's easy how ever it's worth it if we avoid cases where people claim they thought the other party was up for it.

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

To be more specific I think the defendant would have to prove how and to what extent the alleged victim participated so not ever that s(he) didn't say no but that s(he) did say yes and how that yes was made known to defendant. And not by interest shown hours earlier but at the moment of dispute.

Again looking at the current case, the testimony was that the complainant began giving oral sex to one of the defendants without prompting. Does that qualify as clear consent on her part? On his?

Grayson

Deleted User wrote: »

Terrible idea. You can't just invent terms and force them into common use. The vast majority of people manage to have sex without there ever being issues of consent.



So we only need to educate young men? Gay men get to skip this class I take it?



I don't know where you have gotten this perspective from. If this is your take on sex you either aren't having it or you are having it with poorly chosen partners.



Jesus.



Honestly, this post is full of presumption, sexism and some really sordid concepts about what goes on in men's minds.

Yes you can add new terms to the law. It's done all the time. You can create new laws and educate people on them. that's done all the time.
This whole thraed is about hetrosexual rape. The posts she was replying to were about it. You can throw gay people in and try to make her seem homophobic but it's a fecking weird tactic. If you want to be comprehensive then yes, consent is something that gay people should be aware of. Consent is an issue that affects everyone.


The discussion about consent equalling a yes a opposed to the lack of a no is a conversation that arose before this trial.
I agree that people should seek out a yes from a partner. It's the only way to be certain. PLus even without legal ramifications it's just the right thing to do.

There is a certain train of thought in these threads that sees it as a violations of a mans human rights. A guy has a right to put his cock into anyone that doesn't say no.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

Again looking at the current case, the testimony was that the complainant began giving oral sex to one of the defendants without prompting. Does that qualify as clear consent on her part? On his?

Did he report her for assault?

Mrsmum

Sure it's all grand the way it is so. No need to change anything, in which case no need for whinging about PJ and SO' lives being ruined (which they are). In the game of sex you pays your money and you take your chances which they did.
Me, I'll still be drumming the crystal clear consent message into my lads' heads.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

How do you prove anything in a rape case? You listen to two sides, all the evidence and then decide. Nobody ever said it's easy how ever it's worth it if we avoid cases where people claim they thought the other party was up for it.

But all the approach outlined does is lead to more false convictions instead of more false acquittals. Why exactly is that worth it?

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

A guy has a right to put his cock into anyone that doesn't say no.

Complete and utter sensationalism about this thread.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

Did he report her for assault?

As we know from the Ched Evans case that’s not actually necessary. We’re also discussing this in the context of a proposed change covering clear consent

Care to answer the actual question

sightband

tritium wrote: »

Again looking at the current case, the testimony was that the complainant began giving oral sex to one of the defendants without prompting. Does that qualify as clear consent on her part? On his?

I think putting your flute in the mouth of anyone or anything with a jaw and teeth without consent takes a very reckless or stupid person. I’m siding with clear consent on her behalf. I honestly can’t see how anyone would be that reckless or stupid, even in this instance of olding who seems like a right gob****e.

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

But all the approach outlined does is lead to more false convictions instead of more false acquittals. Why exactly is that worth it?

About one in 100 rapes end in conviction or something similar. I am pretty sure almost all rape convictions are for actual rapes. Stop with the false comparisons.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe.
To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity.

Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.

No he really was dreadful and judging by the comments most reasonable people thought so too. Funny word 'reasonable' wouldn't you say ? Very much in the eye of the beholder.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

How do you prove anything in a rape case? You listen to two sides, all the evidence and then decide. Nobody ever said it's easy how ever it's worth it if we avoid cases where people claim they thought the other party was up for it.

But that is exactly what happened here.
One side said there was consent and the other side said there wasn't.

The 'evidence' led to a conclusion by the jury that there was consent or that the claim there was 'no consent' was not proven.

How would this 'clear consent' be presented/proved and make it any different in a dispute? You are not being clear.

tritium

meeeeh wrote: »

You keep on claiming but there is a difference between initiating contact (and Jackson admitted he was hoping it would lead somewhere) and being too drunk to say no/yes when some initiates contact. Jackson was very active, you can't claim you were assaulted just because you were drunk when you started kissing someone.

Is this really so hard to understand or are you just trying to attack the complainant or any future complainants from any possible angle?

Actually you can. The whole basis of a number of recent rape trials has been that the alleged victim was too drunk to be capable of consent

Let’s just ask the obvious questions here. Do you believe women need to seek consent off men? Do you believe a man can be too drunk to consent and if a woman has sex with him at that point has any offence been committed?

tretorn

meeeeh wrote: »

How do you prove anything in a rape case? You listen to two sides, all the evidence and then decide. Nobody ever said it's easy how ever it's worth it if we avoid cases where people claim they thought the other party was up for it.

Isnt this exactly what happened in the Belfast case and then you have presumably educated people like Aodhan O Riordan tweeting that they know better. You have a whole mob on twitter screeching for online justice, presumably we can excuse a lot of them due to their IQ but O Riordan is a school principal by profession so that assumes some level of intelligence.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

No he really was dreadful and judging by the comments most reasonable people thought so too. Funny word 'reasonable' wouldn't you say ? Very much in the eye of the beholder.

The comments were more or less balanced for and against I thought. How do you know that 'most reasonable people thought so too'? They were 'reasonable' because they agreed with your own POV?

meeeeh

tritium wrote: »

As we know from the Ched Evans case that’s not actually necessary. We’re also discussing this in the context of a proposed change covering clear consent

Care to answer the actual question

Did anyone report her for assault then? Someone must feel the assault is happening before you can accuse somebody of crime. But if you think this implies assault then you are welcome to report it.

