Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

batgoat

4ensic15 wrote: »

You don't understand what I am saying. Maybe some people t6hink clothing can be consent. Until I am on a jury my opinion doesn't matter.

I understand full well what you're saying but clothing still cannot indicate if a person is consenting to sex.

Triceratops Ballet

4ensic15 wrote:

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent. It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

A jury does not decide what consent is, consent is defined in law. The jury determines if consent was present. Any item of clothing being determined to give consent on anyone's behalf is a crazy precedent to set, if that is the case people can just start arguing stuff like "he was wearing these really great jeans that emphasised his ar$e, why would he do that if he wasn't up for it"

Sleeper12

enfant terrible wrote:

Have any details been released of why the jury acquitted him, couldn't see any details on any of the reports I've read.

Nothing at all. The more information released the more I scratch my head at the verdict. Obviously there is a lot more to it than what has been released so far.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe some people think it indicates consent. The jury are capable of deciding for themselves. You are trying to claim your own opinions are facts.

Anyone who thinks that clothing indicates consent is wrong. This isn't my opinion. It is just a plain, simple fact. If anyone on the jury thinks it, they are wrong. And a defence barrister should have a simple ethical position of not leading the jury astray.

4ensic15 wrote: »

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent.
It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

There is also no clause to the effect that the weather on the day can never be defined as constituting consent. There is no clause to the effect that the colour of her hair clip cannot be defined as constituting consent. There is no clause to the effect that the colour of the pen she used to do her homework cannot be defined as consent.


That's how the law works. You can't rule out every silly possibility on the off-chance that some lawyer might use it to confuse a jury some day.

Reviews and Books Galore

@batgoat

I'm pretty sure the poster was saying that bringing up the thong was a legal move and not that they think a woman in a thong is giving consent.

I'm not sure his age is legally relevant. She was of age and so was he.

This case is very strange.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that clothing indicates consent is wrong. This isn't my opinion. It is just a plain, simple fact. If anyone on the jury thinks it, they are wrong. And a defence barrister should have a simple ethical position of not leading the jury astray.

The barrister in question didn’t lead anyone astray with what it’s reported she said. You’re trying to mislead people by suggesting that the barrister was saying “thong = consent” when that’s nothing like what she said. That’s what you (and other people too, to be fair), have wrongly inferred in what she said, because her argument means that it was reasonable for the defendant to be of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual, whereas you’re trying to infer it means it’s ok to commit rape.

You’re not fooling anyone with that nonsense claiming that it’s a myth that a thong equals consent, when nobody argued that in the first place.

AndrewJRenko

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

@batgoat

I'm pretty sure the poster was saying that bringing up the thong was a legal move and not that they think a woman in a thong is giving consent.

I'm not sure his age is legally relevant. She was of age and so was he.

This case is very strange.

SHe was 17, too young to vote, too young to buy a glass of wine, too young to buy certain video games or to earn the proper minimum wage.


But old enough for the 27 year old married bloke, it seems.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The barrister in question didn’t lead anyone astray with what it’s reported she said. You’re trying to mislead people by suggesting that the barrister was saying “thong = consent” when that’s nothing like what she said. That’s what you (and other people too, to be fair), have wrongly inferred in what she said, because her argument means that it was reasonable for the defendant to be of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual, whereas you’re trying to infer it means it’s ok to commit rape.

You’re not fooling anyone with that nonsense claiming that it’s a myth that a thong equals consent, when nobody argued that in the first place.

Let's look at exactly what she said.


“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.”



She didn't say anything about his 'honest belief' relating to the thong. She said that a lace thong implied consent.


I think I might go out this evening and start beating a few motorcyclists round the head with my baseball bat. You have to look at those helmets they're wearing. They don't out-rule that they are open to being beaten around the head with baseball bats.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Let's look at exactly what she said.


“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.”



She didn't say anything about his 'honest belief' relating to the thong. She said that a lace thong implied consent.

“Let’s look at exactly what she said, she said that a lace thong implied consent”.

By your own quote above, she said no such thing.

I think I might go out this evening and start beating a few motorcyclists round the head with my baseball bat. You have to look at those helmets they're wearing. They don't out-rule that they are open to being beaten around the head with baseball bats.

That’s really not the killer point you think it is, it has nothing to do with circumstances where you might find yourself on trial accused of the charge of rape.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“Let’s look at exactly what she said, she said that a lace thong implied consent”.

By your own quote above, she said no such thing.

