Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I don't know why you are getting so irritated, or why the concept I'm talking about is so hard to grasp - I am not saying my beliefs are objectively more correct than anyone elses.

Here's an uncontroversial example to illustrate:

Dave has grown a beard.

I think he grew it to hide his weak chin.
Peter thinks he grew it because it's winter and his face is cold.
Jim thinks he grew it because he's a hipster wannabe who is very late to the trend.

But until someone asks Dave, the only objectively true fact is that Dave has a beard, his reasons for wearing a beard are still unknown.


In the case under discussion: The barrister made a remark in her closing statement which objectively linked the wearing of a thong to intent to have sex. She did not frame it as being defendant's belief - she said to the jury that choosing to wear a thong suggested the complainant intended to have sex.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't know why you are getting so irritated, or why the concept I'm talking about is so hard to grasp - I am not saying my beliefs are objectively more correct than anyone elses.

Here's an uncontroversial example to illustrate:

Dave has grown a beard.

I think he grew it to hide his weak chin.
Peter thinks he grew it because it's winter and his face is cold.
Jim thinks he grew it because he's a hipster wannabe who is very late to the trend.

But until someone asks Dave, the only objectively true fact is that Dave has a beard, his reasons for wearing a beard are still unknown.


In the case under discussion: The barrister made a remark in her closing statement which objectively linked the wearing of a thong to intent to have sex. She did not frame it as being defendant's belief - she said to the jury that choosing to wear a thong suggested the complainant intended to have sex.

She framed it in the context of the evidence presented during the trial-


“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front,”


In the same way it relates to your example above, you’re correct of course in saying that objectively, we can observe that Dave has grown a beard (we can disagree over whether I would call it a beard or not, hair on his face then ), and based upon what else we know about Dave, we can make assumptions as to why he may have forgotten to wash his face that morning and it now looks dirty, or is that a five o’ clock shadow. That’s a beard to you? Doesn’t look like a beard to me... you see where this is going?

Even if we ask Dave what’s the reason for looking like a bum, he might be of the opinion that his new facial fluff makes him resemble George Clooney. Are we then all supposed to agree with Dave that he does indeed look like George Clooney? I would certainly hope not.

The point the barrister in this case was making is that she was presenting the case that the encounter was consensual. In the defendants mind there was never any doubt that the encounter was consensual. Does that mean the defendant is objectively correct and the complainant is wrong? No, and I wouldn’t agree with anyone who suggests that either, because that is the basis of what you’re suggesting- that we can’t assume anything about anyone because we’ll be wrong and it’s wrong to make assumptions about people anyway.

Sorry Bo but that idea doesn’t even get out of the starting blocks as far as I’m concerned.

B0jangles

I don't understand how anyone can consistently misunderstand the same simple point so many times.

Lillybloom

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't know why you are getting so irritated, or why the concept I'm talking about is so hard to grasp - I am not saying my beliefs are objectively more correct than anyone elses.

Here's an uncontroversial example to illustrate:

Dave has grown a beard.

I think he grew it to hide his weak chin.
Peter thinks he grew it because it's winter and his face is cold.
Jim thinks he grew it because he's a hipster wannabe who is very late to the trend.

But until someone asks Dave, the only objectively true fact is that Dave has a beard, his reasons for wearing a beard are still unknown.


In the case under discussion: The barrister made a remark in her closing statement which objectively linked the wearing of a thong to intent to have sex. She did not frame it as being defendant's belief - she said to the jury that choosing to wear a thong suggested the complainant intended to have sex.

If you only ever stick to objective facts and not use probabilities it it be a lot more difficult to get convictions.

So when someone says they were raped, I presume then you don't automatically believe them because we don't have any facts that they were raped.

Lillybloom

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can consistently misunderstand the same simple point so many times.

I think you're missing the point, nobody is arguing that you can conclude intent to have sex based on a woman wearing a thong alone, but given the entire picture it could be relevant just like whether she wore a watch or socks could be relevant. You don't know until you have the entire context, and that is fact.

