Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

I’m not sure you grasp that a woman is raped from the moment someone inserts part of himself into her without consent, and whether she was wearing crotchless knickers or a full on Chastity belt has nothing to do with it.

Raping a woman wearing a chastity belt would be some achievement in fairness. I would have to acquit on that evidence, if it's not banned in future.

professore wrote: »

Raping a woman wearing a chastity belt would be some achievement in fairness. I would have to acquit on that evidence, if it's not banned in future.

You think raping someone’s a joke yeah?

professore wrote: »

The people most discouraging of women reporting rape are the blue haired feminists, and spreading lies about lenient sentencing.

Do you think that maybe conviction rates of 2% of reported rapes might be a factor in discouraging reporting rape?

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

You think raping someone’s a joke yeah?

Jesus that's a terrible attempt at discussion.

The thanks will pour in no doubt.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do you think that maybe conviction rates of 2% of reported rapes might be a factor in discouraging reporting rape?

2%? Where are you getting that from??

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

You think raping someone’s a joke yeah?

You brought up the joke of being raped with a chastity belt on which is clearly impossible.

professore wrote: »

You brought up the joke of being raped with a chastity belt on which is clearly impossible.

I think you are owed an apology for that. Talk about putting words in somebody's mouth.

nullzero wrote: »

Jesus that's a terrible attempt at discussion.

People like that aren't interested in discussion. They think they are 100% right about everything and want to shut down and destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

I've repeatedly said rape is deplorable and I back stiff sentences for rapists. I would also back some better system for cross examining rape victims, perhaps one to one via video link. However censoring that cross examination would not be something I would support.

Personally I don't think her underwear was relevant either but the barrister thought it would play well with the jury. All sorts of "irrelevant" evidence is routinely used, like the whatsapp messages in the recent rugby trial. No one was protesting that.

Its up to the judge to stop the prosecution badgering the witness in this way.

limnam

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

You think raping someone’s a joke yeah?

You're out of your element Donny.

Hannibal_Smith

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

You think raping someone’s a joke yeah?

That is far from what was said and you are bang out of order.

professore wrote: »

2%? Where are you getting that from??

From Northern Ireland;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From Northern Ireland;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

That's not the Republic. The religious Conservative culture up there is a big factor. The lowest figure I could find was 19%, with some up to 48%. Still too low I agree.

nullzero wrote: »

I think you are owed an apology for that. Talk about putting words in somebody's mouth.

Ya, there’ll be no apology.

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Ya, there’ll be no apology.

Just as well the likes of you isn't in charge of the justice system.

professore wrote: »

People like that aren't interested in discussion. They think they are 100% right about everything and want to shut down and destroy anyone who disagrees with them.

I've repeatedly said rape is deplorable and I back stiff sentences for rapists. I would also back some better system for cross examining rape victims, perhaps one to one via video link. However censoring that cross examination would not be something I would support.

Personally I don't think her underwear was relevant either but the barrister thought it would play well with the jury. All sorts of "irrelevant" evidence is routinely used, like the whatsapp messages in the recent rugby trial. No one was protesting that.

Its up to the judge to stop the prosecution badgering the witness in this way.

Nobody is questioning cross examination but I don’t think stating to the jury that the victim wore a thong (under her clothes I’m assuming) therefore consent was implied. That isn’t a cross examination.

One eyed Jack

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

I’m not sure you grasp that a woman is raped from the moment someone inserts part of himself into her without consent, and whether she was wearing crotchless knickers or a full on Chastity belt has nothing to do with it.

Are we speaking in the context of someone who is raped, or someone who is accused of rape? I just want to be clear here because what you’re saying doesn’t apply to anything I said. I’m very much aware that anyone, whether they are a man, woman or child, is raped, when someone rapes them.

That’s not the same context as a criminal trial where someone is accused of rape, and then they have legal rights like the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and so on, and their accuser may or may not be called to give evidence in the States case against the defendant. In a criminal trial, the defendant is presumed innocent until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the recent case which ignited this whole discussion, the defendant gave evidence that they weren’t sure had they actually even had sex as the defendant maintains they were unable to get fully erect -

The defendant said they had gone up a lane and were lying down in a muddy area. He said that he could not get fully erect and did not think his penis went into her vagina. He said it was possible that it did but he did not think so.

According to his evidence, that alone would be enough to suggest according to your definition that he did not commit rape. Whether the alleged victim were wearing crotchless knickers or a chastity belt would be very much a relevant factor in a similar scenario, and that’s why the idea of excluding specific evidence from being introduced at trial is a terrible idea. It may not be relevant to some people, but it should absolutely be up to a jury to make the determination as to whether or not it’s relevant or irrelevant in any specific case.

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Ya, there’ll be no apology.

I didn't think there would be, I reported the post anyway to be safe.

nullzero wrote: »

I didn't think there would be, I reported the post anyway to be safe.

Well done, I’m sure it took a lot of effort to do so, and I’m sure I’ll start to give a fûck any second now

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Well done, I’m sure it took a lot of effort to do so, and I’m sure I’ll start to give a fûck any second now

Right.

I could say some stuff here about how I'd decode your attitude etc but I'm not going to stoop. Take care of yourself.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Are we speaking in the context of someone who is raped, or someone who is accused of rape? I just want to be clear here because what you’re saying doesn’t apply to anything I said. I’m very much aware that anyone, whether they are a man, woman or child, is raped, when someone rapes them.

That’s not the same context as a criminal trial where someone is accused of rape, and then they have legal rights like the right to the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial and so on, and their accuser may or may not be called to give evidence in the States case against the defendant. In a criminal trial, the defendant is presumed innocent until they are found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

In the recent case which ignited this whole discussion, the defendant gave evidence that they weren’t sure had they actually even had sex as the defendant maintains they were unable to get fully erect -

The defendant said they had gone up a lane and were lying down in a muddy area. He said that he could not get fully erect and did not think his penis went into her vagina. He said it was possible that it did but he did not think so.

According to his evidence, that alone would be enough to suggest according to your definition that he did not commit rape. Whether the alleged victim were wearing crotchless knickers or a chastity belt would be very much a relevant factor in a similar scenario, and that’s why the idea of excluding specific evidence from being introduced at trial is a terrible idea. It may not be relevant to some people, but it should absolutely be up to a jury to make the determination as to whether or not it’s relevant or irrelevant in any specific case.

Is there a report of the context of the thong reference? I couldn't find any, only hysterical clickbait articles.

nullzero wrote: »

Right.

I could say some stuff here about how I'd decode your attitude etc but I'm not going to stoop. Take care of yourself.

Thanks for sharing what you could say, but that you’ll stop. You take care too.

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: »

Thanks for sharing what you could say, but that you’ll stop. You take care too.

All I'm saying is, you accused the other poster of trivialising rape which they didn't, which is libelous, so an apology would have been fitting at the very least.

I'm out. Goodnight everyone.

retro:electro

professore wrote: »

Personally I don't think her underwear was relevant either but the barrister thought it would play well with the jury. All sorts of "irrelevant" evidence is routinely used, like the whatsapp messages in the recent rugby trial. No one was protesting that.

I don’t think that’s true, plenty of people protested against the examinination of their WhatsApps.
The two are incomparable though. The WhatsApp’s were relevant insofar as they provided context to the alleged rape. Although they weren’t enough to prove she was raped, they were relevant to the discussion because it was a running narrative concerning the events of the night before. Their comments did not paint them in a flattering light, and this was used to prop up the plaintiffs case. Their WhatsApps weren’t examined from before they met the girl were they? I’m unsure on that but I don’t think they were. But I know its the ones sent after the fact that were most pertinent.

The underwear a victim wears has no bearing on whether or not she intends to have sex, because it’s an item of clothing that’s put on before the possibility of sex is even on the table. She could have went for the laciest thong in Ireland because a) she felt hot in it or b) the rest was in the wash. It does not give anyone the right to assign meaning to them, and infer that sex was on the table cos Glamour magazine or whoever the fcuk said so.

Btw her WhatsApps were analysed too.

Pentatonic Intonation

Let's face it, if any of us was up on a rape charge we'd be expecting our barrister to do everything possible to get us off the hook.

One eyed Jack

professore wrote: »

Is there a report of the context of the thong reference? I couldn't find any, only hysterical clickbait articles.

Same tbh, unfortunately all the evidence we have to go on are articles in the media which exclude any context for the barristers comments. Perhaps they too thought context is irrelevant.

professore wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From Northern Ireland;

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

That's not the Republic. The religious Conservative culture up there is a big factor. The lowest figure I could find was 19%, with some up to 48%. Still too low I agree.

I found 8% for Ireland.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/sexual-offences-a-system-in-need-of-change-1.3443529

Would you be advising a family member to take on the intense trauma of a court case with an 8% chance of conviction?

professore wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

From Northern Ireland; https:/www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/north-s-justice-system-failing-sexual-violence-victims-report-finds-1.3696246

That's not the Republic. The religious Conservative culture up there is a big factor. The lowest figure I could find was 19%, with some up to 48%. Still too low I agree.

I found 8% for Ireland.https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/sexual-offences-a-system-in-need-of-change-1.3443529Would you be advising a family member to take on the intense trauma of a court case with an 8% chance of conviction?

Pentatonic Intonation wrote: »

Let's face it, if any of us was up on a rape charge we'd be expecting our barrister to do everything possible to get us off the hook.

Everything? Would you expect them to lie? Would you expect them to blame other family members for your crime?

Are there any ethical limits as to what you expect your barrister to do?

titan18

Harvey Attractive Baby wrote:

Nobody is questioning cross examination but I donâ€™t think stating to the jury that the victim wore a thong (under her clothes Iâ€™m assuming) therefore consent was implied. That isnâ€™t a cross examination.

Tbf, a lot of the exact same people (Coppinger etc) considered the WhatsApp messages to be proof that the rugby players did rape the girl, just cos of the talk that went on in it.

Can't really have it both ways.

To me, anything is allowed to be presented into evidence in court. It's on the judge and jury whether it's considered admissable and what they want to take from it. Just cos defense uses it as an argument, doesn't mean you have to consider it. But legislating on what can and cannot be presented is retarded.