Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

seamus

professore wrote: »

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

You see, that's false equivalence.

When your defence against a murder charge is self-defence, it's very relevant to discuss whether or not the deceased was an ordinarily violent person. Obviously.

When you're defending a rape charge on the basis that consent existed, it's of less relevance whether the victim had sex before, or wanted sex that night, or was ordinarily flathuileach with the aul sex.
Because previously consenting to sex doesn't imply consent was forthcoming in that instance.
It's the same as the "he had an erection, so it couldn't have been rape" defence, which has been successfully used to defend against male rape charges.

seenitall

professore wrote: »

Just look at the coverage of the Tina Cahill case - all of it is about how violent he allegedly was, yet she already had a criminal record for attacking him.

Like it or not there is a medieval bias in the court system because the jurors tend to be medieval.

Apples and oranges here. If there is actual evidence, like witnesses corroborating he was violent (I'm not familiar with that case) over a period of time, that's very different than a single instance of an item of clothing being worn being taken as evidence of someone's sexual availability, and the sexual availability TO A SPECIFIC PERSON at that. One of these is pure bunkum and wrong.

I don't doubt there are other instances of all sorts of prejudice playing out in the system, and they should be challenged. These rape cases somehow seem to be the most contentious ones for, IMO, some pretty glaring reasons.

ETA: what seamus said. I've to go to work!

Feisar

whiskeyman wrote: »

What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury.
She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision.
We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.

The jury prpbobly was filled with young women, I'm sure it was more the older type, barrister was playing to the audience.

PlaneSpeeking

I don't know whether the whole transcript has been released but the best mate's bro worked for the CPS in the UK for a time and basically said that defence barristers see a win for their client if any of the accuser's story can be questioned.

The "case" isn't a whole entity, it's a series of points - that can be proved or disproved.

If the woman in question had said "I was wearing grey, saggy boxers, and had zero intention of getting laid" - the defence can (and should) use whatever legaly obtained evidence they can to disprove that.

Two points tho - if it was just "she was wearing this - clearly she's a tart" - that is very very wrong. and also, I truly believe there are feminists in this world who want a rape trial to be "believe the woman" - and that is equally as wrong.

Though not as wrong as "2% of rape trials end with a conviction". That's utter garbage.

Outlaw Pete

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

If the woman in question had said "I was wearing grey, saggy boxers, and had zero intention of getting laid" - the defence can (and should) use whatever legaly obtained evidence they can to disprove that.

Precisely and a similar point of contention arose during the Ched Evans case as the law in the UK states that a complainants’ sexual history cannot be used as evidence in sex offence trials (and so in his first trial it wasn't) but in the retrial it was allowed as his defense team managed to successfully argue that the complainants’ sexual history was of relevance when it came to rebutting evidence which the prosecution/complainant themselves had entered.

Padraig Mor

professore wrote: »

Funnily enough the coverage of this trial is all about the underwear - no mention of any other evidence whatsoever. Maybe there was a weight of other evidence proving the defendants innocence? We'll never know because of the stupid coverage of the trial.

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

seamus

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

Or lack of, more likely.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. Generally cases rest on the prosecution proving what did happen rather the defence proving that it didn't. People are generally acquitted because there's not enough convincing evidence of guilt rather than ample evidence that they're innocent.

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

Or lack of, more likely.

Proving that something didn't happen is virtually impossible. Generally cases rest on the prosecution proving what did happen rather the defence proving that it didn't. People are generally acquitted because there's not enough convincing evidence of guilt rather than ample evidence that they're innocent.

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

King of Kings

seenitall wrote: »

Ugh

If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing.
.

that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible.

maybe we have different views of parenthood.

ceegee

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

I'd rather not have you on a jury, if innocent until proven guilty seems like an outlandish concept to you

PlaneSpeeking

ceegee wrote: »

I'd rather not have you on a jury, if innocent until proven guilty seems like an outlandish concept to you

Oh please read my post again and the preceding one eh ?

