Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

astrofool

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so if she was wearing them and then claimed she was raped that would make the man guilty?

No, but in a case where it's often one persons word against another's (one of them has to be lying), then evidence will be gathered to try and determine the intent of the person, and if relevant to the case, will be presented as evidence. e.g. had she been wearing granny panties, but had been looking up websites on how to frame men, or if the clothing was specifically bought for the meetup, and had never been worn previously, then they become an item of interest to the case.

There is just too many variables to just outright ban clothing as something that can be used as evidence. If the man was wearing a top saying "I'm a rapist", it doesn't mean he went out with that intent, but would definitely be relevant to the case.

The argument here is that the conviction rate and report to trial rate is so low that other measures are required to raise the conviction rate (which also assumes that the current system lets many guilty offenders be declared not guilty), with clothing being presented as evidence being one of them (and given this seems to be one case that was so unique that it made headlines, it's hard to see a safe change to the judicial system being made of this, but it is a good story for the meedja to pedal, and politicians to jump onto).

Here's the thing, if you're ever involved in a court case, everything you said and did may become relevant, even if said as a joke or sarcastically, everywhere you travelled, everyone you met and talked to will be brought up, because unless there's a video (and even then it's getting easier to mock up video evidence) of the crime being committed with the criminal shouting out clear intent of what they intend to do, then there will always be chances of the conviction being unsafe.

PlaneSpeeking

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?

To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.

meeeeh

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?

Yeah if there was only a place in Ireland where laws are passed...

Hurrache

diceyriley wrote: »

But is it not a bit totalitarian to start saying what evidence may or may not be put to the court?

How is the style of underwear evidence?

retro:electro

Just so we’re clear. When OJ was acquitted it didn’t mean a murder did not take place. Nicole was not brought back to life and punished for lying.
In the case of an acquittal you have the same presumption of innocence you always had. Lack of evidence to prove guilt does not automatically mean the plaintiff is lying.
Unless you have proof that a false accusation took place, an acquittal implies nothing more than a lack of evidence to convict the defendant. It implies nothing about the plaintiff.

RWCNT

Grayson wrote: »

Literally no-one is saying that. Read the posts. It's about the legal definition. Legally he wasn't found innocent. The jury don't say that he didn't do it, they say that they don't have enough evidence to convict. That goes for every single criminal case, for every crime, that goes before a jury in Ireland.

You say you're concerned that people are saying there's not enough evidence to conflict the guilty bastard when no-ones saying that at all. However it is worrying that despite the posts being quite clear in what they're saying, you read what you want into them.

There's a very Jordan Peterson-Kathy Newman interview feel to a lot of the responses on this thread.

Let me give it a try....

retro:electro wrote: »

Just so we’re clear. When OJ was acquitted it didn’t mean a murder did not take place. Nicole was not brought back to life and accused of lying.
In the case of an acquittal you have the same presumption of innocence you always had. Lack of evidence to prove guilt does not automatically mean the plaintiff is lying.
Unless you have proof that a false accusation took place, an acquittal implies nothing more than a lack of evdince to convict the defendant. It implies nothing about the plaintiff.

SO YOU'RE SAYING ALL MEN NEED TO BE LOCKED UP ARE YOU!?!?!

seamus

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?

The Dail can pass legislation about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in defence of a charge.

Grayson

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah if there was only a place in Ireland where laws are passed...

And if only there was some way we could elect someone to represent us and bring up those matters in this mythical assembly.

SusieBlue

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?

The way rape trials are conducted needs national attention. Pressure needs to be put on the Taoiseach to reform our laws so such comments are never made again.

Unless you are suggesting that using a womans choice of knickers is acceptable in determining whether she was up for the ride or not, in a court of law?

Triceratops Ballet

people are conflating the presumption of innocence that we're all entitled to with actually not having committed the crime, a confusion of the legal term innocence and the common understanding of innocence.
You go on trial you have the right to be presumed innocent under the law until a court finds otherwise. Nobody disputes that. If you are found not guilty that presumption of innocence still stands. It's a presumption, not a proven fact. If it was a proven fact, juries would be asked to return a verdict of guilty or innocent rather than guilty/ not guilty.

If one party is found not guilty it doesn't mean the guilt is with the other party. A separate trial would have to be carried out to determine that so anyone who is found not guilty of rape is fully entitled to take a case against their accuser if they feel that they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accusation was intentionally false.

meeeeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.

Yes that's exactly it. That's amazing idea. Would you start the petition?

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah if there was only a place in Ireland where laws are passed...

Laws that would curtail the kind of evidence or arguments that lawyers could present when defending their clients?

No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.

Grayson

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.

Point out a single post here that says that and I'll disagree with it. Or are you just making sh1t up.

astrofool

retro:electro wrote: »

Just so we’re clear. When OJ was acquitted it didn’t mean a murder did not take place. Nicole was not brought back to life and accused of lying.
In the case of an acquittal you have the same presumption of innocence you always had. Lack of evidence to prove guilt does not automatically mean the plaintiff is lying.
Unless you have proof that a false accusation took place, an acquittal implies nothing more than a lack of evdince to convict the defendant. It implies nothing about the plaintiff.

