Deleted User wrote: » Sorry, the alleged victim never said 'she believed' she was raped. There is absolute certainty to her accusation. If you believe her, then you believe all that follows. It seems like you are trying to incorrectly use semantics to distance yourself from directly accusing the defendants here. So like I said, either have some conviction or stop wasting peoples time.
facehugger99 wrote: » When did I ever say anything about specific PJ messages?
Deleted User wrote: » You just looked up the message content for the first time didn't you? Fierce bang of back tracking off this post.
Silentcorner wrote: » She had to face the 12 person legal team,
Silentcorner wrote: » she did this with no legal representation at all...
Silentcorner wrote: » This is unprecedented in modern Irish history,
Silentcorner wrote: » There is an argument that a complainant should have access and be represented by her own counsel, which at least levels the playing field in an adversarial system, however, if the complainant is wealthier than the defendants then she could well be at a bigger advantage.
Silentcorner wrote: » We could shift to a more inquisitorial system of trying rape cases, it is much more humane, there are different versions that different countries use, I wouldn't know enough to know which one works better.
Silentcorner wrote: » It is difficult for an ordinary person like me or any of us to know what improvements could be implemented, but I sincerely hope we never see what we saw in Belfast ever again.
Grayson wrote: » Seriously, look up belief. We're talking epistemology here. As in "How can you know that something is true", what is truth, what does it mean to know something. I've said that I believe the victim. I haven't said that I know. I'm making a very definite distinction there and I'm using very clear language to make it. This is based the limits in my knowledge. So please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I'm saying.
Silentcorner wrote: » She was on the stand for 8 days, cross examined for 7, so you could say, she was on the stand for 8 days. She had to face the 12 person legal team, all working together, who's job it is to raise enough doubt in her statements to avoid conviction, she did this with no legal representation at all...it should be noted, not once during her testimony did that 12 person legal team penetrate her belief in her own narrative... This is unprecedented in modern Irish history, I cannot recall one person who had to face such a brutal cross examining, she is 21 years of age. There is an argument that a complainant should have access and be represented by her own counsel, which at least levels the playing field in an adversarial system, however, if the complainant is wealthier than the defendants then she could well be at a bigger advantage. We could shift to a more inquisitorial system of trying rape cases, it is much more humane, there are different versions that different countries use, I wouldn't know enough to know which one works better. It is difficult for an ordinary person like me or any of us to know what improvements could be implemented, but I sincerely hope we never see what we saw in Belfast ever again.
Deleted User wrote: » Because the prosecution decided to charge 4 people at once. What difference would this have made? The female judge decides what is and isn't acceptable questioning. This happened in Ireland? How? The complainant is not in legal jeopardy. She or he is making the complaint? What difference do you think her retaining counsel (which she is allowed do by the way) would have made? Do you accept that trial lawyers don't believe that a complainant requires legal representation? Why would you say we should move towards something, if you have no idea whether it would be an improvement or not? It's difficult for everyone. The complainant, the defendants. It's never meant to be easy, but it could be easier. However the reaction to this trial isn't about that. It's about anger at the verdict. When that anger tapers a bit then moderate voices with actual experience and solutions will step forth. Until then, no one with any credibility is touching this shít show with a barge pole.
Silentcorner wrote: » Tell us, how could it be easier for the victim?
Deleted User wrote: » The prosecution could have made it easier by only going after Jackson. The case against Olding was, for want of a better word, pathetic and littered with inconsistencies and the direct contradiction of a key witness (no hands on head). They could have waited on the result of the Jackson trial to go after Harrison and they probably shouldn't have wasted their time with McIlroy because the likely sentence even if guilty would have been miles away from anything custodial. So without changing any laws, a bit of cop on would have made this trial at the very least dramatically easier. That's not solely my opinion, that is a common opinion amongst barristers and legal professionals. In terms of the laws, Northern Ireland should restrict reporting like we do here and should not name defendants like we do here. That would have removed much of the circus around this and would have prevented the claimant being identified locally. In summary, had the prosecution had a bit of cop on and if Northern Ireland adopted two aspects of sex crime trials in Ireland this would have been dramatically easier on the complainant (though I still don't see a conviction).
