nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Sam Quentin

Strange.. I'm kinda relieved it's all over.

http://www.thejournal.ie/belfast-rape-trial-verdict-3928309-Mar2018/

Mod Note Keep this relevant to this thread and don't bring up others. ie the eighth amendment thread.

MOD NOTE By the way don't post anything from members on the jury that's appearing online.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Outlaw Pete

@seamus: Your €50 theft analogy actually supports the view you appear to be trying to argue against. For instance, you say:

seamus wrote: »

After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money.

The operative word here being took of course.

Well, isn't that all that's being said, that the prosecution should have to prove that a man took sex as opposed to was given it?

Zulu

georgina toadbum wrote: »

Anything for the clothing?

Anything for the nit-picking and splitting hairs?

Fann Linn

RoboRat wrote: »

If the passenger knowingly got into a car with a drunk driver, I wouldn't blame them for an accident but I would say they put themselves at a huge risk by doing so. In the same way as if a person went for a swim in a river with crocodiles, it would be a tragic accident, but one that could have been avoided if they made the sensible decision and erred on the side of caution.

Everyone has an obligation to themselves to not put themselves in danger. Life is full of percentages, always take the choice with the least possible negative outcome. Will it stop bad things from happening? No, but it will decrease the likelihood.

Exactly. I can't really see the difficulty in all of this.
There are bad people out there folks;
Hindley & Brady.
Rose & Fred West
Jack the Ripper.
Etc, etc.

ShowMeTheCash

seamus wrote: »

I'm not going to give you numbers, that's ridiculous.

But going by this thread, it seems pretty clear that there is significant confusion and/or disagreement about what constitutes consent.

And since the very definition of rape is that consent has not been provided, logically it follows that there is disagreement about what constitutes rape.

Which also logically follows that there are likely some individuals on this thread alone, never mind in general, who have committed rape but are unaware of it.

Your comparison with "no murdering" classes is nonsense, since we're not discussing "no raping" classes.

I think perhaps you would need to take this class as it appears you do not understand the law either.

Consent can be explicit or implicit. Explicit usually means verbal but implicit can be interpreted by ones actions.

The statue book states:

A man commits rape if—

a)he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent to it,
b)at that time he knows that she does not consent to the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does or does not consent to it, and references to rape in this Act and any other enactment shall be construed accordingly

It is hereby declared that if at a trial for a rape offence the jury has to consider whether a man believed that a woman was consenting to sexual intercourse, the presence or absence of reasonable grounds for such a belief is a matter to which the jury is to have regard, in conjunction with any other relevant matters, in considering whether he so believed.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

@seamus: Your €50 theft analogy actually supports the view you appear to be trying to argue against. For instance, you say:

The operative word here being took of course.

Well, isn't that all that's being said, that the prosecution should have to prove that a man took sex as opposed to was given it?

No. The prosecution's position is that the money was taken.

And that is the default position in law - that you do not have consent, by default.

Although I do love that you assume I was talking about a man, so you swing this into "balance of power" argument in relation to sex.

The argument swings both ways - it is not assumed by default that a man has consented. And if he is so inclined may bring a case against a woman, alleging that she had sex with him without his consent.

This is a rather perfect example of why discussions about consent in schools are necessary, not even just for sexual conduct, but social conduct in general.

ShowMeTheCash

georgina toadbum wrote: »

Anything for the clothing?

Somehow I doubt any such study has taken place.
That being said, I have little to no issues with what people wear at a nightclub or any public place for that matter.

Getting drunk and going back to to someones house is where I think people leave themselves open to taken advantage of.

Men when drunk leave themselves open to assault.

yourdeadwright

we'll according to the evidence heard and the opinion of a 10 member Jury .,, there was no non-consensual sex had that night, all the rest is speculation and all guess work .,
The women had her claims heard in court and they where not received how she had hoped , Can we all not just respect the courts and move on with our lifes,
The men are not guilty of any crime and anyone who says they are is just using guess work and thankfully we live in an age where evidence is used ,

seamus

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

Consent can be explicit or implicit. Explicit usually means verbal but implicit can be interpreted by ones actions.

Thanks for the education, but I never said otherwise.

Another good example of why we need a broad discussion in schools about what consent is. So that nobody gets caught in the trap of believing that it must be explicit, or that it can easily be implied.

Neyite

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The passenger is STILL dead. And they might not be had they taken precautions.

The drink driver is responsible and to blame but the passenger is DEAD.

