Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

JupiterKid

I don't normally like Coppinger but she's dead right in this case to highlight the issue of defence barrrisers using the clothes or underwear a woman is wearing as an excuse for rape.

That defence barrister should be ashamed of herself.:mad:

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

Ok I get your point. But that is what the protests are about, quite valid protests in my opinion. The belief that a persons underwear is any way related to consent is not "reasonable" That is the nonsense we must get away from, and if that means not allowing that as evidence that is fine by me. There are plenty of things that are inadmissible during court cases.
Ignorance cannot be a defence

Sorry but I’m fine exactly where I am as to me it is not nonsense. It’s nonsense to you - grand. I would never suggest that a persons underwear alone is related to consent. In the context of a person who is on trial accused of committing rape, then it is their beliefs which are relevant, and it is whether or not their belief in that specific context when they are on trial accused of rape, is relevant in that specific context. Outside of that context, there is nothing unreasonable in assuming that the underwear a person wears is of relevant consideration with regard to whether or not they were intending or not to have sex.

Nobody is suggesting that anyone puts on specific underwear with the intention of being raped. That is the myth that’s being inserted here where it doesn’t belong, as there is a disagreement at trial as to whether or not the encounter was consensual. Only one poster to the best of my knowledge has claimed that no rape took place, and that was not in question at trial. The question for the jury was whether or not the defendant was guilty of committing rape.

You’re absolutely right that ignorance (of the law, btw) is not a defence, but there are plenty of posters here are banking on people’s ignorance to suggest that because they believe the complainant was raped, it was wrong for the defendant to use what she was wearing at the time as a defence for their honest belief, and present that to the jury for consideration that it was a reasonable belief on the part of the defendant, in the context of all the evidence they were presented with throughout the trial of the defendant.

Jack Moore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You do know that everyone under the age of 18 is a minor. Don't confuse this fact with the age of consent. A minor means someone under the age of 18. It has nothing to do with sex. You are a minor under 18 & become an adult when you turn 18.



This girl was a minor. Not under the age of consent but a minor all the same

That’s not a thing

joe40

Thanks to ceadaoin for posting the information from the trial. I wasn't aware of the details. It is worse than I thought. The idea that a young womans underwear bears any indication of whether or not she wants to have sex is ludicrous. Even if she did want to have sex with someone that night why would a potential attacker "reasonably assume" she wanted sex with him, based on her underwear. Granted maybe not in isolation, but the idea should not be entertained.
I Normally like to see both sides in an argument, but that barrister is vile for propagating those myths.
In response to a previous poster nobody said her undewear indicated she wanted to be raped. The myth is that her underwear indicatedin any way her intention to have sex wit a particular individual.
Never thought I would ever say this but fair play to Ruth Coppinger

neonsofa

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

eagle eye

If a defense barrister is allowed to even suggest that the clothes worn by the alleged victim means something then the jury is being asked to consider something the shouldn't I think. Also if you are allowing this to be said to the jury then the previous criminal of the accused should also be given to the jury to balance things. In this instance the criminal record of the accused would have led to an immediate guilty verdict.

Sleeper12

You are making this up

Please explain. Anyone under 18 is a minor. Over 18 is an adult under 18 is a minor. This is fact

joe40

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

Boggles

joe40 wrote: »

Thanks to ceadaoin for posting the information from the trial. I wasn't aware of the details.

You still aren't TBF.

Nobody on here is.

James Brown

It's not a question of if the girl said yes or no it's the point that the type of underwear worn played any role at all. If she was wearing none would he have thrown out the case?

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can maintain that belief for as long as you wish. You won’t manage to convince me it has any truth. It is but one of millions of reasonable assumptions that you can make about other people. I know for example that I don’t just wear underwear “because I choose to wear it”. I choose my underwear often with many specific purposes in mind depending upon the circumstances in which I predict I may find myself later on in the day, or night, as it may be. For you to tell me that it’s a myth that I choose my underwear just “because I choose to wear it”, is to my mind, an unreasonable assumption on your part. You’re just wrong. You’re making an assumption about someone who isn’t you, and you’re wrong. Your ‘myth’ is meaningless and unreasonable to me.

I make assumptions all the time too. I’m wrong too. Sometimes I’m right. I make assumptions based upon previous evidence where an idea has either worked out, or it hasn’t. “Myth”, doesn’t come into it. I base my assumptions upon whether or not the evidence I have suggests that an idea is reasonable, or unreasonable. Your evidence may present you with different beliefs to mine. This is the reason why there are 12 people on a jury, and a persons fate isn’t just decided by one person.

I was talking about what the wearing of a thong 'objectively signifies'. I say it objectively signifies nothing except that a person is wearing a thong, because the reasons for wearing it are 99% personal and private to the wearer. Unless the wearer tells us why they chose to put it on, its significance can only be established by guesswork.

How you feel about your underwear is entirely your business, you are entitled to believe what you want. Your mistake is thinking that your personal beliefs are automatically valid or relevant for anyone else.

The Bishop Basher

LLMMLL wrote: »

I read it fully. I stand by what I said. If you have a specific response please make it. I'd be happy to hear it.

Response to what ? I still have no idea what you're on about..

retro:electro

joe40 wrote: »

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

Tbf, I think most men (bar a few weirdos on here) are decent minded folk and would never infer such a thing.
The barristers comment was dangerous two fold.
1) like you say, are men going to start assuming women’s knickers act as a measurement for randyness? And
2) in the unfortunate event a women gets raped, rattled with self doubt/loathing/guilt/fear/nerves as you already are, will she now have to consider that the defendant’s barrister will hold her knickers up to the jury in such a degrading way to try and convince them she had pre-meditated plans to get the ride?

I totally feel for the 17 year old in this case. I’m sure she just wanted to get on with life with dignity and privacy and now thanks to this turd brain of a barrister, I’m sure she has been made identifiable to some people and everything from the knickers she had on that night up for debate.

Jack Moore

Sleeper12 wrote: »

You are making this up

Please explain. Anyone under 18 is a minor. Over 18 is an adult under 18 is a minor. This is fact

You are talking about the age of majority
Sex with a minor is when the minor has not reached the age of majority for sex
It is 17

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

I totally feel for the 17 year old in this case. I’m sure she just wanted to get on with life with dignity and privacy and now thanks to this turd brain of a barrister, I’m sure she has been made identifiable to some people and everything from the knickers she had on that night up for debate.

Do you feel for the defendant?

retro:electro

Boggles wrote: »

Do you feel for the defendant?

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

Dakota Dan

joe40 wrote: »

I was always vehemently opposed to consent classes, but if a some men think a womans underwear is to some extent indicating consent for sex... Well maybe I'm wrong and many men need that education

How did he get to see her underwear? Lots more to this story than what the media put out.

Boggles

retro:electro wrote: »

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

You know there has been absolutely no proof presented on here that he was married, it came from one poster, there was also a claim it wasn't his first time been accused of rape. Again no proof.

There is absolutely no difference between that unsubstantiated rubbish and someone coming on here suggesting the girl has had multiple sexual partners and this isn't her first time alleging rape. It's equally as disgusting and absolutely pointless.

Would you agree?

Lillybloom

neonsofa wrote: »

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

You don't know that it's not relevant that she was wearing a thong.

For example, in a murder case it could be relevant whether there was two pints of milk in the fridge or one or it might not be. It depends on the context.

The tiniest details can be relevant, if that is beyond your imagination then watch a few episodes of Columbo

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

But even if you believe that a thong indicates intent to have sex, and it's somehow reasonable for a man to infer consent from this, it doesn't mean she still has intent hours after she put them on. Nor that they were put on to "consent" to him specifically. Nor does it negate the fact that even if she went out wearing everything possible to get this specific man's attention with every intention of having sex with him that she could still say no or change her mind since choosing her underwear. So it really is completely irrelevant that she was wearing a thong because even if you want to argue that it implies consent, at what point is she allowed change her mind? Does she have to take off the underwear when she decides she is no longer interested? Surely that could be "reasonably believed" to be consent- removing underwear? Should she carry two pairs in case she needs to revoke this implied consent? It's absolutely ridiculous.

You’re missing the point of a trial where it is the defendants mindset is in question, not the complainant, as the complainant is not on trial. What I mean by that is that what’s relevant is what the defendant believes, not the complainant. The complainant is only ever appearing as a witness to give evidence in the States prosecution against the defendant.

I remember one case (and I’m not sure I’m going to find it now) where the complainant, a Brazilian national, was left feeling rather confused when the defendant was found guilty, that she did not receive compensation, as that’s how that’s how things are done in Brazil, and for her it was a reasonable assumption that she would receive compensation. Anyone who is familiar with how our judicial system works, would have made her aware that’s not how it works here. It must never have come up because the complainant may not have mentioned it to anyone and assumed that’s how things are done here too. I don’t think she was prepared properly to give evidence, nor was she prepared properly for any outcome. She was allowed to make assumptions because she was none the wiser, and nobody else appeared to be any the wiser about her assumptions either, let alone corrected her on them. The point being that she didn’t consider it relevant to mention that’s how things are done in Brazil, or people didn’t consider that she wasn’t familiar with the Irish judicial system. They all made what they thought were reasonable assumptions, which if anyone had thought of it at the time to check, could have been cleared up very quickly.

In this particular case, the defendant was of the opinion that the encounter was consensual. The complainant was not. That’s why there ended up being a trial, because the defendant maintained they were innocent, and the prosecution assumed they had a good case against the defendant that they could secure a conviction. They assumed wrong. In this particular case, it wouldn’t matter when the complainant put on her underwear or the style of underwear it was or anything else. If the defendant had a thing for Bridget Jones pants and the complainant had been wearing Bridget Jones pants, then the defence would have presented that as the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual. If the defendant was aware that the complainant had a thing for erotic asphyxiation, you can be absolutely guaranteed they would want that introduced into evidence in their defence.