I'm arguing that exact point!!!

The other poster was arguing that being found not guilty doesn't mean innocence. Which is wrong.

It's very much what it means.

williestroker1

Could she not have brought up what is a very serious issue without holding up her knickers. The usual grandstanding from Coppinger.

sbsquarepants

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

That's the very basis of the legal system in practically any democratic country.

Innocent until proven guilty.

You can't just go convicting people of serious crimes in the absence of any proof!

ohnonotgmail

williestroker1 wrote: »

Could she not have brought up what is a very serious issue without holding up her knickers. The usual grandstanding from Coppinger.

Well people are talking about it and that is the point. The mental image doesn't sit well with me mind.

seamus

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

Right back at you. "Even though there's no evidence, clearly he's guilty, so let's send this guy to jail".

Jesus wept, you belong back in the middle ages :rolleyes:

King of Kings wrote: »

that maybe you which i find really weird tbh cos a normal parent would what their child to have the best defence possible.

maybe we have different views of parenthood.

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.

I would certainly look at the range of options available to us to try and drive for the best possible outcome, but the best possible honest outcome. Throwing money at the case to secure a not guilty verdict when I know they committed the crime, is not an honest outcome.

I understand parents who take this route, like the parents in the Annabelle's case, but I cannot respect them.

lawred2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In this particular case I believe the underwear were just referenced.

The judge should have instructed the jury to ignore the solicitor.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if an appeal for a mistrial is lodged.

ah yeah sorry - t'was Ruth that was waving her undies

FunLover18

Padraig Mor wrote: »

This is a very important point. For all the outrage, it seems to have been widely missed that the jury returned a unanimous verdict in an hour and a half - they were hardly in the room before they were back out again! Suggests to me that there was plenty of other - convincing but unreported - evidence in the case.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that anyone was acquitted based purely on what the alleged victim was wearing, merely that introducing what the alleged victim was wearing feeds into a culture of victim blaming and is one of the reason why sexual crimes are not reported.

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

Right back at you. "Even though there's no evidence, clearly he's guilty, so let's send this guy to jail".

Jesus wept, you belong back in the middle ages :rolleyes:

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.

I would certainly look at the range of options available to us to try and drive for the best possible outcome, but the best possible honest outcome. Throwing money at the case to secure a not guilty plea when I know they committed the crime, is not an honest outcome.

For the love of God - THAT WAS SARCASM! That was me putting words int he mouths of those who spout the crap heard doing the Jackson/Olding trial - and since "well, they were found not guilty but it doesn't make them innocent".

YES IT DOES!

There are points you think you might have to explain and ones you don't. Clearly I misjudged the audience.

lawred2

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For the love of God - THAT WAS SARCASM! That was me putting words int he mouths of those who spout the crap heard doing the Jackson/Olding trial - and since "well, they were found not guilty but it doesn't make them innocent".

YES IT DOES!

There are points you think you might have to explain and ones you don't. Clearly I misjudged the audience.

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

While making no comment as to the Olding and Jackson - escaping justice does not mean innocent. Just means you weren't convicted.

PlaneSpeeking

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

I give up.

lawred2

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I give up.

I'm not sure what you're so upset about. But feel free to flounce about the place like a teenager.

joe40

If a defendant is found "not guilty" then by definition they are innocent since that is the presumption before the verdict.

The thing is though, a "not guilty" verdict does not mean the victim/accuser whatever is lying. It just means there is not enough evidence to convict.

wexie

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah now - you can of course be guilty and escape justice because of a lack of evidence.

While making no comment as to the Olding and Jackson - escaping justice does not mean innocent. Just means you weren't convicted.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I give up.

I think you're all getting a bit confused over the difference between 'innocent in the eyes of the law' and 'actually, didn't commit the crime they were charged with'.

JMNolan

I wonder how far away are we from relaxing the requirement that the jury must decide whether or not the prosecution has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime. Perhaps for rape cases it will be reduced to balance of probabilities? Would Ruth Coppinger be in favour of this?

