Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

It isn't, though. Not when it comes to sexual consent. Someone could be up for it and practically begging for it until the very last second and get cold feet for whatever reason, and if they indicate as such and the other person proceeds to engage them in sexual activity anyway, that would still be rape. Consent is not pre-determined, it's decided at the actual moment of engagement. Not hours before, when one is going out and at that time is thinking "yes, I want to get the ride tonight".

hatrickpatrick

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.

No one is saying that it doesn't indicate that they might be interested. But "might" isn't good enough when it comes to sexual consent. If there's even the slightest hint of doubt about it and somebody proceeds to engage in sexual activity anyway, then that person has committed rape.

Think of the standards for consent like the standards for guilt in a criminal trial - "beyond a reasonable doubt". Wearing sexually provocative clothing might suggest "on the balance of probabilities" that someone is up for sex, but it certainly doesn't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, and if someone proceeds to engage in sexual activity with only that level of indication of consent, that's their own f*ck up if it turns out that the other person felt violated.

Let me ask you a question since you really seem to be struggling with this: Have you ever gone out thinking "I'd like to have sex" while still having some criteria for who you'd like to have sex with?

Let's put this another way. If I wear sexually provocative clothing and I get raped by a man, would it be reasonable for him to assume I wanted to have sex with him, specifically - without even considering the fact that I'm a straight guy - just because I was wearing sexually provocative clothes?

I don't see what's so difficult about the idea that you can dress up for sex and have a particular type of person to hook up with in mind, and a particular place, and a particular scenario. Dressing up for sex does not mean "literally anyone who approaches me is going to get it". It doesn't work that way for anyone, FFS. Every person in the world has some criteria for who they want to hook up with, so the idea that dressing up specifically with sex in mind somehow means "I'm up for it with anyone, and my right to say 'this isn't the person for me tonight'" is lessened" is absolutely ridiculous.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It isn't, though. Not when it comes to sexual consent. Someone could be up for it and practically begging for it until the very last second and get cold feet for whatever reason, and if they indicate as such and the other person proceeds to engage them in sexual activity anyway, that would still be rape. Consent is not pre-determined, it's decided at the actual moment of engagement. Not hours before, when one is going out and at that time is thinking "yes, I want to get the ride tonight".

That’s fantastic patrick, but in a case where there is disagreement over whether or not the encounter was consensual, then we are talking about whether or not the encounter was consensual in hindsight, and in the case of a defendant on trial accused of committing rape, then context very much matters, for both the prosecution and for the defendant who is on trial.

eagle eye

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s fantastic patrick, but in a case where there is disagreement over whether or not the encounter was consensual, then we are talking about whether or not the encounter was consensual in hindsight, and in the case of a defendant on trial accused of committing rape, then context very much matters, for both the prosecution and for the defendant who is on trial.

It doesn't, though, because whether the alleged victim was wearing provocative clothing or not has absolutely no relation to whether the alleged victim wanted to have sex with the particular person who has been charged. That's the problem. If someone has a boyfriend and dresses up sexy for him and they go to a party together, and then gets raped at the party, how is the fact that she dressed up sexy relevant to some random person being accused of raping her? It implies that it's somehow reasonable to look at a woman who is dressed up sexily and say "she's up for sex, so I'm going to undo her bra now" without anything else to indicate it. It's not enough to consent, and therefore it should have absolutely no relevance to the issue of proving in court whether there was consent or not.

I honestly don't see how you're not understanding this. Follow your own logic through - you're implying that if a woman dresses up sexily, even if it's for one particular person, anyone who meets her while dressed that way has the right to engage her sexually with no other communication or prelude of any kind, and then claim "she was dressed for sex, so I assumed it was ok". That's a moronic statement, but if that's not the statement you're trying to make, then the only other logical conclusion is that the wearing of such clothes cannot be considered proof of consent in court.