How can you miss the point so wonderfully here?

Using your analogy then a dead passenger = manslaughter. One that's alive but injured after the crash suits a rape analogy better?

Ok I accept that if a passenger unwisely gets into a car with someone who is pissed then it's potentially risky but using the analogy, does that mean they deserve to be injured? I don't think so.

Then there's the variables. The passenger might have thought the driver was on 7up all night. Might have thought that the driver had only the one alcoholic drink at 7pm and was safe to drive. The driver might have looked entirely sober. Through no fault of his own, the passenger now has life changing injuries and socially there's no lifelong stigma or blame the way a rape victim may experience in their locality.

erica74

Can posters not see, just by reading this thread, how there is a problem in society with consent? And how differently consent is viewed by everyone? That in itself suggests that there is a problem in society in relation to what constitutes consent and what constitutes the removal of consent and why people need to be taught about consent.

wakka12

retro:electro wrote: »

I think it matters not what clothes you’ve on you whether you’re going to be a victim of an attack or not. If a rapist is gonna rape I doubt he’d care what you had on. You’ll probably get torn to shreds for the revealing clothes comment, but I’d agree that you’re probably more likely to be a victim of a casual sexual assault like a boob grab or an arse pinch or an inappropriate fondle if you have it all out on display- but that’s still not the fault of the woman. It’s always the fault of the dirt who can’t keep his hands to himself. If a man sees a woman in revealing clothes and can’t help himself from hopping on her then that’s on him.

Of course the victims actions shouldnt influence the punishment of the rapist. But a woman can certainly take precautions to limit attention of a rapist being brought to her, I wouldnt wear revealing clothes going through a dangerous part of town on my own if I was a woman just like I wouldnt leave my house unlocked at night in a bad part of town. Obviously I dont want to be robbed, and my stupidity should not mean the burglar of my home gets less prison time, but youd agree Im fairly ****ing stupid for not having locked my house.

This scenario above is not specifically in reference to this girl in the belfast trial but just in general

Mr.H

seamus wrote:

But going by this thread, it seems pretty clear that there is significant confusion and/or disagreement about what constitutes consent.

Yes there is confusion surround consent because people want to define an expression to the word.

I had sex with my better half last night. I didn't ask her. Hell we probably didn't say many words to be honest. She didn't say she wanted to have sex but she definitely gave me signals or expressions that made me think consent was granted. I initiated. Sometimes she does and again no words of consent. In fact sometimes we are playful and not even showing we want to when in reality we do.

In a court of law it could be misunderstood to think rape has taken place.

Consent is a buzz word used to define rape.

Right and wrong is what people need to learn. Not the definition of a ridiculous word.

If a person doesn't want to have sex with you and you proceed. That is rape. It doesn't matter if someone said yes against their will, or were too drunk or asleep to be "into it". You know if someone wants to have sex with you because they are excitedly participating.

We don't need consent classes. We need to just teach our kids responsibility and the difference between right and wrong. In all life. not just sex. Too many lazy parents who's sons and daughters go on to be criminals.

GreeBo

seamus wrote: »

I'm not going to give you numbers, that's ridiculous.

But going by this thread, it seems pretty clear that there is significant confusion and/or disagreement about what constitutes consent.

And since the very definition of rape is that consent has not been provided, logically it follows that there is disagreement about what constitutes rape.

Which also logically follows that there are likely some individuals on this thread alone, never mind in general, who have committed rape but are unaware of it.

Your comparison with "no murdering" classes is nonsense, since we're not discussing "no raping" classes.

no consent = rape.

Hence people are talking about consent classes not "no raping" classe.
You literally cannot talk about rape without talking about consent, since consent or rather its absence defines rape.

I'm not asking you for definitive numbers, just an idea.

Everyone knows that murder is wrong and illegal and yet it still happens.
I'd wager most rapists know they are committing rape, hence my belief that consent classes wont do much.

[Deleted User]

erica74 wrote:

Can posters not see, just by reading this thread, how there is a problem in society with consent? And how differently consent is viewed by everyone? That in itself suggests that there is a problem in society in relation to what constitutes consent and what constitutes the removal of consent and why people need to be taught about consent.

Nope.

I see people who still think that men who have been fount not guilty of rape are still being branded as unwitting rapists.

I think we all know and agree that consent can be removed. It just so happens that it wasn't in this case according to the 11 people who were privy to all the available evidence.

It's that simple.

