Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Simple_Simone

I wonder who precisely, other than Coppinger, will benefit from yesterday's cheap PR stunt.

For me it's reminiscent of Clare Daly and Mick Wallaces' nonsensical "invasion" of Shannon Airport a few years ago.

Loads of free publicity for the media savvy couple, (their media pals having been tipped off in advance of the stunt) but the number of lives that it saved is probably zilch.

tritium

SusieBlue wrote: »

I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you, whatsapp messages have zero relevance in this case.

Except this thread (and Coppingers point) isn’t about one case, where the court applied it’s rules appropriately, it’s about what should be generally permissible in evidence in rape trials.

So tell me, what do you think should be classed as permissible evidence for prosecution and defence in such trials?

I don't really understand why we're talking about her intent when choosing her underwear. Even if she did intend to have sex it doesn't mean she can't be raped or that she intended to have sex with anyone/everyone. A persons underwear can't indicate that it's wearer intended sex with that particular person. It doesn't mean yes.

What the barrister was trying to do was paint the complainant as a slut or an easy lay because she was wearing sexy undies, and lead the jury to a specific conclusion. She was trying to assassinate her character to sow the seeds of doubt, not introduce some vital evidence that exonerates her client.

It can be argued that it's her job to do whatever it takes to get him off, but there should surely be guidelines to prevent that or we'll wind up in a world where the alleged rapists use lipstick or perfume as a defence, because if you don't want sex (from anyone/everyone), why on earth do you go out of your way to use makeup or smell good.

SusieBlue

tritium wrote: »

Except this thread (and Coppingers point) isn’t about one case, where the court applied it’s rules appropriately, it’s about what should be generally permissible in evidence in rape trials.

So tell me, what do you think should be classed as permissible evidence for prosecution and defence in such trials?

Not someone’s choice in underwear, I’ll start with that.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

But what could the design of your knicker de jour imply about the sexual intentions of the girl in question? Really? No one disputes that items of clothing have to be submitted for evidence, but when you go down the road of saying someone’s knickers implied not only intent, but consent .. that’s when it becomes very dangerous and damaging to every single person who tries to prosecute a rape.

The underwear alone doesn't prove anything. But the fact that there are a bazillion articles online on the theme of "What Kind Of Underwear Do You Wear On A Date?" (Glamour magazine) suggests that yes, a woman does pay attention to her choice of underwear when she intends to have sex. So it can't be assumed to be entirely irrelevant, either.

If the defense's case rests on showing that the alleged victim was behaving in a manner consistent with inviting sexual contact, and that the accused genuinely believed that the girl invited and wanted intercourse, then numerous factors -- including her choice of clothing -- could be relevant in bolstering that case.

seamus

astrofool wrote: »

What you seem to be arguing is that there is no meaning at all to what underwear someone chooses, despite the fact that different underwear styles are specifically marketed for different intents, the fact that there's a billion dollar industry built on top of this is now irrelevant.

If I see a woman wearing yoga pants, can I assume that she is at least open to attending a yoga class today?

Oddly, no, I can't. In fact, I can't even assume that she is open to any form of physical exercise today. It's a clothing choice, not a statement of intent.

Likewise, I cannot infer from a woman wearing a thong, anything except the fact that she decided to wear a thong today.

Atlas Rotten Machinist

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

The underwear alone doesn't prove anything. But the fact that there are a bazillion articles online on the theme of "What Kind Of Underwear Do You Wear On A Date?" (Glamour magazine) suggests that yes, a woman does pay attention to her choice of underwear when she intends to have sex. So it can't be assumed to be entirely irrelevant, either.

If the defense's case rests on showing that the alleged victim was behaving in a manner consistent with inviting sexual contact, and that the accused genuinely believed that the girl invited and wanted intercourse, then numerous factors -- including her choice of clothing -- could be relevant in bolstering that case.