EDIT: You mentioned "reasonable doubt". If you walk past a woman wearing sexually provocative clothing in a club, does that - on its own - present you with the idea, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you can reach out and grab her boob without even having been introduced beforehand? I highly doubt it. This is one of the many ways to demonstrate that clothes have nothing to do with consent, because consent isn't just about sex in general, it applies to individuals. Me wanting sex is not the same as me wanting sex with just any random person.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It doesn't, though, because whether the alleged victim was wearing provocative clothing or not has absolutely no relation to whether the alleged victim wanted to have sex with the particular person who has been charged. That's the problem. If someone has a boyfriend and dresses up sexy for him and they go to a party together, and then gets raped at the party, how is the fact that she dressed up sexy relevant to some random person being accused of raping her? It implies that it's somehow reasonable to look at a woman who is dressed up sexily and say "she's up for sex, so I'm going to undo her bra now" without anything else to indicate it. It's not enough to consent, and therefore it should have absolutely no relevance to the issue of proving in court whether there was consent or not.

I honestly don't see how you're not understanding this. Follow your own logic through - you're implying that if a woman dresses up sexily, even if it's for one particular person, anyone who meets her while dressed that way has the right to engage her sexually with no other communication or prelude of any kind, and then claim "she was dressed for sex, so I assumed it was ok". That's a moronic statement, but if that's not the statement you're trying to make, then the only other logical conclusion is that the wearing of such clothes cannot be considered proof of consent in court.

EDIT: You mentioned "reasonable doubt". If you walk past a woman wearing sexually provocative clothing in a club, does that - on its own - present you with the idea, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you can reach out and grab her boob without even having been introduced beforehand? I highly doubt it. This is one of the many ways to demonstrate that clothes have nothing to do with consent, because consent isn't just about sex in general, it applies to individuals. Me wanting sex is not the same as me wanting sex with just any random person.

That’s not my logic. All of your hypothetical scenarios are based upon events preceding the encounter, whereas any disagreement over whether or not consent was present is argued after the encounter.

Determining whether or not consent is present preceding any encounter is irrelevant to any argument regarding whether or not consent was present after the encounter.

In a case where the defendant claims that the encounter was consensual, then we are obligated to investigate the basis for their belief, by asking them, and allowing them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whatever criteria the defendant explains as the basis for their honest belief can only be determined as reasonable or unreasonable only after we hear their justification for their honest belief. If the defence for their honest belief relates to what the complainant was wearing, then what the defendant was wearing at the time of the encounter is relevant evidence in assisting the defendant in their own defence, whether or not that makes the complainant uncomfortable and casts doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant.

hatrickpatrick

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s not my logic. All of your hypothetical scenarios are based upon events preceding the encounter, whereas any disagreement over whether or not consent was present is argued after the encounter.

Determining whether or not consent is present preceding any encounter is irrelevant to any argument regarding whether or not consent was present after the encounter.

In a case where the defendant claims that the encounter was consensual, then we are obligated to investigate the basis for their belief, by asking them, and allowing them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whatever criteria the defendant explains as the basis for their honest belief can only be determined as reasonable or unreasonable only after we hear their justification for their honest belief. If the defence for their honest belief relates to what the complainant was wearing, then what the defendant was wearing at the time of the encounter is relevant evidence in assisting the defendant in their own defence, whether or not that makes the complainant uncomfortable and casts doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant.

If someone "honestly believes" that sexy clothing indicates consent, then that person is entirely ignorant of the law. Last time I checked, ignorance of the law was not an excuse for breaking it. That's what makes it an irrelevant defence argument - all they can possibly prove using that underwear is that at best, the defendant wasn't malicious in their criminality but merely ignorant of the law. That doesn't get anyone off the hook from a conviction. So it should be deemed inadmissible on the grounds that one's clothing is not a valid basis for honest belief under the current definition of sexual consent.

laoisgem

nullzero wrote: »

If you felt what happened was sexual assault (and its sounds like you may well be correct to say that) you should have gone to the Gardai.
The man sounds like a swine. You were both in a pub, cctv would have captured his image(you previously stated that you weren't sure how to find him) and he could be quite easily located.

I'm not entertaining the notion of you being to blame for getting drunk, the majority of men wouldn't take advantage of a person passed out in front of them.