Or perhaps for certain crimes the accused will be constrained from the defense that can be put forward?

lawred2

wexie wrote: »

I think you're all getting a bit confused over the difference between 'innocent in the eyes of the law' and 'actually, didn't commit the crime they were charged with'.

I'm not

wexie

lawred2 wrote: »

I'm not

No, I should have phrased that a bit differently. Apologies.

King of Kings

seamus wrote: »

As much as it would hurt me, I would want to know the truth. If my child is guilty and I know they're guilty, then I cannot in good conscience create the "best defence" in order to get them off. The victim is someone else's child and deserves equal respect.



I understand parents who take this route, like the parents in the Annabelle's case, but I cannot respect them.

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence. the best defence doesnt rule out punishment....merely they get to argue their case and mitigate their punishment

anything less is disowning your child...
which isnt for me and sounds like a unnatural concept.

charlietheminxx

King of Kings wrote: »

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence.
the best defence doesnt rule out punishment....merely they get to argue their case...
having their day in court would be the common terms.....anything less is disowning your child...
which isnt for me and sounds like a unnatural concept.

If my child was a rapist, like an admitted one, I would urge them to get serious psychological help and then I would have nothing further to do with them. Maybe you’re a very forgiving person, but I’ve seen someone repeatedly try to take their own life in dealing with the aftermath of being raped. It ruins lives. I couldn’t stand by anyone who would do such a thing and I would not want them getting off scot free for it either.

wexie

King of Kings wrote: »

Even if your child was guilty , you'd hardly want them thrown to the wolves defenceless either....a normal person would want them to have the best defence.

No but I think the whole argument in this thread is that it seems to have become normal for the 'best defense' to have become an attack on the other party.

That's not a defense, whether or not this girl was wearing a thong has no bearing on whether she was intending to have sex, or intending to have it with any person in particular whatsoever.

Plenty times (during the summer) that I don't wear any underwear at all, does that mean I'm looking to get lucky? Hell no it doesn't, means I don't like sweaty arsecrack.

Literally the only thing this girl wearing a thong proves is that she was wearing a thong, as thousands of women all over the country do every day.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

blue note wrote: »

In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex.

Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it.

But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.

"I might get lucky tonight so I will put on some sexy undies" - That doesn't mean she was asking for it, or that she wanted to have sex with everybody and anybody. The defending barrister could have asked, "Did you go out tonight with the intention of having sex?, then if so how could you have been raped by my client?"

doylefe wrote: »

What you wear projects your intentions. Of course it should be used in court in the defense of an innocent man.

Ho-lee-fuk.

suicide_circus wrote: »

when defending yourself against allegations in court, everything is fair game.

No, not it's not.

Roger_007 wrote: »

There seem to be an assumption by the Ruth Coppingers of this world, that in rape trials the defendant is always guilty but 'gets away with it' if the jury decide that he is not guilty.
In any criminal trial the jury are supposed to decide the case on the basis of the evidence. It is up to the judge to decide what can, or cannot, be introduced as evidence. Ms Coppinger seems to think that no defence should be allowed in rape trials. She also omitted to mention that the barrister involved was a woman. If it had been a male barrister she would be claiming mysogny and sexism.

The argument is that the judge shouldn't have complete control of what should and should not be allowed in court.

professore wrote: »

Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts when defending and prosecuting. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents, people from "good families" can't be criminals etc.

I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.

Stereotypes shouldn't have any place in court. If you murder somebody, the sentence shouldn't depend on what kind of family you were born to. Your contribution to society is another thing.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Please NEVER sit on a jury, ever. "Well he's clearly guilty but sadly we have no choice but to let the rapist go as there's no proof he's guilty".

Jesus wept.

It's quite ironic that you don't understand how it works yourself. You are the one that should never sit on a jury as it seems that you judge with emotions rather than facts.

How can he be clearly guilty if there's no proof he's guilty? What does logical mean on your planet? Because it's quite the opposite to what I know.