Unless the underweark specifically names the defendant and revokes all rights to change her mind, it means nothing. So what if she wanted sex? It didn't mean she wanted it with him.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

The underwear alone doesn't prove anything. But the fact that there are a bazillion articles online on the theme of "What Kind Of Underwear Do You Wear On A Date?" (Glamour magazine) suggests that yes, a woman does pay attention to her choice of underwear when she intends to have sex. So it can't be assumed to be entirely irrelevant, either.

If the defense's case rests on showing that the alleged victim was behaving in a manner consistent with inviting sexual contact, and that the accused genuinely believed that the girl invited and wanted intercourse, then numerous factors -- including her choice of clothing -- could be relevant in bolstering that case.

So people who go on dates and intend on having consensual sex don’t get raped?
The barrister went for the lowest hanging fruit with her cheap stunt.

retro:electro

retro:electro wrote: »

So people who go on dates and intend on having consensual sex don’t get raped?

Glamour magazine says women pick out underwear specifically for dates. What more proof do you need?

Hercule Poirot

What precedent does it set allowing a lacey thong to be seen as intent to have sex?

She was showing a good bit of cleavage - she was "up for it"

She was wearing tight hot pants - she was "up for it"

She was wearing a micro skirt - you better believe she was "up for it"

A woman can wear what she likes, if she makes it clear she isn't interested in having sex then the man shouldn't be able to say "well you're outfit says differently" and then sexually assault her

tritium

Grayson wrote: »

Boasting about sex would indicate that intercourse actually occurred although it wouldn't indicate the legality

And given consensual sex isn’t rape that would have zero evidential value unless the claim was no sex happened

. Whatsapp messages may indicate the defendants attitude towards women.They may even be used by the defense.

Which in itself says nothing about whether a crime was committed. Someone being crude about sexual partners doesn’t make them more likely a rapist any more than someone having an adventurous sex history makes them less likely to be a truthful rape victim

I realise you're trying to get this away from the case at hand and over to the belfast case, they are two separate cases.

The bolded bit is a slippery slope argument. For what's wrong with that type of argument, I refer you back a page or two to the link I put up about slippery slope arguments.

None of what you posted addresses the fact that whether someone wears a thong is not an indication that they consented to sex. Likewise for example wearing a short skirt is not an indication that someone consented to sex.

Im afraid you either misunderstand or misrepresent my motives here. I completely agree with your last point. However the focus of Coppingers actions is very much on what can’t be used by a defence without extending the same courtesy to what’s allowed for a prosecution. My point is where do you want to draw the bar to be fair to both parties. If it’s reasonable to disallow defence use of evidence as to elements outside the immediate event then the same is true for the prosecution. At its limit any case would reduce to he said/ she said and medical evidence occasionally. Do you think that will improve the workings of justice?

If there's any other evidence that shows that someone consented then it should be presented to the court. But choice of underwear doesn't prove it or even bolster any other evidence unless it's directly refereed to elsewhere.

I agree, however that assumes that the courts don’t already consider this in what they allow in a given case. which as I understand they largely do.
Far too many commentators seem to want to run with Coppingers tack that knickers are being whipped out in cases up and down the country as some sort of harlot-o meter when the reality is there are far more complex reasons for why a case may result in an acquittal.

Grab All Association

Absolutely ridiculous these leftards protesting. The defence is entitled to question and challenge the character/behaviour of the plaintiff. Nobody should be immune from suspicion/criticism/scrutiny.
It may not be a perfect system but everyone is entitled to fair due process and representation.

She was found to be not believable, whereas he was not guilty by a jury of his peers. Where’s the people questioning how an innocent man was brought to court and charged with a crime he did not commit? Where’s the people calling for charges to be pressed against this girl for making a false allegation? It’s a two way street. Why was a 15 year old wearing underwear that’s marketed to adults?

Bigbagofcans

What's the big deal about wearing a thong? I know plenty of girls who wear them cos they think they're more comfortable than knickers.

The amount of "hilarious" misogynistic jokes on this thread is baffling. I'm sure some of them posters are incels & spew their tired jokes all over Reddit too - "damn those feminazis" etc.

SusieBlue

I have yet to see one convincing argument for how an inanimate item of clothing can not only imply but actually GIVE sexual consent on behalf of the living citizen actually wearing it.
Not one.