The whole point is that it’s not just the underwear the complainant was wearing at the time is relevant to the defendants case, it could literally be anything that the defendant considers relevant which would have indicated to them that the encounter was consensual. When you talk about what you put on doesn’t indicate anything subsequent about you, that’s really neither here nor there, as the point is that in this case, we are talking specifically about a specific case, in hindsight. We don’t know for a fact that the complainant has been raped. The whole “what a victim of rape was wearing at the time is irrelevant” is true in a completely different context. It is spoken of in the context where we know for a fact, that someone is the victim of rape. That wasn’t the case here, and that’s why the defendant was on trial.


EDIT: This is the case I was referring to -

Victim impact statements ‘used to influence judges’

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

Tbf, I think most men (bar a few weirdos on here) are decent minded folk and would never infer such a thing.

You people just can't avoid the personal insults can you ?

Over and over it's always the same crew getting away with getting personal.

It just serves to highlight the weakness and hypocrisy of your position

Dakota Dan

retro:electro wrote: »

For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat?

Nope.

were you at the court case, where did you get that information?

Sleeper12

Jack Moore wrote: »

You are talking about the age of majority
Sex with a minor is when the minor has not reached the age of majority for sex
It is 17

Yes I know that.


There is no offense of " sex with a minor" in Ireland as a 17 year old is a minor yet can legally have sex yet a 17 year old is still a minor.



I think posters are confusing times possibly before they were born when the age for consent was 18. Back in these black & white days Under 18 was a minor & they couldn't have sex. We have since lowered the age of consent but not the age of a minor.



Yet again a minor is a person under the age of 18 but has nothing to do with sex



A minor is someone under the age of 18. it has nothing to do with sex. Is everyone that perverted that they only see A minor as underage sex???


A minor has nothing to do with sex. A minor in Ireland is a person under the age of 18


The laws in Ireland for under age sex no longer use the term "minor" as a minor is anyone under the age of 18. The age of consent is now lower than 18 so the term minor shouldn't be used for under age sex.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I was talking about what the wearing of a thong 'objectively signifies'. I say it objectively signifies nothing except that a person is wearing a thong, because the reasons for wearing it are 99% personal and private to the wearer. Unless the wearer tells us why they chose to put it on, its significance can only be established by guesswork.

How you feel about your underwear is entirely your business, you are entitled to believe what you want. Your mistake is thinking that your personal beliefs are automatically valid or relevant for anyone else.

You have to be taking the piss, surely?

You project your subjective assumptions about people upon everyone else, and still consider your beliefs objective?

I’m not the person telling anyone else that what they know to be true is wrong, implying that I know anyone better than they know themselves. Are you familiar with the concept of freedom of thought that gives everyone the right to believe what they want? It’s when they act upon those beliefs that they may be in violation of the law.

In this case, it was determined by a jury that the defendant was not in violation of the law, and Ruth Coppinger can hold up a whole washing line of thongs in the Dail to promote her bill, it still won’t make any difference to what evidence can or cannot be introduced at trial.

joe40

So it would appear from a previous poster, that the only important thing in a court case is the defendants mindset. Whether or not they believe or know they are committing a crime.
So I have consensual sex with a 16 year old. I don't know she is 16, genuinely believe she is 18, therefore no crime?
Hypothetical scenario nothing to do with this case.

Sleeper12

Jack Moore wrote: »

You are talking about the age of majority
Sex with a minor is when the minor has not reached the age of majority for sex
It is 17

Just thinking here. Might be easier if you post a link to this legislation "sex with a minor"


In my opinion it doesn't work

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

So it would appear from a previous poster, that the only important thing in a court case is the defendants mindset. Whether or not they believe or know they are committing a crime.
So I have consensual sex with a 16 year old. I don't know she is 16, genuinely believe she is 18, therefore no crime?
Hypothetical scenario nothing to do with this case.

What age are you?

joe40

One eyed Jack wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

So it would appear from a previous poster, that the only important thing in a court case is the defendants mindset. Whether or not they believe or know they are committing a crime.
So I have consensual sex with a 16 year old. I don't know she is 16, genuinely believe she is 18, therefore no crime?
Hypothetical scenario nothing to do with this case.

What age are you?

Over 18

tritium

joe40 wrote: »

So it would appear from a previous poster, that the only important thing in a court case is the defendants mindset. Whether or not they believe or know they are committing a crime.
So I have consensual sex with a 16 year old. I don't know she is 16, genuinely believe she is 18, therefore no crime?
Hypothetical scenario nothing to do with this case.

In the past this situation used to be a crime of strict liability and you couldn’t use that defence (I May have the wrong term her so someone can correct if so). I’ve a vague idea that may have changed a few years ago a little.

Interestingly one of the UK cases that collapsed as part of the Liam allam debacle was essentially that exact scenario.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

Over 18

Cheers. I can’t tell you whether or not you would or wouldn’t be found guilty of having committed any (or many) criminal offences given the limited circumstances you posted where you initially left out what you didn’t consider relevant or pertinent information.

It could have been the difference between your being found guilty of an offence, and not, if you had chosen to maintain that your age is irrelevant. It also complicates matters that you are aware of the complainants age. This is why hypotheticals are never a good argument, because there’s an infinite amount of variables that you don’t consider relevant or pertinent which you left out, but your own age was just one that I chose to use as an example.