bubblypop wrote: » The only reason underwear should be used as evidence in a rape or sexual assault trial is as forensic evidence. That's it. No other reason.
blue note wrote: » I've often heard if you get a girl's clothes off and she's wearing matching underwear it's not you who decided you're having sex. That's a funny thing to say because there's truth to it. Sometimes women intend to have sex later and dress for it, or they think they might or they could and dress in case they do with sexy underwear or the like. In a rape trial when a defence is trying to show that the sex was consensual it would make sense to me and be relevant to present any evidence that would give any weight to the argument the sex was consensual. And a girl wearing sexy underwear could add to the argument that she wanted to have sex. Now it should go without saying that she can wear sexy underwear and not intend to have sex, or intend to and change her mind, etc. But people get utterly hysterical at the mention of underwear and start throwing around phrases like it doesn't mean she was asking to be raped and stating that what she's wearing doesn't take away her ability to decide or doesn't give any man the right to have sex with her, etc. Well no sh1t, I've never heard anyone say any of that and mean it. But I can understand why underwear can be evidence. Now, I can appreciate an argument that it shouldn't be admissible, but if I'm going to respect the argument it would at least have to acknowledge the actual reason it is used as evidence. And acknowledge that not allowing the jury see this evidence could be the difference between them finding a man innocent or guilty.
Hurrache wrote: » That's the point. It was insinuated she was out looking for it because of the underwear she was wearing.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » There was a report published in Northern Ireland yesterday showing that less than 2% of rape cases in Court result in successful convictions. Why would anyone take on the huge risk of reporting a rape to the police in that environment?
Hurrache wrote: » So underage. You have different levels of rapeyness that you use as a yard stick?
bubblypop wrote: » Nope. A man carrying a condom should never be evidence in a rape trial. Neither should his choice of sexy boxers or whatever underwear he likes. The same as a womans choice of underwear is absolutely never a factor in whether she wants to have sex or not. Oh & FYI, if a woman does or does not want sex, I'm going to guess she does not want to be raped.
limnam wrote: I'm sure there's the odd day the aul brdget jones go on and ye can't find the match.
boardise wrote: People ( especially men ! ) wearing 'sexy u/wear' might represent more an aspiration rather an intention to have sex.
seenitall wrote: » So. When my daughter is older and starts going out, should I as a conscientious mother, be telling her: "And remember to wear those ugly knickers I got you! God forbid something bad happens, you know it would be your own fault..."? Can you even hear yourselves, defending this medieval carry on? Disgraceful stuff.
King of Kings wrote: How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so. Did you think of that in your post above?
King of Kings wrote: » you bringing emotion into this and emotion and the law dont mix well. How would you feel if you son was facing an accusation and was barred from using evidence in his defence. you'd probably feel angry and rightly so. Did you think of that in your post above? it should be about balance for all not just one side.
Triceratops Ballet wrote: » What is is evidence of? If its forensic evidence fair game, if not what exactly can underwear prove?
lawred2 wrote: » The waving of underwear was to appeal to the juror's emotional side.
Yer Da sells Avon wrote: » Outlaw Pete wrote: » I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials. Didn't you continue to defend that English footballer, Adam Johnson (the one who groomed and fingered a child, and then went on to claim that he wished he'd raped her), even after he was found guilty? Pretty sure fairness has never been anywhere close to the top of your priorities, tbh.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » I am referencing Ruth's behaviour at the time of the Belfast rape trial to show that fairness is not always top priority for her when it comes rape trials.
seenitall wrote: » Ugh If my son was in a position of having been accused of rape, the last thing I would be interested in is what kind of knickers the girl was wearing. And no, this isn't about emotion, although full marks on condescension. The authorities of the state, including the judiciary, have a responsibility to the public not to nurture and feed victim-blaming crap like this in society, by firstly ensuring it is not being promoted in the court of law, of all places.
Hercule Poirot wrote: » She has an extremely valid point - a person alleging rape should not be judged by their choice of underwear, and especially a thong which is fairly common place for girls/ladies these days
professore wrote: » Why stop there? All sorts of stereotypes are promoted in courts. Like only men commit domestic violence. Only women can be good parents etc. I really think its going down a bad path if you start restricting what barristers can say in a trial.
whiskeyman wrote: » What the defending barrister said was appalling, but it also highlights another key issue - that of the jury. She wouldn't make such a comment unless she knew it would impact their decision. We may think we've moved on from our past and are a modern thinking nation, but clearly not everyone is.
Samuel Zealous Stereoscope wrote: » It was ln the news, and I'll be honest, I was waiting to see who would open a thread to get a cheap dig or laugh over what is ultimately a serious issue.
Dakota Dan wrote: » Does she think nobody knows what a thong looks like? Someone said it was a thong that Mary Harney left behind 😀
professore wrote: » She actually said "a pair of thongs"
professore wrote: » It's not evidence, it's a plea to the emotions of the jury. This is common in trials and as we can see by the hysterical reactions to this incident it clearly works. For every outraged person there is a corresponding auld one "disgusted" at the brazen hussy wearing that underwear.
seenitall wrote: » Really? Give me some examples? When did a barrister utter that only men commit domestic violence, or that only women can be good parents? Cos yes, that would be very wrong, too. Two wrongs don't make a right, though. I would not be in favour of anything that promotes inequality or injustice or a medieval bias in the public sphere.
WinnyThePoo wrote: » Tom humphries grooming was downplayed by the outlaw aswell
Outlaw Pete wrote: » 2 and half years sounds about right. Was ludicrous to be suggesting he should get 25 years or anything like it.