AndrewJRenko

tritium wrote: »

Saying that it was a rape trial and saying that the thong had anything to do with being raped are two entirely different things.

The defence s position was that there was no rape. Why then would they connect a thong to a rape? They connected a thong to consensual sex, they made no connection to rape, actually quite the (important) opposite.

They connected the thong to consensual sex to get him off the rape charge. This was a rape case.

Zulu

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not 100% sure what this means, but I think you're saying that the posters who are arguing that the barrister was right and justified in making the quoted remark* to the jury, are not doing so because they actually believe that it was the right thing for the barrister to do, they are doing so purely as some kind of pushback against knee-jerk outrage, sensationalism and censorship?

Is that correct?



*Edit: adding Barrister's remark:

Yeah, no; that wasn't what I meant.

retro:electro

You know what, it’s clear as day that the NYPD knew 9/11 was gonna happen, cos why else would they have bothered to put their uniforms on that morning? I think I’m on to something.


Yeah. See it’s easy to work backwards and become a conspiracy theorist.

LLMMLL

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't know why you are getting so irritated, or why the concept I'm talking about is so hard to grasp - I am not saying my beliefs are objectively more correct than anyone elses.

Here's an uncontroversial example to illustrate:

Dave has grown a beard.

I think he grew it to hide his weak chin.
Peter thinks he grew it because it's winter and his face is cold.
Jim thinks he grew it because he's a hipster wannabe who is very late to the trend.

But until someone asks Dave, the only objectively true fact is that Dave has a beard, his reasons for wearing a beard are still unknown.


In the case under discussion: The barrister made a remark in her closing statement which objectively linked the wearing of a thong to intent to have sex. She did not frame it as being defendant's belief - she said to the jury that choosing to wear a thong suggested the complainant intended to have sex.

This is exactly it.

There is nothing to suggest that the defenses position was that she didn't consent but the defendant had reason to believe that she did.

From the barristers comment the defense line seems to be she intended to have sex and consented. If she actually consented his beliefs would be irrelevant.

The barrister did not say "her chocie of underwear lead him to believe she intended to have sex". She linked the underwear to the girls intent, not the defendant beliefs.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I don't understand how anyone can consistently misunderstand the same simple point so many times.

I don’t misunderstand your point, I just don’t agree with it. There’s a difference.

It’s nice too that you thought beards would be uncontroversial, I can’t wait for you to meet Tariq from Accounts who wears a full face veil, and Daphne from HR who joined the company around the same time Steve left, who looks remarkably like Steve, but that’s probably because of the beard.

AndrewJRenko

LLMMLL wrote: »

She linked the underwear to the girls intent

Yes. And that's what the problem is.

LLMMLL

Lillybloom wrote: »

I think you're missing the point, nobody is arguing that you can conclude intent to have sex based on a woman wearing a thong alone, but given the entire picture it could be relevant just like whether she wore a watch or socks could be relevant. You don't know until you have the entire context, and that is fact.

But how can it be relevant if many women wear a thong in everyday life.

There are basically 3 options:

Woman A wears thongs when she thinks she's going to have sex but never in everyday life

Woman B wears thongs in everyday life and also if she believes or intends to have sex.

Woman C wears thongs in everyday life but wears granny pants for sex.

So woman C is probably.incredibly rare. I think most men and women put effort into their appearance if they expect to be having sex.

So take woman A and B. If you agree that a thong alone cannot signal intent to have sex, then you have to look at other things.

So imagine a woman has sent a text to her friend saying "I hope I have sex with this guy tonight". Ok fair enough, that's a signal that she intended to have sex. In that case the thong is irrelevant. You know for other reasons that she intended to have sex.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Does the evidence out-rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone?

The problem with that article is that all of this could be true, and it wouldn't actually have any bearing on whether or not she was raped. So by asking these questions in court, the lawyer is attempting to reach a logical fallacy that if A is true, B must also be true.

A person can be attracted to someone and open to being with someone, and that person can still, for a variety of reasons, perfectly legitimately decline to ride. It's that simple.