You said "her argument means that it was reasonable for the defendant to be of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual". The quote above confirms that you're completely wrong. She didn't mention his belief, honest or otherwise. She referred to her thong, and referred to her 'being open to ...being with someone'. That's what she said, and it was a dispicable thing to say.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

“
That’s really not the killer point you think it is, it has nothing to do with circumstances where you might find yourself on trial accused of the charge of rape.

But if accused of beating up motorcyclists, I could refer to their helmets as suggesting that they were just asking for it really, right? That's how this clothing thing works, isn't it?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

You said "her argument means that it was reasonable for the defendant to be of the honest belief that the encounter was consensual". The quote above confirms that you're completely wrong. She didn't mention his belief, honest or otherwise. She referred to her thong, and referred to her 'being open to ...being with someone'. That's what she said, and it was a dispicable thing to say.

She was making the argument that the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual in those circumstances, was reasonable, it goes entirely to what the defendant was thinking at the time about the complainant. She’s not saying that because the complainant was wearing a thong that the encounter was consensual. She’s saying that it was reasonable for the defendant to believe the encounter was consensual based upon the fact that the complainant was wearing clothing that it’s reasonable to say are worn by people who are interested in having sex.

But if accused of beating up motorcyclists, I could refer to their helmets as suggesting that they were just asking for it really, right? That's how this clothing thing works, isn't it?

Nope, that’s not how the clothing thing works. That’s how you need it to work though in order to claim that what is at issue here is a rape myth, when nobody has assumed anyone was raped in the first place, only the people who need people to believe what they believe about other people, based upon stereotypes (the irony, eh?). It presents something of a conundrum for those people because they have to try and equate consensual sex with rape, in order for their myth, to have any impact, and they can’t do that without passing a moral judgement on the complainant and their underwear themselves. That’s why we got the “piece of fabric” nonsense above, such was the effort to distance themselves from any idea that people would think sexy underwear is sexy.

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was making the argument that the defendants honest belief that the encounter was consensual in those circumstances, was reasonable, it goes entirely to what the defendant was thinking at the time about the complainant. She’s not saying that because the complainant was wearing a thong that the encounter was consensual. She’s saying that it was reasonable for the defendant to believe the encounter was consensual based upon the fact that the complainant was wearing clothing that it’s reasonable to say are worn by people who are interested in having sex.

The barrister didn't mention the defendant, or his belief, honest or otherwise

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The barrister didn't mention the defendant, or his belief, honest or otherwise

Who do you imagine the barrister was representing, the shooter on the grassy knoll?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Who do you imagine the barrister was representing, the shooter on the grassy knoll?

I don't imagine anything, unlike your good self. I look at the actual words spoken, which don't support your position.

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I don't imagine anything, unlike your good self. I look at the actual words spoken, which don't support your position.

You argued earlier that she said something that her words implied. That seems to be your position, which comes entirely from your own imagination based upon what you imagine the barrister was implying about the complainant. I get why you’d think that, I really do, because to anyone it is entirely unreasonable and inappropriate to infer that a victim of rape was asking to be raped.

However, the barrister was representing the defendant, in a court of law, where the defendants honest belief is a defence to the charge of rape, and whether or not the defendants belief was reasonable, is something which can only be determined by the jury who will have been presented with the evidence.

The barrister was making her closing argument on behalf of the defendant, and she referred to the evidence that had already been presented to the jury as a means to support the defendants argument that they believed the encounter was consensual, and their belief was reasonable in the circumstances presented by the evidence.

Of course a defendant isn’t going to say their belief was unreasonable, that would mean they could only be found guilty!

Neyite

Sleeper12 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/she-fears-she-wasnt-believed-new-details-on-cork-rape-trial-expose-ordeal-endured-by-complainants-37560842.html

A little bit more details in todays paper

I'm of an older vintage where there was very much a school of thought that if a woman got raped that more than likely she brought it on herself: by what she wore, by what she drank, by what she previously may or may not have done with other men. Date rape? Marital rape? No such thing. You got yourself into a vulnerable situation with a man and didnt' fight him off hard enough so you must have been asking for it. The only times that a conviction arose was usually a stranger-in-an-alleyway-and-victim-was-a-virgin scenario. And even then, I'm sure a suave barrister argued everything that they could and often got their client off.

She was literally a virgin dragged into an alley way by a stranger who had a history of violent behaviour. If this wasn't a slam-dunk conviction, then what message are the courts sending to the victims of all other kinds of rape scenarios that are far more commonplace? Why would a rape victim put themselves through all that entails for a trial for an outcome whereby the underwear you put on earlier that day is seen as a free-for-all for any man to rape you?

