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

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why cant the woman say "I dont want you to put your penis inside me"?

tritium

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)

wakka12

Appledreams15 wrote: »

He said if a girl wears a skimpy outfit, it is her fault for attracting unwanted sexual attention, yes?

So I said, using that logic, what about normal sporty instances where girls wear skimpy clothing, eg swimming.

By his logic I am allowed to go up and harrass them and touch them yes? They are wearing skimpy clothing, hey asked for it.

# skimpy clothing argument is bullsh£t.

No as everybody is in swimwear it is not bringing attention to yourself.

Just like everybody keeps their wallet inside their clothes, if I was hanging my wallet off a chain on my trousers itd catch attention of thieves, and put me at greater risk of theft. Do I want to be robbed? Obviously not but Im certainly not taking precautions to minimise the risk

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?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry but you are incorrect.

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.

The most certainly did say that, I happen to disagree with it, hence why I brought it up.

"fancies a bit of rape" - What % of cases do you think this really is? We have some posters saying its a tiny amount and yet you and others are using it to justify your arguments. It cant be both Im afraid.

erica74

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.

optogirl

wakka12 wrote: »

No as everybody is in swimwear it is not bringing attention to yourself.

Just like everybody keeps their wallet inside their clothes, if I was hanging my wallet off a chain on my trousers itd catch attention of thieves, and put me at greater risk of theft. Do I want to be robbed? Obviously not but Im certainly not taking precautions to minimise the risk

I'm sorry but being dressed a certain way is not on par with walking around with your wallet hanging out. Are you seriously saying women should cover up to avoid rape? I can't keep up with whether I am a man-hating woman who presumes all men are rapists or a naive fool who doesn't.

One eyed Jack

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.

erica74 wrote: »

Realises.

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?!

Neyite

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)

retro:electro

wakka12 wrote: »

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

Like I already said, I’d wager it matters very little to a rapist what you happen to be wearing. I know someone who got raped while she was wearing her pajamas, also do women in burqas not get raped? Rape has very little to do with the item of clothing you’re wearing as a stimulant, and more to do with power and control over you in the moment.
Walking home alone is a dumb thing to do for both men and women. Of course that makes you more likely to be the victim of an opportune attack but I don’t think the predator would be either stimulated or deterred by how short your skirt is. There are no rape proof items of clothing, sadly.

This post has been deleted.

erica74

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?!

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.

This post has been deleted.

FrancieBrady

tritium wrote: »

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)

They are both travelling, both are drunk. Either could do something that causes a crash.

Perfect analogy.

You can blame or apportion responsibility tlll the cows come home.
Both have life long injuries.

Like those in the Belfast case.

Personal responsibility and precaution would have avoided it all.

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?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So they didnt know they didnt want sex at the time and only realised afterwards?

This post has been deleted.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sorry if it wasnt clear.
I guess what I am trying to explain is that there is a huge difference between someone who goes out to rape someone and someone who has what they believe to be consensual sex and then after the fact the woman "realises" it wasnt.

A lot of posts on this thread are using the first scenario to argue for reform regarding the second.

"In one case a guy tried to have sex with me when I was asleep. "
- Depending on the context of what happened before this I'd say this is ambigious. It could easily be that consent was implied or obvious that it wasnt.

"In another a guy tried to "slip it in" as though somehow I wouldnt notice."
- Again , would depend on context of prior events.

"Other incidents were more around the verbal "threat" of what would happen if I didnt put out (left stranded miles from home for example)."
- Rape or at best sexual assault imo.

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.

To be fair I dont think you can just slip the bolded part into your scenario and act like it doesnt change your argument.

Sex under duress/threat of violence is clearly rape.
I don't think it would be common that the threat of violence would occur *without* the victim resisting/saying no/obviously removing consent.
Hence my confusion about how they would only realise this months later.

Mrsmum

....... 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.

GreeBo wrote: »

To be fair I dont think you can just slip the bolded part into your scenario and act like it doesnt change your argument.

Sex under duress/threat of violence is clearly rape.
I don't think it would be common that the threat of violence would occur *without* the victim resisting/saying no/obviously removing consent.
Hence my confusion about how they would only realise this months later.

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. And that time that they did say no he beat her and then had sex with her anyway and she didn't report it because she had no-one to turn to because he'd isolated her and brainwashed her into believing that no-one would believe her, or that he was really sorry, or that he only did it because he loved her so much.

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.

GreeBo wrote: »

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

At worst? At worst a person has been being raped for years because they're afraid to say no!

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.