ohnonotgmail wrote: » so if she was wearing them and then claimed she was raped that would make the man guilty?
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » I'm unclear what the Dail is supposed to do about how barristers defend their clients in court?
diceyriley wrote: » But is it not a bit totalitarian to start saying what evidence may or may not be put to the court?
Grayson wrote: » Literally no-one is saying that. Read the posts. It's about the legal definition. Legally he wasn't found innocent. The jury don't say that he didn't do it, they say that they don't have enough evidence to convict. That goes for every single criminal case, for every crime, that goes before a jury in Ireland. You say you're concerned that people are saying there's not enough evidence to conflict the guilty bastard when no-ones saying that at all. However it is worrying that despite the posts being quite clear in what they're saying, you read what you want into them.
retro:electro wrote: » Just so we’re clear. When OJ was acquitted it didn’t mean a murder did not take place. Nicole was not brought back to life and accused of lying. In the case of an acquittal you have the same presumption of innocence you always had. Lack of evidence to prove guilt does not automatically mean the plaintiff is lying. Unless you have proof that a false accusation took place, an acquittal implies nothing more than a lack of evdince to convict the defendant. It implies nothing about the plaintiff.
meeeeh wrote: » Yeah if there was only a place in Ireland where laws are passed...
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » To some, pass laws so that women who report rape are automatically believed until evidence (that you're not allowed to produce) clears you.
astrofool wrote: » No, but in a case where it's often one persons word against another's (one of them has to be lying), then evidence will be gathered to try and determine the intent of the person, and if relevant to the case, will be presented as evidence. e.g. had she been wearing granny panties, but had been looking up websites on how to frame men, or if the clothing was specifically bought for the meetup, and had never been worn previously, then they become an item of interest to the case. There is just too many variables to just outright ban clothing as something that can be used as evidence. If the man was wearing a top saying "I'm a rapist", it doesn't mean he went out with that intent, but would definitely be relevant to the case. The argument here is that the conviction rate and report to trial rate is so low that other measures are required to raise the conviction rate (which also assumes that the current system lets many guilty offenders be declared not guilty), with clothing being presented as evidence being one of them (and given this seems to be one case that was so unique that it made headlines, it's hard to see a safe change to the judicial system being made of this, but it is a good story for the meedja to pedal, and politicians to jump onto). Here's the thing, if you're ever involved in a court case, everything you said and did may become relevant, even if said as a joke or sarcastically, everywhere you travelled, everyone you met and talked to will be brought up, because unless there's a video (and even then it's getting easier to mock up video evidence) of the crime being committed with the criminal shouting out clear intent of what they intend to do, then there will always be chances of the conviction being unsafe.
astrofool wrote: » Murder is a bit different in that the crime has almost definitely happened (barring some bizarre accident). There is two questions to ask in these cases, did a crime occur, and if it did, who is responsible for committing the crime. In this case, the judgement was that a crime did not occur.
Grayson wrote: » Point out a single post here that says that and I'll disagree with it. Or are you just making sh1t up.
seamus wrote: » The Dail can pass legislation about what can and cannot be presented as evidence in defence of a charge.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.
RWCNT wrote: » No doubt one of her colleagues has been espousing this, they make for handy strawmen.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a twist ? They can, but they absolutely should not.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Ah welcome, to the "I don't like what someone is saying so I'll throw in a strawman argument or accuse them of lying" Definitely out now, the toxic feminism is becoming very cloying.
SusieBlue wrote: » No it wasn't.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » There can be legitimate reasons for a jury asking to see an item of clothing.
Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: » Laws that would curtail the kind of evidence or arguments that lawyers could present when defending their clients? No, thanks. Everyone in Ireland has the constitutional right to a fair trial, and a trial is not fair if materially relevant evidence or arguments cannot be presented.
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Can you really not see the slippery slope that would become ? The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a twist ? They can, but they absolutely should not.
wexie wrote: » The point is that wearing a thong isn't materially relevant evidence of intent or consent.
astrofool wrote: » OK, that what the defendant did was not a crime (barring going even further down the legalese definition of the ruling with more quick back and forth pantomime posts).
PlaneSpeeking wrote: » Can you really not see the slippery slope that would become ? The Government telling a private citizen what they can and can't say in court merely because some feminists have their lacy thongs in a