I'm very saddened to see that the views of the jury in this case are akin to the juries of the early eighties where it was assumed that men were mere animals and slaves to their libido incapable of raping. Is this not terribly insulting to all the(vast majority of) non-rapey men out there? Are men not incredibly pissed off at the assumption that they are too thick and too testosterone- challenged that they are like dogs in heat incapable of stopping their base animal urges when they spot a thong?

I get that rape is difficult to convict. But this case will make pretty much every rape victim assess their trauma and many will conclude it's not worth the additional trauma of a trial.

4ensic15 wrote: »

He got away with it though, didn't he?

Freudian slip there, eh?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You argued earlier that she said something that her words implied. That seems to be your position, which comes entirely from your own imagination based upon what you imagine the barrister was implying about the complainant. I get why you’d think that, I really do, because to anyone it is entirely unreasonable and inappropriate to infer that a victim of rape was asking to be raped.

However, the barrister was representing the defendant, in a court of law, where the defendants honest belief is a defence to the charge of rape, and whether or not the defendants belief was reasonable, is something which can only be determined by the jury who will have been presented with the evidence.

The barrister was making her closing argument on behalf of the defendant, and she referred to the evidence that had already been presented to the jury as a means to support the defendants argument that they believed the encounter was consensual, and their belief was reasonable in the circumstances presented by the evidence.

Of course a defendant isn’t going to say their belief was unreasonable, that would mean they could only be found guilty!

Read her words:

You have to look at the way she was dressed.

No imagining is required. She linked her underwear to consent.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

I'm of an older vintage where there was very much a school of thought that if a woman got raped that more than likely she brought it on herself: by what she wore, by what she drank, by what she previously may or may not have done with other men. Date rape? Marital rape? No such thing. You got yourself into a vulnerable situation with a man and didnt' fight him off hard enough so you must have been asking for it. The only times that a conviction arose was usually a stranger-in-an-alleyway-and-victim-was-a-virgin scenario. And even then, I'm sure a suave barrister argued everything that they could and often got their client off.

She was literally a virgin dragged into an alley way by a stranger who had a history of violent behaviour. If this wasn't a slam-dunk conviction, then what message are the courts sending to the victims of all other kinds of rape scenarios that are far more commonplace? Why would a rape victim put themselves through all that entails for a trial for an outcome whereby the underwear you put on earlier that day is seen as a free-for-all for any man to rape you?

Because they are of the same attitude that you mention above as though it’s a bygone era. It’s far from it, and that’s why the prosecution still considers it important to claim that the complainant was a virgin and would never have consented to sex and so on, and why some people see themselves as different from “those people”. People don’t lose their judgemental attitudes towards other people just because they’ve been raped.

I'm very saddened to see that the views of the jury in this case are akin to the juries of the early eighties where it was assumed that men were mere animals and slaves to their libido incapable of raping. Is this not terribly insulting to all the(vast majority of) non-rapey men out there? Are men not incredibly pissed off at the assumption that they are too thick and too testosterone- challenged that they are like dogs in heat incapable of stopping their base animal urges when they spot a thong?

I can’t speak for any other man, but I’m not insulted at all by an assumption that’s rooted in biological fact as opposed to ideological beliefs about “how civilised are we?” There’s still a gulf between assuming men are easily aroused, and assuming any man is capable of committing rape.

I get that rape is difficult to convict. But this case will make pretty much every rape victim assess their trauma and many will conclude it's not worth the additional trauma of a trial.

That’s surely their own business though?


According to the National SATU Report from 2017, almost 70% of the cases they dealt with were reported to Gardaí -


Key Service Activity 2017

Attendance

• There were 865 attendances at the six SATUs in the Republic of Ireland in 2017, an increase of 153 cases nationally from 2016 (when 712 patients attended).
• 793 (92%) incidents occurred in 28 counties of Ireland.
• 665 patients (78%) met with a psychological support worker at the time of their SATU attendance.

Time of Day the Incident Occurred

• 697 (81%) incidents occurred between the hours of 20.00 – 07.59, and 254 (29%) attendances happened between those hours - underpinning the need for a round the clock service.
• 84% of patients (440 of 526 cases where this metric was recorded) were seen in SATU within 3 hours of a request for a Forensic Clinical Examination.

Type of Alleged Sexual Crime

• 76% of patients reported recent sexual assaults (within 7 days).
• 789 (91%) cases involved a single assailant.
• In 433 (50%) cases, the assailant was a stranger or recent acquaintance while in 110 (13%) cases, the incident was perpetrated by an intimate partner, ex-intimate partner or family member.
• 152 (18%) patients were unsure if a sexual assault had occurred.