Apologies for being off topic here but I just needed to reply to this comment.

I was unfortunate enough to have first hand experience of rape. As with most rapes it was by a person already known to me. Straight after the incident the guards were called, I was taken to the Rotunda to the SATU, as this was nearly 10 years ago, the only option was to travel to Dublin for such a unit. Anyway I won't go into much detail, everything was done by the book as it should have been. It took the DPP two and a half years to decide not to prosecute. The Garda that called to my house to tell me, told me that although they didn't have to give a reason for this, it could have been presumed that it was just rough sex!

It really is a horrendous experience. As posters have said already, The Rape Crisis Centre will try and persuade you not to go ahead with a case, especially when they see how badly you are coping with the initial aftermath of the assault and they are the professional who accompany victims to the courts and see first hand how they are treated.

One eyed Jack

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If someone "honestly believes" that sexy clothing indicates consent, then that person is entirely ignorant of the law. Last time I checked, ignorance of the law was not an excuse for breaking it.

You’ll have to point out for me which section in Irish law you’re referring to? I think it’s reasonable to assume that the barrister in question is far more familiar with Irish law than Ms. Coppinger for example, who appears to be entirely ignorant of Irish law and criminal trial procedures.

cursai

What colour thing did Ruth have on her?

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’ll have to point out for me which section in Irish law you’re referring to? I think it’s reasonable to assume that the barrister in question is far more familiar with Irish law than Ms. Coppinger for example, who appears to be entirely ignorant of Irish law and criminal trial procedures.

You do realise that the courts are capable of allowing questionable pieces of evidence that they are capable of making mistakes in terms of what's acceptable? We have had judges for example that have given suspended sentences for attempted rape because sure reputational damage is enough... Coppinger has highlighted practices that the likes of the Rape Crisis Center have raised in the past, there's no indication that she's ignorant.

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

You do realise that the courts are capable of allowing questionable pieces of evidence that they are capable of making mistakes in terms of what's acceptable? We have had judges for example that have given suspended sentences for attempted rape because sure reputational damage is enough... Coppinger has highlighted practices that the likes of the Rape Crisis Center have raised in the past, there's no indication that she's ignorant.

I do of course realise and acknowledge that our judicial system is far from perfect, and is flawed in many, many ways (any system which relies on humans to make decisions is fundamentally flawed).

However I will respectfully disagree with you that there is no indication that Ms. Coppinger is ignorant of the law, when her most recent stunt in the Dail is every indication that she is ignorant of the law. I’m not sure she’s actually ignorant of the law, but her most recent actions and statements regarding this case in particular alone, indicate that she is indeed ignorant of the law.

I suspect that her efforts may well be political spin to further her own political aims, and she is relying upon people’s ignorance of the law to further her political aims.

batgoat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I do of course realise and acknowledge that our judicial system is far from perfect, and is flawed in many, many ways (any system which relies on humans to make decisions is fundamentally flawed).

However I will respectfully disagree with you that there is no indication that Ms. Coppinger is ignorant of the law, when her most recent stunt in the Dail is every indication that she is ignorant of the law. I’m not sure she’s actually ignorant of the law, but her most recent actions and statements regarding this case in particular alone, indicate that she is indeed ignorant of the law.

I suspect that her efforts may well be political spin to further her own political aims, and she is relying upon people’s ignorance of the law to further her political aims.

No, it doesn't amount to her being ignorant of the law. You are merely irritated that she's highlighted what amounts to trying to smear a victim based on their underwear choice.

FunLover18

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Women can also experience vaginal tears during consensual sex. This is not uncommon. It is by no means proof that a complainant was raped.



The jury is not required to quantify their degree of certitude in such a manner, though. There are only two outcomes: guilty or not guilty. If the accused is found not guilty by a jury of his peers, then he is cleared of the charges and is not a rapist. And if he is not a rapist, there was no rape, unless it can somehow be argued that the rape was committed by someone other than the accused.