Here's an analogy: If I go out shopping, and I'm clearly open to buying something, and I like the look of something, does that mean that the shop can take my money out of my pocket, give me the aforementioned item, and then send me on my way, and it doesn't count as straight-up theft?

A person still has to make a decision to engage in sexual activity. Being open to it and going out looking for it initially don't necessarily mean that a person is automatically consenting. You're allowed to decide you don't want to do it, and at that point if somebody continues to engage in sexual activity with you, that person has committed rape.

So her behaviour on the night before meeting the accused is entirely irrelevant to whether in the exact moment that sexual activity began, she accepted or declined the accused's advances. The context is irrelevant, all that matters is whether she did or she didn't - and that is a decision which you can make entirely independently of literally any preceding factor whatsoever.

By raising this issue in court, the lawyer is attempting to argue that this is not the case - that sexual consent, or lack thereof, at the actual moment of commencing sexual activity, is either pre-determined or can be pre-assumed based on whether the individual had earlier in the night wanted sex. That doesn't matter, though - all that matters is whether they wanted it when it actually happened.

retro:electro

Rennaws wrote: »

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

That’s a really sad story. Feel free to report my posts then instead of detailing the thread with your attention seeking.

Bannasidhe

LLMMLL wrote: »

But how can it be relevant if many women wear a thong in everyday life.

There are basically 3 options:

Woman A wears thongs when she thinks she's going to have sex but never in everyday life

Woman B wears thongs in everyday life and also if she believes or intends to have sex.

Woman C wears thongs in everyday life but wears granny pants for sex.

So woman C is probably.incredibly rare. I think most men and women put effort into their appearance if they expect to be having sex.

So take woman A and B. If you agree that a thong alone cannot signal intent to have sex, then you have to look at other things.

So imagine a woman has sent a text to her friend saying "I hope I have sex with this guy tonight". Ok fair enough, that's a signal that she intended to have sex. In that case the thong is irrelevant. You know for other reasons that she intended to have sex.

I've never worn a thong in my life but I was raped.

eagle eye

Some people are plain ridiculous.

I remember when I was young and you'd see a hotty all done up and showing plenty of leg and you'd think she might be on for sex. You make your move and once every so often get lucky enough to get home with her. When you get there though it was more often than not a case that you didn't get sex.
What a girl wears never indicates what they want. I had sex more often with girls that went out wearing jeans than I did with a girl wearing a mini and/or a thong.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The context is irrelevant

No patrick, context is always relevant, as I have just clearly demonstrated.

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

Some people are plain ridiculous.

I remember when I was young and you'd see a hotty all done up and showing plenty of leg and you'd think she might be on for sex. You make your move and once every so often get lucky enough to get home with her. When you get there though it was more often than not a case that you didn't get sex.
What a girl wears never indicates what they want. I had sex more often with girls that went out wearing jeans than I did with a girl wearing a mini and/or a thong.

Well done for driving a bus through the hole in your own argument.

Edgware

LLMMLL wrote: »

This is exactly it.

There is nothing to suggest that the defenses position was that she didn't consent but the defendant had reason to believe that she did.

From the barristers comment the defense line seems to be she intended to have sex and consented. If she actually consented his beliefs would be irrelevant.

The barrister did not say "her chocie of underwear lead him to believe she intended to have sex". She linked the underwear to the girls intent, not the defendant beliefs.

Imagine the furore if it was a male barrister
The sisterhood must be very upset that she broke ranks

eagle eye

One eyed Jack wrote:

Well done for driving a bus through the hole in your own argument.

Think she might doesn't mean she is. Go back to school.

LLMMLL

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well done for driving a bus through the hole in your own argument.

He basically just said he made assumptions and they were wrong..... How is that a hole in his argument?

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

Think she might doesn't mean she is. Go back to school.

The reasons for thinking she might are relevant in hindsight when one is on trial accused of rape and they maintain they’re innocent because in their mind the encounter wasn’t rape. You just explained that you thought the way women were dressed meant you thought they were interested in sex. It’s incredibly stupid to try and claim afterwards that nothing a person wears indicates they’re interested in having sex.

