Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

Mokuba wrote:

I'm not saying that's what happened. But the "why would x person lie" as a defense against anything is utter crap.

It's not a defence on my part, I asked the poster that question to see what their opinion was on it as their previous posts suggested she was lying out of malice, which seems ridiculous.

SAMTALK

PistolsAtDawn wrote: »

On a scale of 1-10 how saddened are you by the verdict?

Isn't there even the slightest possibility that she wanted to be plugged by big famous rugby players and then tried to grab a little fame for herself afterwards?

Might have been easier on herself to sell the story to a newspaper and not subject herself to the trial if that was the case !!

Deusexmachina wrote: »

This argument is being repeated on here constantly. I want to challenge this muddy thinking.

Are you saying they are guilty or not? The whole point of a trial and a jury of your peers and the legal system is that a person is accused, defends himself and the jury detemines if he is guilty or not guilty.
The jury stand for us as a proxy. They represent the common man (or woman). If they determine the the accused is guilty, he is punished accordingly.
If they find him not guilty, then he is not guilty in the eyes of the law and society as a whole (as represented by the jury).

Not 'maybe guilty but not proven' - not 'partly guilty but not enough to imprison' - but NOT GUILTY.

This was the unanimous verdict of a jury based on a fair trial with an impartial and highly impressive judge. You may not like the outcome - but at least accept that this was the verdict delivered.

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

I commend any woman protesting this verdict as we need to ensure that rapists are getting convicted.

Mokuba wrote: »

Why should one person be believed over another?

Because they have a vagina?

Are women so virtuous that they are incapable of lies or misremembering?

Thankfully we have trials, rather than automatic belief of women.

If the evidence is strong enough then he will be convicted and you will be believed.

Excuse me, what evidence would it be possible for me to have in this case?

mayolady14 wrote: »

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

I commend any woman protesting this verdict as we need to ensure that rapists are getting convicted.

Are you therefore saying these men are rapists?

take everything wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I find it absolutely incredible how many people are missing the point. By saying 'I believe her', I'm not saying the accused are guilty and should be thrown into jail. I'm saying I believe that she honestly thinks she was raped, whether or not the men involved had the same perception. I don't believe, like many people on here, that she's a malicious liar who should be shamed and punished. Cases like this are never black and white.

But isn't this what's dangerous.
Subjective feeling/delusional thinking trumping reality.
Feeling/delusion should never trump reality surely.

What's dangerous is that so many people can't grasp the concept of 'reality' not being the same for everyone involved. Is our education system that poor? If she truly believes she was raped, that's her reality. If the accused truly believe she was up for it, that's their reality. Neither party is necessarily wrong. Neither party necessarily set out to intentionally hurt the other. It's a matter of perception. There IS no black and white answer, that she was raped or she wasn't. Nothing to do with 'feelings' or 'delusion', ffs.

professore wrote:

The whole issue of consent is a complete red herring here. Either she was into it or it was rape.

I think consent was the main theme of this whole trial?

Deusexmachina wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

You're a bit slow, aren't you? How many different ways does it need to be explained to you? The most likely explanation of all is that she honestly believes she was raped, and they honestly believe she was up for it. But that doesn't fit into your black and white mind?

You seem unable to argue your position without resorting to personal insults. That weakens your position.

I'm not the one asking the same question over and over when it has been answered dozens of times. Sorry for pointing that out.

seamus

mayolady14 wrote: »

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.

Red Alert

The media can't hide their disappointment at the outcome. Who needs judges and juries when we've got journalists?

lawred2

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The protest is set up to show solidarity and support for the girl.
I am also protesting because I think the rep. of Ireland treats rape victims the same as N. Ireland.
I am protesting because I was raped, and I felt that I had no avenue to report it, the legal system here lets down my human rights.
I am protesting because I have listened to many friends and family members talk about their experience with sexual assault, and I want to make the news, shine an international spotlight on Ireland, so people can see what is going on here. So that less women suffer going forward.
The first step to change is awareness.
I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.
I want to bring Leo Varadkar's attention to this issue, and a protest is a good way to do that.

firing in a lot of directions there but with specific regards to

I am protesting because the girl in this case was interrogated for 8 days on the stand while the men were for 0.5 to 1 day each. I want court practices to be more fair and just.

This was a consequence of 4 people being accused and the pps taking a joint case against these 4 people..

The long established court system allows the accused to defend themselves and as such to cross examine the accuser if she is prepared to take the stand. It's not pleasant for anyone concerned but the bar has to be high for a charge of rape to be upheld! Unfortunately in these cases - it often comes down to a he said/she said scenario and whether the jury can believe one person's account to the point where doubt no longer remains. In this case however wasn't there a female witness who believed that she saw what looked like consensual sexual interaction?

Also the girl's identity was withheld while no such privacy was afforded the accused. I do think that should change in such cases. Would go some way to prevent these tasteless media circuses.

Are there changes in the law that you are seeking? Would you like to see the burden of proof reduced in such cases?

I'm sorry to read that you were raped. I hope that you're coming to terms with it in whatever way that you can.

SortingYouOut

mayolady14 wrote: »

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

I commend any woman protesting this verdict as we need to ensure that rapists are getting convicted.

What would the best way to approach these cases in the future?

A court of law acquitted these men based on evidence or lack of evidence heard in court.

If the men were found guilty, would there be such an uproar? No, but yet they still would have come to that conclusion in the same manner.

irishrebe wrote: »

I'm not the one asking the same question over and over when it has been answered dozens of times. Sorry for pointing that out.

All you offer is insults and sneering comments. You have no coherent argument.

wrangler wrote:

They're behaviour was despicable, but no worse than the girls behaviour. I wish them all the best of luck

What was her bad behaviour?

mayolady14 wrote: »

take everything wrote: »

But isn't this what's dangerous.
Subjective feeling/delusional thinking trumping reality.
Feeling/delusion should never trump reality surely.

Why are you assuming that the feeling/delusion is on her side?

PJ admitted her only assumed he had consent. Is that not a bit of delusion?

Because mens' feelings are real, you see. Women's feelings are just them being delusional and hysterical. Summed up that post for you.

irishrebe wrote: »

Because mens' feelings are real, you see. Women's feelings are just them being delusional and hysterical. Summed up that post for you.

More sneering

Uncharted wrote:

I presume you reported this to the relevant authorities and they dealt with the matter according to the rules of Irish law. If you dont mind me asking,how did the case go?

You presume that all rape victims report the crime. This presumption explains why so many people are ignorant on the subject.

mayolady14 wrote: »

I believe these men performed sexual acts on this woman without consent, so yes, I do think they are rapists.

So, the whole trial thing?

seamus wrote: »

mayolady14 wrote: »

Only 1-2% of rapists are incarcerated in this country. This is due to numerous factors but largely the way we bring a rape trial to court and the high burden of proof required by the victim. It’s not like in a robbery case where there can be probable cause.

There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.

And it doesn't mean they haven't, either. That's the whole issue. That's why in cases like this, there's never going to be the nice, black and white conclusion so many posters on here seem to need or want. The evil rapist or the innocent little girl who was brutally attacked.

Uncharted

Sidebaro wrote: »

You presume that all rape victims report the crime. This presumption explains why so many people are ignorant on the subject.

It's the victims responsibility to report the crime..... how else would anyone be brought to justice?

Luxxis wrote:

Her rights were not infringed with the rape trial. How is that about her rights?

I didn't say this woman's rights. I said women's rights in general. Rape and abortion are both things included in the discussion about women's rights.

Mokuba

mayolady14 wrote: »

Except I don’t believe that the way we go about trying people for rape is the right way. When only 1-2% of people are getting convicted of a crime, a crime that effects one in 4 women, something needs to change.

Rape does not affect 1 in 4 women in this country.

seamus wrote: »

There's no such thing as "probable cause" in Ireland. That's a US legal term around search warrants.

The burden of proof for robbery is the same as that for rape.

The problem is, as this case shows, that rape is an incredibly subjective matter. So one party can feel like they've been raped, but that doesn't mean they actually have been.

Anyone arguing that the nature of proving rape should not be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is off their head.

Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit. Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict. I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome

VinLieger

mayolady14 wrote: »

Except I don’t believe that the way we go about trying people for rape is the right way. When only 1-2% of people are getting convicted of a crime, a crime that effects one in 4 women, something needs to change.

Okay what exactly is wrong currently and what would you change? Theres a lot of armchair lawyers going around saying similar things but when asked directly whats exactly wrong currently and how they would fix it they dont know or ignore the question. Just saying the system is broken is not enough, we need solutions not just the usual people running around complaining.

[Deleted User]

mayolady14 wrote: »

Except it’s not. In a robbery trial if the jury thinks there is a high chance the accused committed it, they may acquit. Any doubt here (ie if you thought PJ only used fingers etc) and you’d have to give a not guilty verdict. I don’t think it should not be proof beyond reasonable doubt but I think the burden of proof should be on the accused. If Jackson and co had to prove they had consent, we’d be looking at a different outcome

If that were the case I'd be able to get everyone I've ever slept with locked up.

take everything

What I don't understand is why there aren't women protesting about how cases like this trivialise rape cases.

As mentioned women who have experienced serious sexual violence will be less likely to come forward because of stuff like this, thinking she was raped and didn't get justice.

That's the real tragedy.

SortingYouOut wrote: »

What would the best way to approach these cases in the future?

A court of law acquitted these men based on evidence or lack of evidence heard in court.

If the men were found guilty, would there be such an uproar? No, but yet they still would have come to that conclusion in the same manner.

Considering I’m no law student, I don’t know exactly what would be the best way, but don’t you think that any crime with a conviction rate of 1-2% needs to be looked at seriously?