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

almostover

mayolady14 wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.

Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit. Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict. I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome

Cool, so in cases of rape/sexual assault the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Sounds legit.

Shefwedfan

Sidebaro wrote: »

No guard would say that? Really? That's a little naive.

Are you trying to say a Lady Garda would tell her that he is needed for the Championship????

pjohnson

mayolady14 wrote: »

Not about how I feel? 98% of rapists walk free in this country is that ok?

Just because someone is accused does not mean they are a guilty rapist.

mayolady14

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I keep seeing this 1-2% number fired around

Could you please explain it?

The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

Only one in ten victims of sexual crime in Ireland reports that crime. Those who do report then face a torturous journey to the point where the DPP thinks it worth prosecuting the case. Ireland has the lowest conviction rate for rape cases – following allegation – in Europe, standing at 1 – 2%. The EU average is 8 – 10%.

seamus

irishrebe wrote: »

No, they decided that they cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. A very different situation. If we have a fight and I punch you in the face and break your nose, but you can't prove it in court that I did it intentionally and that we weren't just messing, does that mean you weren't attacked?

Legally, yes.

Sidebaro

OwlsZat wrote:

Groping and hanging out of a bunch of socialising local "celebrities" regardless of their married status.

And you think this behaviour is no better than the lads behaviour?

Adamocovic

mayolady14 wrote: »

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

I commend any woman protesting this verdict as we need to ensure that rapists are getting convicted.

That is outrageously wrong. I agree more work needs to be done on how the cases are handled but the statistic you presented is not correct.

It is a lower conviction rate for sex-crimes, but not 1-2%. For Sexual Crimes in total it was the lowest in 2016 at 89% conviction rates, I think traffic for example was 93%.

For rape specifically, in 2013/2014 the average conviction rate of rape trials was 19%. Now around 20% of accused don't even go to trial, they just plead guilty. And I also read that over 85% of cases involve both the accused and accuser being under the influence of alcohol which leads to some difficulty.

Yes the conviction rate is low, lowest of all crimes I do believe but not this ridiculous number of 1-2%.

facehugger99

There are no winners from this case.

I really hope if lessons are to be learned, that the next time a group of sports jocks and self-described 'legends' get a drunk teenager back to their place, they don't act like a bunch of misogynistic assholes.

Vladimir Poontang

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Mass protests about rape in Ireland today. We are akin to India now.

Hopefully this shines an international spotlight on the shameful way that women are treated in Ireland.

When you have mass protests about rape, you"ve got to start looking at yourselves.

Hahahaha hahahaha

Akin to India?

Talk about having no grasp of reality

VinLieger

mayolady14 wrote: »

Not about how I feel? 98% of accused rapists walk free in this country is that ok?

FYP which shows where your problem on this issue is, you seem to want to remove the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty in the case of rape

irishrebe

seamus wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

No, they decided that they cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a rape occurred. A very different situation. If we have a fight and I punch you in the face and break your nose, but you can't prove it in court that I did it intentionally and that we weren't just messing, does that mean you weren't attacked?

Legally, yes.

And so you'd be happy to be called a liar and a scumbag by all and sundry for taking me to court, when I was ultimately found not guilty?

Laneyh

pjohnson wrote: »

Of course people know in the locality. Thats the nature of gossip. Dara Florence was outed as the complainant on social media which was false. Vast majority of people do not know her identity. This whole island and a large chunk of Britain all know Jackson and Olding now.

Based on some comments elsewhere I don't think the trial got half as much detailed coverage in Britain. People genuinely didn't seem to know details of the case.
The media here had a field day

OwlsZat

Sidebaro wrote: »

OwlsZat wrote:

Groping and hanging out of a bunch of socialising local "celebrities" regardless of their married status.

And you think this behaviour is no better than the lads behaviour?

