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

blanch152 wrote: »

Context, context. There are no absolutes in life.

Except death.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Rape is very much 'one person taking something from the other'
It is a power play.
It is one person taking something from the other.

My rapist walked past me in a pub, slowed down and smirked at me.

Another women recounted her rape story to me, and that she recounted the exact same thing afterwards chilled me. That the man slowly walked past her (this time in church) slowed down and smirked at her. They know that they have hurt you.

I moved out of that town.
She stopped going to church.

What is your point?

RoboRat wrote: »

So the passenger was not responsible for drinking too much and clouding their own judgement? If you were sober or had a few drinks, you would be able to make a much more informed call about the condition of the driver and as such, the outcome would probably be very different.

Not in all situations, but it would significantly increase the chances of the right decision being made.

It still doesn't place the blame on the passenger.

Really poor analogy. There is no ‘driver’ in a rape scenario, there’s an onus on both parties re consent (I.e. they’re both driving)

Mr.H wrote: »

Fair enough. Don't think many would ask before kissing someone in a club for example. Anyway my point still stands. You don't need a verbal contract to establish whether you should or not

But what harm does it do to check and make sure?

GreeBo wrote: »

Realises or decides?

Realises.

erica74 wrote: »

I believe consent can be removed before and during but not afterwards. However, a person may not immediately realise they have been raped. It can sometimes be days, weeks, months, even years, before a person realises they have been raped.

seamus wrote: »

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.

I don't think that's correct seamus. If a person is accused of a crime, they maintain the presumption of innocence if the prosecution has not convinced the jury that the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is entirely up to the prosecution to present the case that consent was not present, and that either you did not give the accused permission to take the money, or that in the case of a person accused of rape, consent was not present. There is no such thing as 'the default position in law' in relation to sexual offences with regard to consent. If you want to put it like that, then there would be no need for a trial as the accused is already presumed guilty, by default, as you're suggesting. The law however is more objective than that. It presumes that the accused is innocent, and it is the prosecution which has to make the case that they aren't, by demonstrating that consent was not present, or could not have reasonably been obtained by the accused, or that the accused could not have been of the reasonable belief that consent was present.

seamus wrote: »

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.

Bit of a 'bait and switch' tactic going on there seamus. You were originally referring to yourself when you were talking about accusing someone of taking money from you (without your permission) when you said if you invited someone to your house -

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.

I'm assuming you're a man, referring to yourself, but you wouldn't be expected to prove anything. It would be up to the State to present evidence that Pete took the money without your permission, and you would appear as a witness for the State in their case against Pete, a case that ended up in court because Pete is be entitled to a fair trial before a jury of his peers when he maintains that he is not guilty of the crime of which he stands accused, rather than it being assumed in law by default that he is already guilty.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Ah, ok I get you now. I still think that fits with what I'm trying to say as well though. If I make a (wrong) assumption when drunk that the person who offers me a lift home is sober, am I responsible or deserving of an injury sustained in the crash?

I made a poor decision based on the assumption that people are decent and law abiding. I left my car at home because I am law abiding and don't drink drive. So did you. But Sharon (who we both went to school with), her new boyfriend Paul has a car and offers us a lift. He's really sound and he used to work with your cousin Shane in that place. And his brother was in Uni at the same time as your sister. So by typical Irish standards, we 'know' him even though we only really met him that night. He was on minerals all night. He appears to be stone cold sober. Nothing to indicate he's a rapist drunk. Until we find out otherwise. The hard way.

The reality is that most rapes happen by someone we know, or someone we have six degrees of separation from. It's rarely the lad that pulls you in to the bushes. Its usually Paul.*

(*Apologies to any Pauls in the making of this analogy)

erica74 wrote: »

That's not what I said, I said "a person may not immediately realise they have been raped", I didn't say a person may not realise they didn't give consent.

Could you explain the difference?

I believe there isn't one, since lack of consent is the fundamental definition of rape.

Put it another way, its only rape if there is no consent, implied or otherwise.

How could this woman realise they were raped if they dont also realise there was no consent?

GreeBo wrote: »

How can you possibly not realise that you didnt give consent until months later?
If it takes you that long, how on EARTH is the man supposed to know at the time?!

Look, it can be a situation where a woman who is in an abusive relationship, for example, lets the guy do whatever he wants because she's afraid to refuse him. He doesn't consider himself a rapist; he's just shagging his girlfriend. She doesn't initially recognise that it was rape because he was her boyfriend, that's what boyfriends do. Or she doesn't realise it was rape because she let him do it, even though she was too afraid to refuse, or she was bullied or pressured into it.

If two teenagers are going out and he wants to have sex and keeps on at her saying that if she loved him she would, and he'll leave her if she doesn't have sex with him, and he'll tell everyone she's frigid, and everyone else is doing it, until she relents and has sex with him is that rape? She didn't really want to but he wore her down until she said yes. Is he a rapist? After all, as far as he's concerned she agreed to, and isn't that what makes it not rape?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree with this. Also sometimes it's a case of - Mary was fine with it so if you're not fine with it, you're the problem not me. The old no one ever complained before excuse. This happened to a friend of mine. She was raped and afterwards he told her nothing wrong happened & it wasn't his fault if she was a frigid bitch. I think that guy might actually believe himself.

kylith wrote: »

Yes, of course it is, but the point is that people in that situation don't realise it is rape because of this pervasive attitude that it isn't rape unless you say No, even if they're only saying yes because of what happened when they tried to say no.

Then at worst there is one case of rape where consent was specifically removed.

kylith wrote: »

Look, it can be a situation where a woman who is in an abusive relationship, for example, lets the guy do whatever he wants because she's afraid to refuse him. He doesn't consider himself a rapist; he's just shagging his girlfriend. She doesn't initially recognise that it was rape because he was her boyfriend, that's what boyfriends do. Or she doesn't realise it was rape because she let him do it, even though she was too afraid to refuse, or she was bullied or pressured into it.

100% thats rape, but from what I can see that isnt the scenario that most posters are talking about.
People are talking about a confusion regarding consent, not where one party *clearly* doesnt want to have sex and 100% in her own mind knows this.

kylith wrote: »

If two teenagers are going out and he wants to have sex and keeps on at her saying that if she loved him she would, and he'll leave her if she doesn't have sex with him, and he'll tell everyone she's frigid, and everyone else is doing it, until she relents and has sex with him is that rape? She didn't really want to but he wore her down until she said yes. Is he a rapist? After all, as far as he's concerned she agreed to, and isn't that what makes it not rape?

If the girl knows that she doesnt want to have sex then if at any stage she makes this clear to the other party, then at least 1 count of rape has taken place.