If a defendant is acquitted, then, from a legal standpoint, the woman was not raped. The rape cannot be registered in official crime statistics and so on.

I know juries don't have to (or should have to) quantify their degree of certitude but it makes sense that 100% is beyond reasonable doubt and anything below that should technically lead to a not guilty verdict, I merely chose 99% as an arbitrary number to make a point. In the same way that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", I find it hard to equate "there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict" with "there was no rape". It just doesn't feel right that as a result of the acquittal, the victims therefore weren't raped ... but I'm aware that that may just be down to my own personal feelings.

Can you elaborate on the crime statistics; if from a legal standpoint a rape can only be classified as rape once someone has been convicted, then that must mean Ireland has a 100% conviction rate

One eyed Jack

batgoat wrote: »

No, it doesn't amount to her being ignorant of the law. You are merely irritated that she's highlighted what amounts to trying to smear a victim based on their underwear choice.

You have no objective basis for that assertion. I have an objective basis for my assertion given her most recent publicity stunt, to support my assertion that she is ignorant of the law. We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not she is actually ignorant of the law, or if she is simply feigning ignorance because it goes down well with a certain cohort of the Irish public who appear to be just as ignorant of the law and court procedures as she is.

I’m certainly not irritated by anything Ms. Coppinger does, the woman has what is practically the opposite of the Midas touch - everything she associates herself with turns to shìt, IMO (your opinion will undoubtedly differ), and I have no reason to regard her as being capable of anything more than shìt-stirring to further her own political aims for herself.

mickrock

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

What are you talking about?

The Bishop Basher

retro:electro wrote: »

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

And there you go again..

Posting on a discussion board isn't attention seeking.

If it is, you have a lot more posts on this thread then I do.

You also have 5 times my post count despite joining boards 5 year later.

You know, it is possible to debate without getting personal.

tritium

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

So you either know details of the individuals in this case that are completely out of the public domain (and it would be highly likely that the news media wouldn’t find this fact out and report it, as they have in many other cases), or you’re speculating based on third hand information you’ve heard elsewhere. Which is it?

Sleeper12

eagle eye wrote: »

Semantics, lol. This coming from someone who changes might into certainty, talks about reasonable doubt as if it's the term used in Irish courts.
What's this argument I have? I'm only voicing my own opinion on the matter. You brought up reasonable doubt not me.
If I'm arguing a point it's that it doesn't matter what a woman is wearing, you might feel there is a better chance because of the way somebody is dressed but you may be completely wrong in your thinking. The way you find that out is when they say no.
I've no idea how this convicted rapist got off this time.
I fully believe that if the underwear is introduced to suggest she was looking to have sex then his previous history should be brought in to show that he doesn't accept no as an answer.

I totally agree with you on the underwear part & I believe that this young girl was treated very badly by our court system but I don't think it right saying things that aren't already in the public domain. He was found not guilty & we have to live with that. His name & photo will be passed around social media. He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I totally agree with you on the underwear part & I believe that this young girl was treated very badly by our court system but I don't think it right saying things that aren't already in the public domain. He was found not guilty & we have to live with that. His name & photo will be passed around social media. He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

Tbh we can't say he’s brought shame anywhere. We know nothing about his circumstances bar idle speculation. Is he married? Separated? Has he prior convictions? At worst he may be a serial adulterer with a long line of convictions who got lucky in court. At best he may be a young man wrongly accused of a terrible crime and put through an awful ordeal. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate that lack of certainty should hold us from assuming any shame on to him or his family.

Homer

Sleeper12 wrote: »

He has already brought shame to his families door. I don't believe adding convicted rapist is a fair thing to do

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

tritium

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

And around we go in circles again

It would be lovely if just once people on both sides understood that both parties can be telling their absolute truth in a rape trial and still be at opposite sides. No one lying, no false allegation, no Knowledge of raping anyone, and two very different views of events

Sonics2k

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

He was found Not Guilty. He wasn't found to be Innocent.

Learn the difference because it's very important.

Sleeper12

Homer wrote: »

Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.

Now why would you even say that?