I don't believe the lads behaviour was very Gentlemanly. However, her footing on the moral high ground is pretty unsteady.

almostover

mayolady14 wrote: »

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I keep seeing this 1-2% number fired around

Could you please explain it?

The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

Only one in ten victims of sexual crime in Ireland reports that crime. Those who do report then face a torturous journey to the point where the DPP thinks it worth prosecuting the case. Ireland has the lowest conviction rate for rape cases – following allegation – in Europe, standing at 1 – 2%. The EU average is 8 – 10%.

So let's convict some people of rape until our conviction rate equalises with that in Europe, regardless of the innocence/guilt of the defendant. Quotas for rape convictions? Unless you can provide an alternative to our current process I think you should keep quiet.

Becks610

The crime of falsely accusing someone?[/quote]

She hasn’t been convicted of falsely accusing someone so as the boys are innocent until proven guilty ( which they weren’t) she is innocent until proven guilty.

People need to apply the standard of innocent until proven guilty on both sides here. You can’t say someone is guilty until proven in court.

irishrebe

VinLieger wrote: »

mayolady14 wrote: »

Not about how I feel? 98% of accused rapists walk free in this country is that ok?

FYP which shows where your problem on this issue is, you seem to want to remove the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty in the case of rape

And this is why it's so hard to get a rape conviction. I posted hours ago about allowing an acquaintance to use my toilet after a night out. He then made a move on me. I was able to get rid of him, but what if I hadn't been? The onus would have been on me to prove that the sex wasn't consensual, and how could I do that? It's my word against his. I would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was unwanted. How do you do that?

Fann Linn

weldoninhio wrote: »

As below

Hence, 'not guilty, m'lud'

seamus

irishrebe wrote: »

And so you'd be happy to be called a liar and a scumbag by all and sundry for taking me to court, when I was ultimately found not guilty?

That's an entirely different matter which I wasn't referring to.

From the point of view of society, the court arbitrates and declares fact. So from a social and legal point of view, she wasn't raped. That's why we have a legal system at all.

That doesn't mean her feeling that she was raped are invalid, and it doesn't change the facts of what actually happened that night - which nobody really knows.

But it does mean that this stuff of, "The courts are wrong, she was raped", is at best misguided and at worst dangerous. As a society we have to accept the outcomes of a fair legal system, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Otherwise we may as well just scrap it and start burning people at the stake based on nothing more than accusations.

People calling her a liar are just as bad as the people calling these guys rapists. They're all idiots. Just because she believes she was raped even though she wasn't, doesn't make her a liar. And it doesn't make them rapists.

Laneyh

Laneyh wrote: »

Based on some comments elsewhere I don't think the trial got half as much detailed coverage in Britain. People genuinely didn't seem to know details of the case.
The media here had a field day

I get an email every morning from the Guardian UK. There was nothing about the case in the entire email. Not in Headlines, not in Most Viewed, not in Sport, not in Comment. I found that quite bizarre.

Sidebaro

Luxxis wrote:

Ok how are women's rights in any way affected in a rape trial?

I didn't mention the rape trial, I mentioned the hashtag IBelieveHer?

Adamocovic

mayolady14 wrote: »

The Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland Report (2002) is now fourteen years old and it remains a deeply disturbing work. Among its findings: 27% of Irish women and men experience sexual violence in their childhood. Roughly one third of Irish women and men will experience sexual violence in their lifetime.

Only one in ten victims of sexual crime in Ireland reports that crime. Those who do report then face a torturous journey to the point where the DPP thinks it worth prosecuting the case. Ireland has the lowest conviction rate for rape cases – following allegation – in Europe, standing at 1 – 2%. The EU average is 8 – 10%.

The information used in that report is from the year 2000. I don't think something nearly 20 years old is that useful for a look at the current state of our court systems.

Also of the cases that were brought to court that year the conviction rate was 3.9%. Yes extremely low but surely the rise since then would show that continued work in the procedure and technology advancements have made an improvement.

