Uncharted wrote: It's the victims responsibility to report the crime..... how else would anyone be brought to justice?
mayolady14 wrote: » 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
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.
VinLieger wrote: » Unfortunately im scared to ask this on social media due to the band wagon brigade and id probably be labeled some kind of rape apologist but for those on here who think there was a miscarriage of justice what do you think should change? Honestly the attitude im seeing leads me to believe many who arent happy with the verdict believe the presumption of innocent until proven guilty should be done away with in the case of rape? Is that a solution people would be happy with?
irishrebe wrote: » I'm not talking about this trial. I'm talking about the attitudes on display here, a forum based in the Republic of Ireland. I've never once said the men should have been convicted. I'm talking about the masses upon masses of backwards, ignorant opinions. Justifying naming her. Calling her a liar. Calling on her to be prosecuted for lying. People thinking 'real' rapes are always punished. It goes on and on and on. Not a chance I'd report a rape, to have social stigma, malicious gossip, threats made against me, on top of having to deal with the consequences of being raped.
mayolady14 wrote: » 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?
Tsipras wrote: Ha ha complete bull****. If you felt it really was a crime why didn't you go do a different Garda (a woman maybe?)
take everything wrote: » 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.
irishrebe wrote: » 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.
pjohnson wrote: » You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened
Deusexmachina wrote: » So, the whole trial thing?
pjohnson wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » I'm not talking about this trial. I'm talking about the attitudes on display here, a forum based in the Republic of Ireland. I've never once said the men should have been convicted. I'm talking about the masses upon masses of backwards, ignorant opinions. Justifying naming her. Calling her a liar. Calling on her to be prosecuted for lying. People thinking 'real' rapes are always punished. It goes on and on and on. Not a chance I'd report a rape, to have social stigma, malicious gossip, threats made against me, on top of having to deal with the consequences of being raped. You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened
Sidebaro wrote: » Tsipras wrote: Ha ha complete bull****. If you felt it really was a crime why didn't you go do a different Garda (a woman maybe?) It's hard enough to come forward once, I assume it would be harder the second time if you're basically told to feck off the first time.
Sidebaro wrote: » What was her bad behaviour?
What was her bad behaviour?
VinLieger wrote: » pjohnson wrote: » You know her identity was hidden right? Only one party had their name blackened Thats something that seriously needs to be addresssed, there would be nothing like the current shenanigans if this hadnt been conducted in the full media spotlight polarisng the entire thing.
mayolady14 wrote: » The whole trial thing said it couldn’t be proven beyond reasonable doubt because well, no one can actually say what was said/ not said. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t raped. And we need to look at how we try these Crimes in the future
mayolady14 wrote: » And we need to look at how we try these Crimes in the future
Sidebaro wrote: » 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.
mayolady14 wrote: » yourdeadwright wrote: » Well for one , the case didn't happen in Ireland, it happened in Northern Ireland a different country, Two I don't get what people expect ,If you accuse someone of something it must go to trail , the guys have been named and publicly shame , the girl identity has been hidden (rightly so) ,The law has found them not guilty . These guys where found not guilty as there was not enough evidence to convict them , Do people really want to go down the road of convicting people of crimes without enough evidence ? Why do people #ibelieveher but what about the women who said what she saw was not rape do you not #believe her ? None of us here have ever meet ,spoke or saw the girl in the case, So why would u believe her ? be rational about it you've no idea what she is like , Now I'm not saying she is lying and I'm not saying she is not guilty, I'm saying we the public have no idea as we where not present, The right routes where taken and the guys where found not guilty why the outrage case closed, It may not be the outcome people wanted, but its the outcome that was reached after the evidence was presented, No one here knows the girl , 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.
yourdeadwright wrote: » Well for one , the case didn't happen in Ireland, it happened in Northern Ireland a different country, Two I don't get what people expect ,If you accuse someone of something it must go to trail , the guys have been named and publicly shame , the girl identity has been hidden (rightly so) ,The law has found them not guilty . These guys where found not guilty as there was not enough evidence to convict them , Do people really want to go down the road of convicting people of crimes without enough evidence ? Why do people #ibelieveher but what about the women who said what she saw was not rape do you not #believe her ? None of us here have ever meet ,spoke or saw the girl in the case, So why would u believe her ? be rational about it you've no idea what she is like , Now I'm not saying she is lying and I'm not saying she is not guilty, I'm saying we the public have no idea as we where not present, The right routes where taken and the guys where found not guilty why the outrage case closed, It may not be the outcome people wanted, but its the outcome that was reached after the evidence was presented, No one here knows the girl ,
Tsipras wrote: No Guard would say something like that, it's a made up story that's my point. But for real cases yeah it would be hard, but if you're the victim of any crime it's hard, life is tough sometimes.
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
VinLieger wrote: » So with your zero qualifications your happy to call into question our entire legal system based on how you feel? Yup that sounds like a great way to decide how justice works, sure why dont we just base all future decisions off twitter polls while we are at it.
Sidebaro wrote: » Tsipras wrote: No Guard would say something like that, it's a made up story that's my point. But for real cases yeah it would be hard, but if you're the victim of any crime it's hard, life is tough sometimes. No guard would say that? Really? That's a little naive.
seamus wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » 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. Sure. But that's the purpose of a trial and a legal system. This woman wasn't raped. Because the court system says she wasn't. Ultimately that's what it boils down to. Because at some point there has to be an arbiter - a mechanism whereby we declare factual truth for subjective matters. And that mechanism is the justice system. So it really matters not what she believes, or what the men believe or what commenters on social media believe. The mechanism of arbitration has decided through weighing up the evidence that no rape occurred. Therefore no rape occurred.
Sidebaro wrote: » No guard would say that? Really? That's a little naive.