FrancieBrady

Neyite wrote: »

Using your analogy then a dead passenger = manslaughter. One that's alive but injured after the crash suits a rape analogy better?

Ok I accept that if a passenger unwisely gets into a car with someone who is pissed then it's potentially risky but using the analogy, does that mean they deserve to be injured? I don't think so.

Then there's the variables. The passenger might have thought the driver was on 7up all night. Might have thought that the driver had only the one alcoholic drink at 7pm and was safe to drive. The driver might have looked entirely sober. Through no fault of his own, the passenger now has life changing injuries and socially there's no lifelong stigma or blame the way a rape victim may experience in their locality.

The proper analogy is the passenger hopped into a car with a random stranger and didn't check whether they had been drinking because they themselves were drunk.

Run the analogy from there.

joe40

ShowMeTheCash wrote: »

No one is making the argument that they shouldn't.
The argument is when in this situation they are now in a vulnerable situation.

World if full of "bad" people!

I would have missed out on some great nights, and some great relationships if girls hadn't took a chance and put themselves in "vulnerable" situations.
You're right the world is full of bad people. So when bad people do bad things, lets blame the "bad people"

ShowMeTheCash

Neyite wrote: »

Using your analogy then a dead passenger = manslaughter. One that's alive but injured after the crash suits a rape analogy better?

Ok I accept that if a passenger unwisely gets into a car with someone who is pissed then it's potentially risky but using the analogy, does that mean they deserve to be injured? I don't think so.

Again, nobody is saying anyone deserved to get raped or that they had it coming or that it is their fault. But you want to try and conflate fault with responsibility.... They are two completely separate things!
Everyone is responsible for themselves and minimizing risk.
You engage in risky behaviour you increase the risk of someone taking advantage of you, someone taking advantage of you is still not your fault but you engage in risky behavior you ultimately increase the chances of it happening to you!

Neyite wrote: »

Then there's the variables. The passenger might have thought the driver was on 7up all night. Might have thought that the driver had only the one alcoholic drink at 7pm and was safe to drive. The driver might have looked entirely sober. Through no fault of his own, the passenger now has life changing injuries and socially there's no lifelong stigma or blame the way a rape victim may experience in their locality.

This is advice is not meant to be looked at retrospectively. If you have been raped it is already too late.

ShowMeTheCash

joe40 wrote: »

I would have missed out on some great nights, and some great relationships if girls hadn't took a chance and put themselves in "vulnerable" situations.
You're right the world is full of bad people. So when bad people do bad things, lets blame the "bad people"

Not much good to you when you have been murdered is it?

joe40

So how should people behave to be "safe"

erica74

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Nope.

I see people who still think that men who have been fount not guilty of rape are still being branded as unwitting rapists.

I think we all know and agree that consent can be removed. It just so happens that it wasn't in this case according to the 11 people who were privy to all the available evidence.

It's that simple.

I'm sorry but that is not the impression I have gotten from the contributors to this thread. I'm moving slightly away from the trial itself (I agree 100% with the verdict of the jury in that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute) and moreso to the actual concept of consent. It may be "off topic" but a trial like this brings about these sort of discussions.

martingriff

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But legally everyone enjoys the presumption that by default, they have not consented.

So rape cases are a matter of somehow fitting the two of these things together.

The victim's assertion will be that consent was never given or was later withdrawn. Which is very difficult to prove - but should they have to?

After all, if I invited you to a party at my house and you took €50 that was sitting on a windowsill, the only thing I would really have to prove is that you took the money. You could certainly make an argument in your defence that I told you to take it. Then the horse-trading can begin around who said what.

But from the off it wouldn't be assumed by default that I said you could take it, or that by inviting you into my home that I should expect it would be taken or that I have implied it could be taken.

And if you think that creates a dangerous precedent in the case of rape, then you must be of the opinion that there are hoardes of people out there just champing at the bit to get a ride and then get their day in court.

Legally person is innocent until proven guilty. If legally the presumption is consent is not given then you want to turn that around to there guilty until proven innocent

GreeBo

joe40 wrote: »

I would have missed out on some great nights, and some great relationships if girls hadn't took a chance and put themselves in "vulnerable" situations.
You're right the world is full of bad people. So when bad people do bad things, lets blame the "bad people"

Lets *punish* the bad people.