Murder is a bit different in that the crime has almost definitely happened (barring some bizarre accident). There is two questions to ask in these cases, did a crime occur, and if it did, who is responsible for committing the crime. In this case, the judgement was that a crime did not occur.

ohnonotgmail

astrofool wrote: »

No, but in a case where it's often one persons word against another's (one of them has to be lying), then evidence will be gathered to try and determine the intent of the person, and if relevant to the case, will be presented as evidence. e.g. had she been wearing granny panties, but had been looking up websites on how to frame men, or if the clothing was specifically bought for the meetup, and had never been worn previously, then they become an item of interest to the case.

There is just too many variables to just outright ban clothing as something that can be used as evidence. If the man was wearing a top saying "I'm a rapist", it doesn't mean he went out with that intent, but would definitely be relevant to the case.

The argument here is that the conviction rate and report to trial rate is so low that other measures are required to raise the conviction rate (which also assumes that the current system lets many guilty offenders be declared not guilty), with clothing being presented as evidence being one of them (and given this seems to be one case that was so unique that it made headlines, it's hard to see a safe change to the judicial system being made of this, but it is a good story for the meedja to pedal, and politicians to jump onto).

Here's the thing, if you're ever involved in a court case, everything you said and did may become relevant, even if said as a joke or sarcastically, everywhere you travelled, everyone you met and talked to will be brought up, because unless there's a video (and even then it's getting easier to mock up video evidence) of the crime being committed with the criminal shouting out clear intent of what they intend to do, then there will always be chances of the conviction being unsafe.

wearing a thong does not indicate intent. that is the issue.

SusieBlue

astrofool wrote: »

Murder is a bit different in that the crime has almost definitely happened (barring some bizarre accident). There is two questions to ask in these cases, did a crime occur, and if it did, who is responsible for committing the crime. In this case, the judgement was that a crime did not occur.

No it wasn't.

RWCNT

Grayson wrote: »

Point out a single post here that says that and I'll disagree with it. Or are you just making sh1t up.

No doubt one of her colleagues has been espousing this, they make for handy strawmen.

Triceratops Ballet

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?

If we can't complain to the people we pay to run our country about how the justice system, which was instituted by them, in our country operates, what's the point of them? why do we pay them?
Should we all just shut up about the things we're unhappy about and let them rule as they see fit?

PlaneSpeeking

seamus wrote: »

The Dail can pass legislation about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in defence of a charge.

Can you really not see the slippery slope that would become ?

The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a twist ?

They can, but they absolutely should not.

meeeeh

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.

Ah so the fact I am wearing thongs today (and lace ones) is material evidence that I'll jump on the first man that walks into the office.

One would almost worry for the postman today.

PlaneSpeeking

RWCNT wrote: »

No doubt one of her colleagues has been espousing this, they make for handy strawmen.

Ah welcome, to the "I don't like what someone is saying so I'll throw in a strawman argument or accuse them of lying"

Definitely out now, the toxic feminism is becoming very cloying.

Hurrache

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a twist ?

They can, but they absolutely should not.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Ah welcome, to the "I don't like what someone is saying so I'll throw in a strawman argument or accuse them of lying"

Definitely out now, the toxic feminism is becoming very cloying.

A private citizen!?

Are you so insecure with yourself that you feel threatened by women that you have to throw the word feminist about in attempt to make a point?

wexie

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.

The point is that wearing a thong isn't materially relevant evidence of intent or consent.

astrofool

SusieBlue wrote: »

No it wasn't.

OK, that what the defendant did was not a crime (barring going even further down the legalese definition of the ruling with more quick back and forth pantomime posts).

brooke 2

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.

Yes, if it was torn and ripped off her during a rape. Not simply because she was wearing it (the thong).

Triceratops Ballet

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Laws that would curtail the kind of evidence or arguments that lawyers could present when defending their clients?

No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.

Can you elaborate on how, in your opinion the womans choice of underwear, as presented in this trial is materially relevant as evidence of her consent/lack thereof?

Obviously if there is forensic evidence on her underwear that is entirely relevant, but that is not the context of this case.

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can you really not see the slippery slope that would become ?

The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a twist ?

They can, but they absolutely should not.

But feminists don’t wear lacy thongs? Clearly they hate men so much that I’m sure they fashion some chastity belt repellent type knicker, maybe made out some kind of renewable fabric and tie dyed

ohnonotgmail

wexie wrote: »

The point is that wearing a thong isn't materially relevant evidence of intent or consent.

It is amazing how many this has been said on this thread and it keeps getting ignored by some. It is the whole bloody point of the thread.

SusieBlue

astrofool wrote: »

OK, that what the defendant did was not a crime (barring going even further down the legalese definition of the ruling with more quick back and forth pantomime posts).

No, it was proven that there was not enough evidence to convict the defendant of rape.
Nothing about something not being a crime, or that it never occurred, but that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him.

meeeeh

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Can you really not see the slippery slope that would become ?

The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a

Hate to break it to you lacy thongs or none the government is already telling private citizens what they are allowed or not allowed to say in court. Or is it just bothering you when it is in relation to rape.