Still a long way to go but I think it's not accurate to use conviction rates from so long ago.

Sidebaro

Tsipras wrote:

Why would they say it?

Why wouldn't they? Equally dumb question.

Sidebaro

Shefwedfan wrote:

Are you trying to say a Lady Garda would tell her that he is needed for the Championship????

Lady Garda having an interest in a man's sport? Witchcraft!!!

irishrebe

seamus wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

And so you'd be happy to be called a liar and a scumbag by all and sundry for taking me to court, when I was ultimately found not guilty?

That's an entirely different matter which I wasn't referring to.

From the point of view of society, the court arbitrates and declares fact. So from a social and legal point of view, she wasn't raped. That's why we have a legal system at all.

That doesn't mean her feeling that she was raped are invalid, and it doesn't change the facts of what actually happened that night - which nobody really knows.

But it does mean that this stuff of, "The courts are wrong, she was raped", is at best misguided and at worst dangerous. As a society we have to accept the outcomes of a fair legal system, no matter how distasteful they may be.

Otherwise we may as well just scrap it and start burning people at the stake based on nothing more than accusations.

I agree that the trial was held and the defendants were found not guilty based on the available evidence. I'm not in support of any assumptions that they are guilty and should be punished. But the natural conclusion for many people seems to be that she's a liar and she made it all up. We don't know if she was raped or not. We know that it couldn't be proven. I don't know where you get the idea that the findings of the jury mean the rape categorically 'didn't happen'. No legal professional would put it in those words.

VinLieger

irishrebe wrote: »

And this is why it's so hard to get a rape conviction. I posted hours ago about allowing an acquaintance to use my toilet after a night out. He then made a move on me. I was able to get rid of him, but what if I hadn't been? The onus would have been on me to prove that the sex wasn't consensual, and how could I do that? It's my word against his. I would have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the sexual contact was unwanted. How do you do that?

Yup I don't know, im not in any way qualified to even have an opinion on how to change the system to account for this.

irishrebe

Sidebaro wrote: »

Shefwedfan wrote:

Are you trying to say a Lady Garda would tell her that he is needed for the Championship????

Lady Garda having an interest in a man's sport? Witchcraft!!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry sometimes. Imagine making such a sexist comment on a thread like this and not even seeing the irony of it.

Sidebaro

Uncharted wrote:

Please allow me to clarify. You have my whole hearted concern (2.if) your alleged event took place. It's morally and legally wrong and disgusting on every level. My point is this..... under no circumstances would the person who raped me or anyone belonging to me get away with the crime. (1.I don't believe or understand how anyone could just let it go).....

1. How could somebody let it go?

2. Because when they say that they are raped, they are not believed.

Sidebaro

OwlsZat wrote:

I don't believe the lads behaviour was very Gentlemanly. However, her footing on the moral high ground is pretty unsteady.

I just don't think they should be labelled as as bad as each other?

mayolady14

Uncharted wrote: »

Please allow me to clarify. You have my whole hearted concern if your alleged event took place. It's morally and legally wrong and disgusting on every level.
My point is this..... under no circumstances would the person who raped me or anyone belonging to me get away with the crime. I don't believe or understand how anyone could just let it go.....

If you have never been raped and disbelieved, I think you have no right to comment on what you think you would do. I was disbelieved by someone who is supposed to help me.

seamus

irishrebe wrote: »

We don't know if she was raped or not. We know that it couldn't be proven.

Which means there was no rape.

I don't know where you get the idea that the findings of the jury mean the rape categorically 'didn't happen'. No legal professional would put it in those words.

The incident happened. The individuals involved engaged in sex, in which the matter of consent was questionable.

But for all social and legal purposes, a rape did not occur. That's the point.

Or to put it another way - if you say, "She was raped, but it can't be proven", then what you're doing is undermining the court. A finding of fact by a court that a rape occurred - in this instance - also requires that the accused is found guilty.