The jury had reasonable doubt. They weren't 100 percent certain so by law they had to acquit. They might have been 95 percent certin of his guilt but thats not enough. There WAS enough evidence for the DPP to bring him to court yet there is NOT enough evidence to bring her to court for making false accusations.


Don't forget OJ was NOT convicted in a criminal court four murder because of reasonable doubt. Yet a civil court requiring a less burden of proof the family successfully sued him. It's hard to convince 12 jury members 100 percent of anything.

Sleeper12

tritium wrote: »

Tbh we can't say he’s brought shame anywhere. We know nothing about his circumstances bar idle speculation. Is he married? Separated? Has he prior convictions? At worst he may be a serial adulterer with a long line of convictions who got lucky in court. At best he may be a young man wrongly accused of a terrible crime and put through an awful ordeal. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. At any rate that lack of certainty should hold us from assuming any shame on to him or his family.

Ah we can. He cheated on his wife with a minor. This came out in court I believe according to other posters. Forget about the rape case. Cheating alone has brought shame on his family.

tritium wrote: »

And around we go in circles again

It would be lovely if just once people on both sides understood that both parties can be telling their absolute truth in a rape trial and still be at opposite sides. No one lying, no false allegation, no Knowledge of raping anyone, and two very different views of events

The Belfast case is a classic example to prove your point. The jury acquitted the lads. The lads believed they had consent. Several jury members were at pains to explain since that just because the lads believed they had consent didn't mean the the lady in the case gave consent. If it's not a random rape it's a very hard case because DNA goes out the window when both parties admit that sex took place. You then end up with a case about consent. Its very hard to get 100 percent certainty in cases like this.

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Have you a link to this???

No because there is absolutely no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence he is married.

But that doesn't stop people from spreading it.

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote:

No because there is absolutely no evidence for it, nor is there any evidence he is married.

I'm sorry for saying that he was married. Several posters said that it was brought up in court as a way to discredit him. I thought this was fact. As for saying that he has a previous conviction for rape, I think that is a very dangerous thing to post. The man's name will be all over social media if it isn't already. He could be beaten up in the street based on these posts.

I saw a headline during the week two innocent guys beaten (to death in think) by a Facebook mob

Boggles

Sleeper12 wrote: »

If it's not a random rape it's a very hard case because DNA goes out the window when both parties admit that sex took place.

This was an alleged "random rape".

The allegation was of physical and sexual assault and rape.

Again that is based on very little detail in a very poor court report article.

But.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html

When the complainant’s evidence that he dragged her over 30 metres to the spot where the alleged rape occurred, was put to him he said he "didn’t drag anyone anywhere.”

The allegation was nothing to do with "confusion" over consent, it was an allegation of a brutal attack and rape. It's not stated what other charges he was facing or if it was just one, it would have had to be more you would think given the allegation.

tritium

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I'm sorry for saying that he was married. Several posters said that it was brought up in court as a way to discredit him. I thought this was fact. As for saying that he has a previous conviction for rape, I think that is a very dangerous thing to post. The man's name will be all over social media if it isn't already. He could be beaten up in the street based on these posts.

I saw a headline during the week two innocent guys beaten (to death in think) by a Facebook mob

Tbh if the prosecution said he was married to discredit him then it would seem at the very least that prosecution and defence stooped to equally ****ty win at all costs tactics

Anyone complaining about the thong care to explain the evidential value of that?

Sleeper12

Boggles wrote: »

This was an alleged "random rape".

The allegation was of physical and sexual assault and rape.

Again that is based on very little detail in a very poor court report article.

But.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/counsel-for-man-acquitted-of-rape-suggested-jurors-should-reflect-on-underwear-worn-by-teen-complainant-883613.html



The allegation was nothing to do with "confusion" over consent, it was an allegation of a brutal attack and rape. It's not stated what other charges he was facing or if it was just one, it would have had to be more you would think given the allegation.

What I meant is when both parties admit sex took place then DNA plays very little part in the case & it becomes he said, she said. It's very difficult to get a conviction in such cases.

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.