Silentcorner wrote: » I beg your pardon, I was referring to victims in general, how can you make our system of trying cases like this easier for the victim, or are you happy with the way it is, here in the republic. I ask you because you clearly have access to legal opinion most of us don't it seems.
Deleted User wrote: » I wouldn't start there at all. I would start be re categorising all types of sex crime.There is a huge spectrum of types of assault and there is a huge spectrum covering all types of consent both implied and communicated. The law does not distinguish at all sufficiently between the types of crimes, the severity of the crimes and the level of consent given or not given. I think a comprehensive review of how sex crime is labelled and subsequently prosecuted and the related sentencing would do more for victims than anything else right now. It may sound a bit boring, but it's the most logical next step and would go a long way towards making the evidenciary burden more achievable in certain circumstances, but also allow for the mechanics of sex and consent to be more accurately tested in court.
Deleted User wrote: » I wouldn't start there at all. I would start be re categorising all types of sex crime. There is a huge spectrum of types of assault and there is a huge spectrum covering all types of consent both implied and communicated. The law does not distinguish at all sufficiently between the types of crimes, the severity of the crimes and the level of consent given or not given. I think a comprehensive review of how sex crime is labelled and subsequently prosecuted and the related sentencing would do more for victims than anything else right now. It may sound a bit boring, but it's the most logical next step and would go a long way towards making the evidenciary burden more achievable in certain circumstances, but also allow for the mechanics of sex and consent to be more accurately tested in court.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I had a debate about these issues with a few people and one of them informed me that 99% of her friends had been raped or sexually assaulted at one or more points in their lives. When asked what sexual assault meant, she said getting their bum touched in a slow dance at a school disco. Now, I am not saying there is nothing wrong with a young fella taking liberties, but categorizing it as a 'sexual assault' seems a bit ott to me. Similarly with the blanket term 'rape'.There is a world of difference between a violent and vicious rape and a misunderstanding about consent. I am sure there will be huge howls from the mob mentality bout that
Silentcorner wrote: » What the f##k are you on about... There may be a huge spectrum of sexual assaults (I disagree completely by the way)...but sexual assaults are sexual assaults because there is no consent...therefore there is no huge spectrum of consent. It doesn't sound boring at all....it sounds like complete spoof!!! What happens, when, like most cases of date rape (which represents approx 85% of rape/sexual assaults), there is no evidence! Mechanics of sex and consent????? Do you even know a single lawyer?
Silentcorner wrote: » Oh jesus....there's only a world of difference in your head...both kinds of rape destroy a victim, absolutely destroys a victim...
It is a pity, however, that the pantomime has succeeded in obscuring the fact that what Dawkins had to say was true. He affected surprise at the “absolutist terms” used by his opponents, even though these noisy voices have dominated the rape debate for decades. The childlike simplicity of “no means no” has sought, successfully, to equate the stranger-in-the-bushes-wielding-knife sexual attack with an unpleasant breakdown of communication between two equally inebriated adults, even though — and I write as a survivor of both — they are so obviously different. The stranger case involves premeditation, arming oneself and clarity of thought at the moment of attack; none of those applies to the social occasion gone so hideously askew, and if there really are people who refuse to differentiate between the two, we can but pray they never sit in judgment on a killing.
The greater pity, though, is that it is exactly the same voices who refuse to accept any kind of gradation in rape who also most loudly bemoan the rape conviction rate
FrancieBrady wrote: » Similarly with the blanket term 'rape'. There is a world of difference between a violent and vicious rape and a misunderstanding about consent. I am sure there will be huge howls from the mob mentality bout that
facehugger99 wrote: » Quite frankly I'm surprised Boards allows you to post your various personal theories regarding what does and doesn't constitute sexual assault. Dangerous and irresponsible nonsense.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I wouldn't start there at all. I would start by re categorising all types of sex crime. There is a huge spectrum of types of assault and there is a huge spectrum covering all types of consent both implied and communicated. The law does not distinguish at all sufficiently between the types of crimes, the severity of the crimes and the level of consent given or not given. I think a comprehensive review of how sex crime is labelled and subsequently prosecuted and the related sentencing would do more for victims than anything else right now. It may sound a bit boring, but it's the most logical next step and would go a long way towards making the evidenciary burden more achievable in certain circumstances, but also allow for the mechanics of sex and consent to be more accurately tested in court.