FishOnABike

titan18 wrote: »

You shouldn't limit what a defense can use as evidence. It's up to the jury to decide whether to agree with it or not, not the lynch mob.

Judges limit what can be used for evidence by refusing to hear witnesses or accept sworn affidavits, seemingly on an ad hoc basis without any need to explain their actions.

At least if there were clear guidelines as to what type of evidence is admissible or not it would set common expectations for both prosecution and defence and help ensure a degree of consistency between different cases.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

So people who go on dates and intend on having consensual sex don’t get raped?

Of course they do.

However, there's a lot more room for reasonable doubt in a he said/she said scenario.

A defense barrister's job in such a case is to create reasonable doubt so as to ensure that her client is found not guilty. That's what this barrister did.

Grab All Association

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have yet to see one convincing argument for how an inanimate item of clothing can not only imply but actually GIVE sexual consent on behalf of the living citizen actually wearing it.
Not one.

I’m fairly certain it was other evidence taken into consideration by the jury that found this girl not believable. None of us were there. We are talking about a man that was acquitted of a very serious crime. Isn’t he entitled to sympathy/justice?

SusieBlue

Grab All Association wrote: »

I’m fairly certain it was other evidence taken into consideration by the jury that found this girl not believable. None of us were there. We are talking about a man that was acquitted of a very serious crime. Isn’t he entitled to sympathy/justice?

NO ONE IS DISPUTING THE VERDICT.

The matter at hand is whether it is acceptable to analyze a woman’s choice of knickers during a rape trial, when determining whether she was raped or was up for it.

retro:electro

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Of course they do.

However, there's a lot more room for reasonable doubt in a he said/she said scenario.

A defense barrister's job in such a case is to create reasonable doubt so as to ensure that her client is found not guilty. That's what this barrister did.

The fact that your underwear could be the cause of even a smidgen of doubt is what’s depressing.
I wonder what kind of knickers the barrister had on that day and what kind of character judgment we should infer on to her and assume her sexual intentions on her behalf

blue note

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have yet to see one convincing argument for how an inanimate item of clothing can not only imply but actually GIVE sexual consent on behalf of the living citizen actually wearing it.
Not one.

I haven't even seen anyone suggest that it does. What people are saying is that it can give weight to the argument that she intended to, or was open to having sex. And intending to have sex would give weight to the argument that she later consented, but obviously doesn't prove that she did on it's own. Not even close.

Can you point to anyone saying that wearing a thong gives consent? I'd be interested to see that quote.

ohnonotgmail

blue note wrote: »

I haven't even seen anyone suggest that it does. What people are saying is that it can give weight to the argument that she intended to, or was open to having sex. And intending to have sex would give weight to the argument that she later consented, but obviously doesn't prove that she did on it's own. Not even close.

Can you point to anyone saying that wearing a thong gives consent? I'd be interested to see that quote.

But how does it do that?

Amirani

seamus wrote: »

The Dail can pass legislation about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in defence of a charge.

How do you frame the legislation? You can't just ban clothing being used as evidence. It should be at the judge's discretion whether or not it is admissible, dependent on the case.

It's impossible for the Oireachtas to legislate for every case, particularly where there are cases where clothing of victims or defendants is very relevant (this not being one).

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

retro:electro wrote: »

The fact that your underwear could be the cause of even a smidgen of doubt is what’s depressing.

A good defense barrister is going to use anything and everything at her disposal to get her client off. The barrister wasn't holding a referendum on women's choices of underwear -- she was doing her utmost to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury. I'm sure she didn't exactly take pride in exhibiting a 17-year-old's knickers to the court, but she did her job well and he was found not guilty.

That's the kind of lawyer I would want on my side if I were ever up in court on serious criminal charges, not someone who would hem and haw and say "Maybe questioning her choice of underwear wouldn't be appropriate." A defense barrister's job isn't to decide what's appropriate -- it's to keep her client out of jail.