Gender, Age Profile, Referral Source

• 798 (92%) patients were women, and 66 (8%) were men. The mean age of patients was 26 years, with the age of people attending ranging from less than 14 to over 70 years.
• 77% of attendees self-identified their nationality as ‘Irish’, with 586 (68%) having been born in Ireland. An interpreter was required for 2% of patients.
• 545 (63%) cases were referred to SATU by An Garda Síochána.

Patients Reporting the Incident to An Garda Síochána / Interval between Incident and SATU

• 580 (68%) patients reported the incident to An Garda Síochána, and 307 of these (53%) attended SATU within 24 hours of the incident.
• 79 (9%) patients opted to securely store their forensic evidence in SATU to give them an option to report the incident and have this forensic evidence released, over the following 12 months.


There’s simply no way of knowing what does or doesn’t put anyone off making a complaint to Gardaí. It could be anything from fearing they won’t be believed, to reading Safe Ireland’s information sheets and imagining that because they’re a man reading Safe Ireland’s tagline, the information contained on the page doesn’t apply to them. It does though, regardless of the gender of the complainant -


Trial of man charged with the rape of another man in Kerry sent forward to Central Criminal Court in Dublin

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Read her words:

You have to look at the way she was dressed.

No imagining is required. She linked her underwear to consent.

There's plenty of imagination required to interpret what the barrister said the same way you're interpreting what she said. If anything, your argument demonstrates the futility of consent classes - because people hear what they want, and interpret what someone else says whatever way they want too to fit that belief.

Sardonicat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Read her words:

You have to look at the way she was dressed.

No imagining is required. She linked her underwear to consent.

There's plenty of imagination required to interpret what the barrister said the same way you're interpreting what she said. If anything, your argument demonstrates the futility of consent classes - because people hear what they want, and interpret what someone else says whatever way they want too to fit that belief.

How about you give us your interpretation of what she said ?

4ensic15

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

A jury does not decide what consent is, consent is defined in law. The jury determines if consent was present. Any item of clothing being determined to give consent on anyone's behalf is a crazy precedent to set, if that is the case people can just start arguing stuff like "he was wearing these really great jeans that emphasised his ar$e, why would he do that if he wasn't up for it"

It isn't a precedent. Precedents only arise from reasoned decisions. Juries don't give reasons. People can argue anything they like, within the rules of evidence and law. It is up to the jury to make a decision. Do you not trust juries?

4ensic15

enfant terrible wrote: »

Have any details been released of why the jury acquitted him, couldn't see any details on any of the reports I've read.

Juries don't give reasons.

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that clothing indicates consent is wrong. This isn't my opinion. It is just a plain, simple fact. If anyone on the jury thinks it, they are wrong. And a defence barrister should have a simple ethical position of not leading the jury astray.

It is your opinion that clothing does not indicate consent. It is not a fact. Some people may differ. If you or people of your opinion are on a jury you can have your say. So can people who differ. It is not for barristers to decide people opinions for them.

One eyed Jack

Sardonicat wrote: »

How about you give us your interpretation of what she said ?

I’ve given my interpretation of what she said numerous times now - she was suggesting that the jury consider all the evidence and whether or not the evidence rules out the possibility that the defendants honest belief the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, given the circumstances as they were presented at trial. This would have meant if the jury agreed that the defendants belief was honest, and that it was reasonable, they could not find the defendant guilty, as there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant could be found guilty of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

Sardonicat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

How about you give us your interpretation of what she said ?

I’ve given my interpretation of what she said numerous times now - she was suggesting that the jury consider all the evidence and whether or not the evidence rules out the possibility that the defendants honest belief the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, given the circumstances as they were presented at trial. This would have meant if the jury agreed that the defendants belief was honest, and that it was reasonable, they could not find the defendant guilty, as there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant could be found guilty of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

I'm not asking for your interpretation for what she said, I'm asking how YOU would interpret the choice if a 17 year old to put on a pair of lacy, skimpy undies. Which is essentially what the barrister asked the jury to do.

One eyed Jack

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm not asking for your interpretation for what she said, I'm asking how YOU would interpret the choice if a 17 year old to put on a pair of lacy, skimpy undies. Which is essentially what the barrister asked the jury to do.

Excuse me? This is your post earlier, word for word -

Sardonicat wrote: »

How about you give us your interpretation of what she said ?

AndrewJRenko

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

How about you give us your interpretation of what she said ?