Deleted User wrote: » If you want to have a conversation then lets do that, if you want to post like what I've just quoted then go and have a conversation with someone else. I will however humour you because there is a point to be made. Here is a test by way of example that you can do in your head. Answer the following questions: How many times have you had sex? How many times before you have had sex have you asked the other person - "would you like to have sex"? I can tell you that I've had consensual sex many times without me or the woman in question asking for consent or verbally seeking consent. It's called implied consent, as in, consent which is implied by actions. Does that make me or the woman in this instance a rapist? Of course not. Passion does not always allow time for formality and no one has an issue with this. So there are very much varying degrees and classifications of consent. If a person came up to you and dry humped your leg, that would be sexual assault. If you were snogging someone in a club and their hard on brushed your leg - would that be assault? Again, varying degrees of consent. Anyway, I'm done spoofing for now.
tritium wrote: » While I think there’s merit to at least considering some of this it’s also important that we don’t take the opportunity to find criminality in everything. Cressida Dick recently made the point that “ what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police." In light of this trial and the ludicrously low level of evidence I think that statement and her wider interview (which was very balanced) are worth considering (I say that fully cognizant of all sides evidence in this case and their belief they told the truth)https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/it-isnt-all-about-victims-met-police-to-abandon-practice-of-believing-all-sex-assault-complaints-a3803791.html%3famp The UK has for a few years taken a rather simplistic view that if you just believe complainants and bring more prosecutions that convictions will follow. The experience has shown this to be flawed- the burden of proof remains the same and cases that lacked sufficient evidence still lack sufficient evidence. The reality is if you are not convicting in genuine (legal sense) rape cases then the quality of evidence and police work needs to be looked at. In this trial huge gaps in the police interview process were put to the jury. Are there no lessons to be learned for anyone there?
Silentcorner wrote: » I understand what you mean by consent which is implied by actions...but again, rape and sexual assault complaints are made because of a lack of consent, either implied or otherwise...
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, wrong again. This debate is out there if only you could calm down and listen to it.https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/admit-it-some-rapes-are-worse-than-others/ It is funny that people like your good self are referenced here.
tritium wrote: » Except, as illustrated so tragically by the testimonies and outcomes in this case, that’s simply not the case in every situation I appreciate the complainant may have one view. Why does it seem so hard for you to consider that a defendant may have a different and equally honest view?
Silentcorner wrote: » In this case? Because of their own accounts, which made no sense to me, in fact, i believe it was their own accounts and not the complainants account that landed them in court...which does not make me right by the way! The next case? Could be completely different!
Deleted User wrote: » I'm not going to reply to your entire post because I don't have time or that much interest. I will however deal with this one specific aspect. You have vastly over simplified consent in this aspect of your post. Let's go back to what I wrote earlier about me being with a woman and neither of us asking for consent. Let's say after some kissing she forces my hands back behind my head in a gesture of control and dominance. I freeze. My boxers are still on, but I didn't think we were going to have sex. I'm panicking internally but the panic is preventing me from saying anything. She lowers herself onto me and we are having intercourse. Technically, I'm being raped. It's hard to imagine that scene playing out, until it's me on top and her freezing. Now it's much more believable. Regardless, this could happen by accident. She could believe there was implied consent where I had not given it. Should she be labelled a rapist and sent to prison for 15 years? I would consider that totally unreasonable. So you need a different classification to accommodate instances where it's not unreasonable to believe there was implied consent even in circumstances where there was not.
tritium wrote: » No, in general, which seems to say you do get the possibility, which contradicts your earlier statement
Silentcorner wrote: » Admit it, rape destroys victims. There is nothing apart from the obvious in what you have pointed out. Like, common assault is a lighter crime than serious assault...however, in the non violent rape cases, the damage a victim experiences can be just as bad, because, at least, in the case of violent rape by a stranger the victim does not have much cause for self torture, and as a society we have no problem believing a woman in this instance. The damage date rape does, is much more insidious, victims can very often turn the blame on themselves, more often than not, victims are not believed unless there is a conviction, even then not always...it is also remarkably difficult to secure justice...women also suffer the fear of pregnancy or even death in these date rape scenarios...what might be a misunderstanding of consent for one person could destroy the other person! Now, if you want to have a conversation about jail terms for each offence well, that is a different story...
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