Btw I did not follow Ched Evans case so I haven't got a clue what the reference is about.

meeeeh

tretorn wrote: »

Isnt this exactly what happened in the Belfast case and then you have presumably educated people like Aodhan O Riordan tweeting that they know better. You have a whole mob on twitter screeching for online justice, presumably we can excuse a lot of them due to their IQ but O Riordan is a school principal by profession so that assumes some level of intelligence.

I never claimed they should be found guilty. But people have the right to be disgusted by their attitude. What's the problem?

tretorn

tritium wrote: »

Actually you can. The whole basis of a number of recent rape trials has been that the alleged victim was too drunk to be capable of consent

Let’s just ask the obvious questions here. Do you believe women need to seek consent off men? Do you believe a man can be too drunk to consent and if a woman has sex with him at that point has any offence been committed?

The difference between men and women though is that a woman wouldnt have the strength to force sex.

We have to differentiate in cases of alleged rape though, there is a big difference between a woman raped at knifepont and a threesome that occurs between three people in an accused persons bedroom. The main issue here is consent and how do you prove that was there or not when you have a woman going to a sexual assault unit with one version of events and then going to the Police with a different tale. It doesnt help matters when the Police who are only supposed to refer cases to the PPS when they have strong evidence then hand the woman the statements of the men she is accusing of horrible crimes.

Suggesting that we lower the bar of evidence to something less than reasonable doubt is not a safe proposition in cases like the Belfast one.

The jury heard everything in this case, sat for over nine weeks and came back with a verdict in less than four hours.

I dont know what can be done to improve things in the Belfast case other than to treat men and women the same, ie if the woman gets anonymity then the men do too.

It would be better also if the case was held in camera.

Maxpfizer

meeeeh wrote: »

You'd reduce the number of disputes with clear consent. You still go through the same in courts just less often. Prevention is always the best option.

What would be acceptable evidence of clear consent?

I'm thinking of evidence that could be provided to police that shows clear consent was given. You have any examples?

tretorn

meeeeh wrote: »

I never claimed they should be found guilty. But people have the right to be disgusted by their attitude. What's the problem?

You can have the right to be disgusted by attitudes to women but you cant hold these particular men to account for all the men who think women who have one night stands are sluts. Many women believe this too and would refer to other women as sluts too. The woman accusing the men of raping her used the word slutty in relation to her fellow women.

You can judge these men because their private conversations were disclosed in public, this was an awful lot worse for them than having their boxers used as evidence would be. The facts are if you asked a random selection of men to hand over their phones after a night out you would find similar messages, get over it.

jm08

tretorn wrote: »

There is noevidence Jackson was sexually active at all, there wasnt a speck of semen found anywhere.

He said he had consensual oral sex and he fingered the woman. He didnt even come to ejaculation.

The jury believed him.

I think at this stage due to wild inconsistencies in the womans evidence it is safer not to lend any of it much credibility.

Dara thought JP was having penetrative sex.
She also thought that it was consensual sex.

I think the jury thought there was reasonable doubt about what happened.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'disaster' with those who have made up there minds maybe.
To me it was a reasonable plea for common sense and humanity.

Again we had the twitterati outraged demanding that culture changes instantly and that these innocent men be sarcrificed no matter what.

See you heard a reasonable plea. I heard a dreadfully poor and foolish carryon. I thought the comments against were from reasonably minded people, you don't. Good job we're not in the bedroom as we seem to have a difference of opinion as to what is a reasonable belief.

Grayson

tretorn wrote: »

Suggesting that we lower the bar of evidence to something less than reasonable doubt is not a safe proposition in cases like the Belfast one.

Just on that point. I was reading an article about something similar. One of the biggest problems with rape trials is educating the jury. Rape trials are unlike most other trials in that testimony plays a huge part.
Some of the suggestions I read included specifically educating the jury on all the processes beforehand or even getting rid of juries and having the trial heard by a group of judges who are specially trained.
I'm not really fond of either suggestion although because although I can see the benefits of both I can also see the drawbacks.
Still, we need to look at trials for sexual assault / rape and consider changing the processes involved. We shouldn't lower the bar on the evidence needed but at the same time the conviction rate is horrifically small.

tretorn

It could only be proved that sex actually took place if internal swabs had Jacksons semen on them and they didnt.

It was probably quite likely that Jackson couldnt perform so he used his fingers......

In any event the woman said he raped her front and back and he said he had consensual oral sex and fingered her.

The jury believed him so he is innocent of all charges.

There is a conviction rate and an attrition rate and the attrition rate is the important one.

There is no difference between attrition rates in rape cases and all other cases so people claiming convictions rates are appalling are people not dealing with facts.

Grayson

tretorn wrote: »

It could only be proved that sex actually took place if internal swabs had Jacksons semen on them and they didnt.

It was probably quite likely that Jackson couldnt perform so he used his fingers......

In any event the woman said he raped her front and back and he said he had consensual oral sex and fingered her.

The jury believed him so he is innocent of all charges.

No he's not. That's not what a jury does. A jury found him not guilty. They said there was not enough evidence to say he was guilty. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

See you heard a reasonable plea. I heard a dreadfully poor and foolish carryon. I thought the comments against were from reasonably minded people, you don't. Good job we're not in the bedroom as we seem to have a difference of opinion as to what is a reasonable belief.

I called his plea 'reasonable' because that is how he framed it himself.
You inferred that those who agreed with your assessment were 'reasonable'. There is no proof of that only your own certitude and dare I say arrogant stance.