I’ve given my interpretation of what she said numerous times now - she was suggesting that the jury consider all the evidence and whether or not the evidence rules out the possibility that the defendants honest belief the encounter was consensual, is reasonable, given the circumstances as they were presented at trial. This would have meant if the jury agreed that the defendants belief was honest, and that it was reasonable, they could not find the defendant guilty, as there was reasonable doubt as to whether or not the defendant could be found guilty of the criminal offence of rape as it is defined in Irish law.

Except that she said nothing about 'honest belief' at that time. She linked the choice of a thong to consent to sex.

Your imagination is running amok here. Look again at the words she said.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Anyone who thinks that clothing indicates consent is wrong. This isn't my opinion. It is just a plain, simple fact. If anyone on the jury thinks it, they are wrong. And a defence barrister should have a simple ethical position of not leading the jury astray.

It is your opinion that clothing does not indicate consent. It is not a fact. Some people may differ. If you or people of your opinion are on a jury you can have your say. So can people who differ. It is not for barristers to decide people opinions for them.

So just for the purposes of debate, do you believe that choosing to wear a thong indicates consent to sex in a muddy laneway with a man ten years older who holds her by the throat?

One eyed Jack

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except that she said nothing about 'honest belief' at that time. She linked the choice of a thong to consent to sex.

Your imagination is running amok here. Look again at the words she said.

It’s not my imagination is running amok at all. I’m well aware of the law on the issue, and I’m well aware as to why the barrister said what she said. She was speaking in the context of whether the defendant, whom she was representing, could have been of the honest and reasonable belief that the encounter was consensual. In case you’re not aware of what I’m referring to, here’s another example -

The jury in the trial of a man accused of raping his former partner after kidnapping her has been told that an honest, though unreasonable, belief that the woman was consenting to sex was a defence to rape.

Ms Justice Carmel Stewart referred the jury to a recent Supreme Court decision in which Mr Justice Charlton stated that “the absence of consent to sexual intercourse is an objective fact”.

“The accused’s view as to the existence, or non-existence, of this fact is subjective. An honest, though unreasonable, mistake that the woman was consenting is a defence to rape,” she said, quoting from the Supreme Court judgment.

“Any such alleged belief in consent must be genuinely held. Self-deceit is not a defence. Certainly, while the test of belief is subjective, even still, individual states of mind are based on how the underlying facts are resolved.”

Ms Justice Stewart told the jury in the Central Criminal Court trial that they must consider whether a belief that the woman was consenting could have been “genuinely held, given the circumstances she found herself in”.

“The defence say that while he did forcibly take her from [her] house, at some stage she could have gone home . . . she decided to reconcile with him, that’s how they ended up in the [second] house,” she said.

“You have to decide that if he genuinely believed she was consenting, could that belief be genuinely held given the circumstances she has outlined.”

In the circumstances in this case, the barrister is making the argument that given what the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was honestly held, and was not unreasonable. As the Judge in the above case pointed out - the defendants belief in the existence of consent in those circumstances, is subjective. The same circumstances (or what we know of the circumstances) may give you or I no indication of consent, but we’re not the defendant, and it’s a matter for a jury to decide in any trial before a jury.

SusieBlue

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is your opinion that clothing does not indicate consent. It is not a fact. Some people may differ. If you or people of your opinion are on a jury you can have your say. So can people who differ. It is not for barristers to decide people opinions for them.

How, please explain how an inanimate item of clothing can consent to ANYTHING on behalf of the person wearing it?

Outlaw Pete

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In the circumstances in this case, the barrister is making the argument that given what the complainant was wearing at the time of the encounter, the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual was honestly held, and was not unreasonable. As the Judge in the above case pointed out - the defendants belief in the existence of consent in those circumstances, is subjective. The same circumstances (or what we know of the circumstances) may give you or I no indication of consent, but we’re not the defendant, and it’s a matter for a jury to decide in any trial before a jury.

Yeah, Jack, but come on this is subjective to the point of ridiculousness. I'm not saying that there couldn't be a circumstance where a complainant's underwear might be relevant to an accused's honest belief, just fail to see how it is here.

Justice Minister Charlie Flanagan (who's a solicitor) has said he doesn't see any circumstances were it would be acceptable to make the argument. Has there been a legal challenge made regarding the remarks does anyone know? Seems there would be good grounds for doing so.

Just playing devil's advocate, I wonder would it have been possible that the prosecution had made reference to her clothing first, and suggested that she had wearing different underwear, and the defense seized upon this and so therefore the style of underwear was not being cited to lend support to the accused's defense of honest belief, but more to show an inconsistency in her story? As, otherwise, I fail to see the relevance in mentioning them tbh.