Prospectors wrote: » No it doesn't. It seems it needs to be pointed out even more frequently, innocence does not require to be proven. Not guilty = presumed innocent. Same as the day they first walked into that courtroom.
irishrebe wrote: » Yeah, despite the fact I grew up on a ****ty estate in Clondalkin, studied at Trinity and have lived and worked all around the world, I seem to only meet women who are JUST LIKE ME. What are the chances?
doylefe wrote: » OK, you got me. They were found not guilty but we all know on the sly they they did actually rape her. Am I doing this right?
holyhead wrote: » How the hell can you prove consent without the encounter being recorded? How can a witness definitively prove an sexual act between two people was consenual? If both parties confirm sex took place, but one participant defines it as rape, how does the other prove the otherwise? In the case of the soccer players in Wales, how is it determined that one sexual act was consensual but the next man was guilty of rape when the woman was in the same state of inebriation during both acts?
Strazdas wrote: » One interesting thing is where this right wing vs left wing thing fits into the whole rape trial narrative. If we take Niall Boylan for example, who has been prominent on this subject on radio and TV this week, he is a self confessed right winger with some pretty provocative opinions. I do wonder if the Twitter storm we've seen this week is a version of the Irish left versus the Irish right.
irishrebe wrote: » Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it.
Strazdas wrote: » I'm not so sure about this. You're saying that "innocent" is the exact same thing as being "not guilty". A jury might have strong suspicions you did in fact commit the crime but haven't got enough evidence to convict you with. Could such a person be said to have been declared "innocent" of all charges?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » How many times does it need to be pointed out that no, it doesn't. It means not proven. Possibly innocent, but not definitely.
Faugheen wrote: » What if I can provide evidence I didn't assault him though, thus casting reasonable doubt that I did it? The logic was that not guilty meant no crime took place, not that no crime takes place when it suits me. Keep up chap.
Fann Linn wrote: » Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome. Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?
Pac1Man wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Yeah, despite the fact I grew up on a ****ty estate in Clondalkin, studied at Trinity and have lived and worked all around the world, I seem to only meet women who are JUST LIKE ME. What are the chances? What are the chances you will associate with women who share your 'values'? Fairly high. Surely Trinity would have taught you that?
Rodin wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it. Well I don't belive her story and my opinion is equally valid.
Rodin wrote: » Doesn't matter what I think. The legal system is there to decide whether an offence was committed or not - if we could decide for ourselves we wouldn't need a legal system. Now, as the standard of proof is lower for a civil case that may be an avenue for me as the alleged stabbing victim to explore.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » "" I listened to his show yesterday + watched him on tv3 last night- I recall what he said regarding rape allegations to quote "" women should be listened to "" & "" women should be supported "" he disagreed with the idea some people suggest that women should be automatically believed ,, what exactly is "" provocative "" about any of what he said ?
doylefe wrote: » I hope many people who have posted nonsense in this thread are some day accused of something vile they are innocent of. And in the process they have their reputation ruined, careers ruined and are viewed as still guilty even after being cleaned of the accusation.
Faugheen wrote: » The legal system is there to decide if an offence was committed or not, but in the case of a not guilty verdict it means the prosecutions case couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is nothing in the verdict that says or suggests a crime didn't happen, which is my point.
Fann Linn wrote: » irishrebe wrote: » Because there's this little thing called perception. Try reading up about it sometime. It's perfectly possible for me to feel that I have been violated while the man or men involved don't think they've done anything wrong. Hence me being able to say I believe the victim, I believe her story, and at the same time criticising those who are still wrongly referring to the defendents as 'rapists' when they have been acquitted in a court of law. Nuance. Try it. Again, I'll ask the question about the only sober, independent, female witness, Dara Florence, who stated under oath that she didn't see a rape but a threesome. Is her evidence not credible and would you believe her?
irishrebe wrote: » Eh, since I spent most of the last decade being put in shared accommodation with local women (outside Ireland) and sharing flats with random people (in Ireland), fairly low. But thanks for the patronising drivel. You're not helping to prove my point or anything.
Depp wrote: » You're innocent untill proven guilty, if guilt cannot be proven, you remain innocent as you were before.
Silentcorner wrote: » You might as well be speaking in Latin.....
holyhead wrote: » Is it credible that the woman would put herself through the ordeal of a rape trial to pursue an outcome she didn't believe in?
Faugheen wrote: » You can't, what I said was that a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the crime didn't happen.
irishman86 wrote: » Yes Google how the law works Innocent walking into court, not guilty verdict hence guilty walking out Anything else? How long did it take you to find the meath one :pac:
