Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

professore wrote: »

This thread is nearly as bad as the Daylight savings time change where people were seriously saying they would have an hour less daylight in winter.

The people most discouraging of women reporting rape are the blue haired feminists, and spreading lies about lenient sentencing. The supposed sexist misogynists are the ones fully supporting women reporting and stiff penalties for rapists.

Welcome to the post fact World. Down is the new up.

professore

This thread is nearly as bad as the Daylight savings time change where people were seriously saying they would have an hour less daylight in winter.

The people most discouraging of women reporting rape are the blue haired feminists, and spreading lies about lenient sentencing. The supposed sexist misogynists are the ones fully supporting women reporting and stiff penalties for rapists.

professore

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe the accuseds underwear and clothes should be taken into account then? Wearing boxers with an opening on the front? Clearly out to rape and have easy access to their penis. Tracksuit bottoms? Same. Easier to pull down. Runners? Clearly so they could escape the scene easier etc etc. Any man who goes out for the night carrying a condom? That's so he doesn't leave any DNA evidence during the rape he is obviously intent on committing.

I'm sure people would think that was ridiculous though

Making an off colour joke about sex on a private WhatsApp group? Rapist and career destroyed. See how that works both ways?

1800_Ladladlad

There has been some non binary yokes posting pictures up of their thongs and hashtags, a fair few have obviously used:(

on a serious note..... this whole situation is atrocious.

raah! wrote: »

What if someone's underwear said "I don't want to have sex" on them. Would it be ok to show that as evidence that consent was less likely to be given?

Victoria's Secret's new Anne Withycombe line will be in shops for Christmas.

Squatter

seamus wrote: »

Thanks for that, because it illustrates just why the clothing thing is so crazy, and ultimately irrelevant in court - anything could be inferred from a person's clothing choice.

That's quite true.

Imagine a chap dressed in a garda uniform standing up in court and claiming that he was a guard - shure no Irish jury would ever believe him!

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe the accuseds underwear and clothes should be taken into account then? Wearing boxers with an opening on the front? Clearly out to rape and have easy access to their penis. Tracksuit bottoms? Same. Easier to pull down. Runners? Clearly so they could escape the scene easier etc etc. Any man who goes out for the night carrying a condom? That's so he doesn't leave any DNA evidence during the rape he is obviously intent on committing.

I'm sure people would think that was ridiculous though

I’m not sure you grasp the concept of innocent until proven guilty. All of the above can be considered in evidence, and it’s evidence which would have to be made available by the prosecution to the defence before any trial takes place.

The accused clothing doesn’t generally aid in their own defence

[Deleted User]

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Maybe the accuseds underwear and clothes should be taken into account then? Wearing boxers with an opening on the front? Clearly out to rape and have easy access to their penis. Tracksuit bottoms? Same. Easier to pull down. Runners? Clearly so they could escape the scene easier etc etc. Any man who goes out for the night carrying a condom? That's so he doesn't leave any DNA evidence during the rape he is obviously intent on committing.

I'm sure people would think that was ridiculous though

How do we know you were robbed? you've given to charity in the past. you took your wallet out in public. clearly gagging for it

FunLover18

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

It's justifiable for the defense to present arguments they think will get their client acquitted. You might not like that, but it's how jury trials work.

The arguments have to relevant and what a victim was wearing is irrelevant unless there is forensic evidence.

raah!

What if someone's underwear said "I don't want to have sex" on them. Would it be ok to show that as evidence that consent was less likely to be given?

[Deleted User]

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

If the complainant went out with the intent of having sex, it's inevitably going to be more difficult to convince a jury that the sex she ultimately had wasn't consensual.

Why?

ceadaoin.

Maybe the accuseds underwear and clothes should be taken into account then? Wearing boxers with an opening on the front? Clearly out to rape and have easy access to their penis. Tracksuit bottoms? Same. Easier to pull down. Runners? Clearly so they could escape the scene easier etc etc. Any man who goes out for the night carrying a condom? That's so he doesn't leave any DNA evidence during the rape he is obviously intent on committing.

I'm sure people would think that was ridiculous though

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

One of the things that discourages people from reporting serious crimes are the laughable sentences handed down to convicted rapists in this country. People can admit on the stand that they committed the crime and never see the inside of a cell, they can get a nice letter from the local doctor or priest saying that they're a model citizen (aside from the rape of course) and get a ridiculously short sentence, if they have the cash they can throw a bit of compo the victims way and buy their way out of jail. If we want rape to be treated as a serious crime, the actions of our judiciary have to support that, as it stands there's a lot of evidence showing victims that they donâ€™t.

There is also plenty of evidence to show that our judiciary do support the idea that rape is a serious crime. The average sentence for rape in Ireland is 5 - 7 years and each sentence is based upon sentencing guidelines which regard the circumstances in each individual case. The maximum sentence for rape is 10 years, and the maximum sentence for rape under Section 4 is life imprisonment.

https://www.thejournal.ie/rape-sentencing-ireland-772129-Jan2013/

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/rape-sentences-averaging-10-years-after-rise-over-last-decade-1.2656754?mode=amp

https://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/high-court-judge-criticises-media-commentary-on-rape-sentencing-840321.html

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/revealed-one-in-three-rape-offences-result-in-partially-suspended-sentence-36498669.html

Triceratops Ballet

nullzero wrote:

Jesus I haven't developed a persecution complex because of it. I just find it strange how quickly people turn on you for not agreeing with the popular prevailing opinion. Nobody should live in fear but there were things stated as fact here which were discouraging people from reporting serious crimes.

One of the things that discourages people from reporting serious crimes are the laughable sentences handed down to convicted rapists in this country. People can admit on the stand that they committed the crime and never see the inside of a cell, they can get a nice letter from the local doctor or priest saying that they're a model citizen (aside from the rape of course) and get a ridiculously short sentence, if they have the cash they can throw a bit of compo the victims way and buy their way out of jail. If we want rape to be treated as a serious crime, the actions of our judiciary have to support that, as it stands there's a lot of evidence showing victims that they donâ€™t.

Roger Hassenforder

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Not sure why people are getting worked up about this. As far as I know, she didnt take it off right there in the Dail. If she did, then I will agree that she went a bit far and is not displaying appropriate respect and modesty in our national parliament. Otherwise, if appropriate to debating some legislation on underwear, then no problem to have brought it in to make her point.

Ah fcúking heor...
Im trying to eat

B0jangles wrote: »

Evidence should be relevant, it should be pertinent - it should not depend entirely on the presumed preconceptions of the jury.

It's not an undue restriction to exclude the use of 'evidence' which relies entirely on myth, not fact.

The myth you’re referring to though applies where we know for a fact, and there can be no reasonable doubt, that the person has committed rape and that they intended to commit rape.

That is not the case in a criminal trial where an innocent person is accused of the charge of rape, and maintains that they are innocent. You’re arguing that certain evidence which the defendant maintains would aid in their defence should be excluded. The defendant has the right to present an argument that demonstrates that they had an honest belief that the alleged encounter was consensual. The point of a jury is to determine whether or not the defendants argument that they had an honest belief is reasonable or unreasonable. Excluding evidence that would aid the defendant in their own defence would prejudice the case against the defendant, and would therefore be in violation of their right to a fair trial.

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

You have it backwards. Unduly restricting the kind of evidence or arguments that the defense can present would be wrong and unjust.

Evidence should be relevant, it should be pertinent - it should not depend entirely on the presumed preconceptions of the jury.

It's not an undue restriction to exclude the use of 'evidence' which relies entirely on myth, not fact.

Lackey

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

I'm assuming the defense barrister didn't just stand up, wave the knickers around, and say "Look at what she was wearing!" I don't have the full transcript of the barrister's closing statement, and I don't believe anyone else on this thread does either.

'Does the evidence out rule the possibility that she was attracted to the defendant and was open to meeting someone and being with someone? You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front."

'YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WAY SHE WAS DRESSED . SHE WAS WEARING A THONG WITH A LACE FRONT'

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

B0jangles wrote: »

Because it is wrong and it is unjust.

You have it backwards. Unduly restricting the kind of evidence or arguments that the defense can present would be wrong and unjust. It would lead to a kangaroo court for rape trials.

B0jangles wrote: »

That should be changed.

That is what the protests are about.

That is what this discussion is about.

Because it is wrong and it is unjust.

It would be just as wrong and unjust to prohibit an innocent party who is accused of rape from using evidence which may aid in their defence. You’re aware at this stage certainly that the defendant has a right to a fair trial, and in my opinion what you are suggesting would impinge upon the defendants right to a fair trial.

B0jangles wrote: »

Does this very brief, extraordinarily slight, experience of people questioning you, doubting what you say, even going so far as to criticize your opinions give you any sympathy for, any insight into, what rape victims have to go through if they want to see their attacker punished?

Jesus I haven't developed a persecution complex because of it.
I just find it strange how quickly people turn on you for not agreeing with the popular prevailing opinion.
Nobody should live in fear but there were things stated as fact here which were discouraging people from reporting serious crimes.

The Rape of Lucretia

Not sure why people are getting worked up about this. As far as I know, she didnt take it off right there in the Dail. If she did, then I will agree that she went a bit far and is not displaying appropriate respect and modesty in our national parliament. Otherwise, if appropriate to debating some legislation on underwear, then no problem to have brought it in to make her point.

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

It's justifiable for the defense to present arguments they think will get their client acquitted. You might not like that, but it's how jury trials work.

That should be changed.

That is what the protests are about.

That is what this discussion is about.

Because it is wrong and it is unjust.

xi5yvm0owc1s2b

B0jangles wrote: »

Would it have been equally justifiable for the defence to suggest that the client's hair colour or the length of her skirt implied that she was ready and willing to sleep with anyone, just as long as they were fairly certain the jury was likely to believe such things are relevant?

It's justifiable for the defense to present arguments they think will get their client acquitted. You might not like that, but it's how jury trials work.

nullzero wrote: »

I wasn't pointing the finger at you with what I said.
I was addressing the mob that were attacking me earlier, I appreciate what you said wasn't directly related to the reply I posted.

Does this very brief, extraordinarily slight, experience of people questioning you, doubting what you say, even going so far as to criticize your opinions give you any sympathy for, any insight into, what rape victims have to go through if they want to see their attacker punished?

joe40

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

Court cases don't have to reach the truth, just influence the jury.

Finally, someone gets it.

That's exactly right.

The barrister's job was to influence the jury to find reasonable doubt, which she did effectively, since he was acquitted.

Everyone gets it, the problem is the sort of tactics that are used to influence juries.
Smear the accuser in some way, appeal to ingrained biases, people might not even know they have.
You're right barristers will use all means at their disposal, so why not have some sort of guidelines for judges and juries.
I have said before defendants are entitled to a fair trial, but the process needs to be fair for everyone.
How many child abusers got away with their crimes because of the way victims were treated

Atlas Rotten Machinist wrote: »

Pandering to feminism would have involved not saying anything about the underwear and possibly watching her client go to jail.

She decided to stand up for her client and pull out all the stops to secure an acquittal, which was the correct thing for her to do in that position.

Would it have been equally justifiable for the defence to suggest that the client's hair colour or the length of her skirt implied that she was ready and willing to sleep with anyone, just as long as they were fairly certain the jury was likely to believe such things are relevant?