ShowMeTheCash

joe40 wrote: »

So how should people behave to be "safe"

No going back to a strangers house on your own with you have had a skin full is probably a good start! More so if you are a female.

kylith

Mr.H wrote: »

Yes there is confusion surround consent because people want to define an expression to the word.

I had sex with my better half last night. I didn't ask her. Hell we probably didn't say many words to be honest. She didn't say she wanted to have sex but she definitely gave me signals or expressions that made me think consent was granted. I initiated. Sometimes she does and again no words of consent. In fact sometimes we are playful and not even showing we want to when in reality we do.

In a court of law it could be misunderstood to think rape has taken place.

Consent is a buzz word used to define rape.

Right and wrong is what people need to learn. Not the definition of a ridiculous word.

If a person doesn't want to have sex with you and you proceed. That is rape. It doesn't matter if someone said yes against their will, or were too drunk or asleep to be "into it". You know if someone wants to have sex with you because they are excitedly participating.

We don't need consent classes. We need to just teach our kids responsibility and the difference between right and wrong. In all life. not just sex. Too many lazy parents who's sons and daughters go on to be criminals.

Would you behave in the same manner with a total stranger as you do with your wife, or would you take the approx 2 seconds to day ‘do you want to’?

RoboRat

joe40 wrote: »

So how should people behave to be "safe"

You can't be safe... too many variables outside your control to be absolutely safe. You can be safer and minimise the risks. Not being drunk beyond the point of self control is a good starting point. If you're drunk your senses are dulled and this includes vital senses such as danger awareness, decision making, reaction time etc etc.

GreeBo

joe40 wrote: »

Personal responsibility is one thing but a young woman should still be to go to house with someone, engage in "sexual behaviour" but still have the right to stop at any stage or not go further than they are happy with.
I was young many years ago and it was common enough to go back to a house even to a bed with someone but full sexual intercourse was never expected as a right in those circumstances.

Indeed she should, and so should he in fact.

Has anyone suggested otherwise on here?

The problem arises when said young woman (for example) goes back to your house and you fool around and end up having sex.

Then you get a call from the cops about rape. Turns out she didnt consent but was paralyzed by fear to tell you that. Now what? Prison for you?

Mr.H

I think it's ridiculous to expect schools to sp what you are too frightened or lazy today do. A great piece of advice I will be passing to my future kids.

It doesn't matter the gender or sexual orientation. When you go out day or night you need to be careful. Just keep your eyes open and be aware of your surroundings. Make good judgement calls. Be careful the message you send with what you wear. Yes wearing a top that shows your tits and shorts that show ass cheeks is going to attract attention. We all like to get attention from the opposite sex but there is obviously good and bad attention. If you dress like a scum bag you will be treated like one. If you dress like a homeless person you will be treated like one and of course If you dress like a stripper again you will be treated like one. It sucks but that's the way the world works. Dressing in a sexy way doesn't mean you are asking for it of course. The good people will respect that. It's the wrong ones that will also give you attention that you need to be careful of. So yes what you wear is important and does matter. Who your friends are also matters. The wrong type of people defines you in the wrong way. The way you act and talk will also define you. Be respectful of others and learn to trust. But most of all trust and respect yourself. I hope my daughter meets am amazing guy. But I hope she takes her time and trusts him before putting herself in a situation that needs trust. The same for my future son.

All decisions have consequences. What you wear who you talk to and going home with strangers.

You are only a victim of you put yourself in stupid situations.

Afterall you wouldn't let your caveman child play with a trex would you?

.......

This post has been deleted.

seamus

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not asking you for definitive numbers, just an idea.

Given that 65% of victims (according to the rape crisis network) don't report sexual violence to the Gardai, there's your general ballpark figure of the number of people wandering around blissfully unaware that they may have raped someone.

Everyone knows that murder is wrong and illegal and yet it still happens.
I'd wager most rapists know they are committing rape, hence my belief that consent classes wont do much.

You're conflating two very different things though.

It's easy to know when you've killed someone. One minute they're standing in front of you, the next they're dead, and you did it.

Consent, not so straightforward.

GreeBo

martingriff wrote: »

Legally person is innocent until proven guilty. If legally the presumption is consent is not given then you want to turn that around to there guilty until proven innocent

Even if you switch the default to "no consent" I dont see how it helps anyone tbh.
Sure you might get more convictions, but are you getting more justice or just locking up more people?

Its just as hard to prove "consent" as proving "no consent".

Its a minefield either way, hence we default to innocent to avoid locking up anyone who is accused of anything.