Simple_Simone

SusieBlue wrote: »

I have yet to see one convincing argument for how an inanimate item of clothing can not only imply but actually GIVE sexual consent on behalf of the living citizen actually wearing it.
Not one.

So presumably you reckon that the wearer of this item of clothing is lying?

Grayson

tritium wrote: »

And given consensual sex isn’t rape that would have zero evidential value unless the claim was no sex happened



Which in itself says nothing about whether a crime was committed. Someone being crude about sexual partners doesn’t make them more likely a rapist any more than someone having an adventurous sex history makes them less likely to be a truthful rape victim



Im afraid you either misunderstand or misrepresent my motives here. I completely agree with your last point. However the focus of Coppingers actions is very much on what can’t be used by a defence without extending the same courtesy to what’s allowed for a prosecution. My point is where do you want to draw the bar to be fair to both parties. If it’s reasonable to disallow defence use of evidence as to elements outside the immediate event then the same is true for the prosecution. At its limit any case would reduce to he said/ she said and medical evidence occasionally. Do you think that will improve the workings of justice?



I agree, however that assumes that the courts don’t already consider this in what they allow in a given case. which as I understand they largely do.
Far too many commentators seem to want to run with Coppingers tack that knickers are being whipped out in cases up and down the country as some sort of harlot-o meter when the reality is there are far more complex reasons for why a case may result in an acquittal.

But underwear isn't relevant at all.

There's two things to look at.

1) Did sex occur.
2) was it consensual.

The fact that she wore common underwear doesn't indicate either of those. Unless she took them off afterwards, signed them and said "That was great", I don't see how underwear is relevant at all. It's effectively slut shaming. It's indicating that style of dress indicates consent. It's an argument that should have no place in a court of law.

JMNolan

Grayson wrote: »

But underwear isn't relevant at all.

There's two things to look at.

1) Did sex occur.
2) was it consensual.

The fact that she wore common underwear doesn't indicate either of those. Unless she took them off afterwards, signed them and said "That was great", I don't see how underwear is relevant at all. It's effectively slut shaming. It's indicating that style of dress indicates consent. It's an argument that should have no place in a court of law.

So you're saying the judge was wrong to allow it?

SusieBlue

Simple_Simone wrote: »

So presumably you reckon that the wearer of this item of clothing is lying?

A t-shirt can’t consent for a person.
If they say No to sex, you can’t just go ahead anyway and use a slogan on a T-shirt for your defense.
I can’t believe this point is even being argued.
Clothing can’t consent on behalf of people.

seamus

Simple_Simone wrote: »

So presumably you reckon that the wearer of this item of clothing is lying?
https://image.spreadshirtmedia.com/image-server/v1/products/110881489/views/1,width=650,height=650,appearanceId=1,version=1524725084.jpg

You think wearing that shirt would prove that they want to have sex?

Mixed messages, perhaps, but only someone who had extreme difficulty with communication would assume that t-shirt automatically means the wearer is looking for sex.

Look at it from another perspective. Does that t-shirt carry exactly the same message when worn by all of these people:

- A slim 18 year old woman
- A fat 60 year old woman
- A porn star
- Chris Pratt
- Donald Trump
- Amy Schumer
- A 21 year old athletic man

No, it doesn't. Because language is far more nuanced than the literal meaning of the words.

Greyfox

Grab All Association wrote: »

. Why was a 15 year old wearing underwear that’s marketed to adults?

Irrelevant nonsense and completely unrelated to the case. It's nonsense like this that helps some men get away with rape

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

You think wearing that shirt would prove that they want to have sex?

Mixed messages, perhaps, but only someone who had extreme difficulty with communication would assume that t-shirt automatically means the wearer is looking for sex.

Look at it from another perspective. Does that t-shirt carry exactly the same message on all of these people:

- A slim 18 year old woman
- A fat 60 year old woman
- A porn star
- Chris Pratt
- Donald Trump
- A 21 year old athletic man

No, it doesn't. Because language is far more nuanced than the literal meaning of the words.

not only that but that it means they automatically want to have sex with a particular person.