You basically contradicted yourself in the space of a paragraph, and showed that a defendants honest belief could be regarded as entirely reasonable. That’s why I commended you on your efforts.

eagle eye

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reasons for thinking she might are relevant in hindsight when one is on trial accused of rape and they maintain they’re innocent because in their mind the encounter wasn’t rape. You just explained that you thought the way women were dressed meant you thought they were interested in sex. It’s incredibly stupid to try and claim afterwards that nothing a person wears indicates they’re interested in having sex.

You basically contradicted yourself in the space of a paragraph, and showed that a defendants honest belief could be regarded as entirely reasonable. That’s why I commended you on your efforts.

No, I thought they might, there was no certainty.

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

No, I thought they might, there was no certainty.

There doesn’t have to be certainty, the standard is ‘reasonable doubt’ in law.

joe40

This thread is getting worse. A woman wears a short skirt. A man assumes she wants sex.
So that is a now defence for rape because in his mind he assumed she wanted sex, therefore did not commit a crime, since he did not realise he was doing something wrong.
We better get those consent classes rolled out quickly then so.

markodaly

SusieBlue wrote: »

In another Cork case that was in the courts this week, a young woman asleep at a house party woke up to find her pants pulled down and a man sexually assaulting her.
She reported it straight away, and the man in question admitted his guilt & took full liability for what he had done.

His punishment? A two year suspended sentence. No jail time. For sexually assaulting and violating a sleeping woman. A slap on the wrist, basically.

Yet people here are still saying that rapes and sexual assaults are over-reported and appropriately punished. Laughable.

Link here to the court report.

This is the Irish Justice system I am afraid. You can kill someone and be out after a few years in Jail. Light sentences are the norm across all types of crimes.

One eyed Jack

joe40 wrote: »

This thread is getting worse. A woman wears a short skirt. A man assumes she wants sex.
So that is a now defence for rape because in his mind he assumed she wanted sex, therefore did not commit a crime, since he did not realise he was doing something wrong.
We better get those consent classes rolled out quickly then so.

Relax there, the bolded bit is not true, and as for consent classes? Well, that’s precisely what Coppinger wants -

Provision of Objective Sex Education Bill 2018


I would be cynical of Ms. Coppingers understanding of the word ‘objective’ in the context of sex education. I’m not too worried about her efforts though, it’s not as though parents can be forced to subject their children to that shìte. Didn’t go down too well in Irish Universities either -

Lack of funding for sexual consent classes in Trinity, Oireachtas committee told

Last year, University College Dublin students’ union cancelled workshops on consent they had offered, due to low uptake from students.

AndrewJRenko

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/honest-belief-defence-should-no-longer-be-allowed-in-rape-cases-1.3590124

I was about to be shocked at this - it effectively says women should be believed that they were raped but men can not be believed they had consensual sex.

Then I read the author, Zappone. A very dangerous woman indeed.

Dangerous indeed. One of these days people will have be sure they have consent before they have sex.


What's the world coming to?

eagle eye

One eyed Jack wrote:

There doesn’t have to be certainty, the standard is ‘reasonable doubt’ in law.

The standard has nothing to do with doubt. It's about a certain level of certainty in order to find someone guilty, if you can't reach that level you must find the person not guilty.

One eyed Jack

eagle eye wrote: »

The standard has nothing to do with doubt. It's about a certain level of certainty in order to find someone guilty, if you can't reach that level you must find the person not guilty.

Semantics don’t help your lack of an argument. The standard that must be met by the prosecution in order to convict a defendant of rape is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. There’s no mention of the word ‘certainty’ in that statement. The defence of ‘honest belief’ is a legitimate defence, and it is a matter for the jury to determine whether the defendants honest belief was reasonable.

Nothing is claimed to be certain, only presented as reasonable, and if there is sufficient reasonable doubt as to the defendants guilt, then the jury may not be able to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.