Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

nullzero wrote: »

In relation to the tonight show last night, it was obvious that the legal profession have taken offence to some of the allegations levelled at the feet in relation to this case.
I haven't seen it myself but the judge mentioned that the barrister in question had her name and address leaked online and had received a raft of abuse as a result.
Is this really how we conduct ourselves as a society?
Something appears on the surface to be immoral so therefor it is open season on those involved?
If we're talking about social juaiissues surely people have the right to privacy and not be targeted for abuse and intimidation.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whatever about the rest of what you said PS, you certainly can’t say there was no victim in this case. The girl in this case believes she was the victim of rape. Nobody here can say whether she was or she wasn’t. I don’t worry at all about people who say that the victim, regardless of their gender, should be believed. I would also believe the person who says they didn’t rape someone. It’s possible to believe both parties are telling the truth.

This only becomes an issue in a court of law where the offence of rape is clearly defined in law. Then it’s a question of whether or not the accused is guilty of the offence of rape. I don’t worry that there will ever be a point where someone is convicted of an offence solely on the word of the victim. Finding a person or persons not guilty of rape isn’t suggesting that the victim is lying, it’s stating that the defendant did not commit rape. They’re two very different things - one judgement is focused on the victim, the other is focused on the person who is accused of rape. That person is on trial, not the victim.

I don’t think anyone has suggested, not in this thread at least, that the victim shouldn’t be questioned. They’re making the point that it’s the way in which the defence present their case is the issue. I can understand where they’re coming from, as it does make it difficult for the prosecution to make their case that would lead to a successful prosecution. What I disagree with is the implication of what they’re saying - that the accused should not also be believed, that they should not have the right to a fair trial.

There are no legal consequences for the victim if the defendant is found not guilty, as the victim was never on trial. There are legal consequences for the defendant if they are found guilty according to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt. This could lead to innocent people being convicted of the offence of rape when they did not rape anyone.

I see the low conviction rate as a success of our judicial system, that we take the offence of rape so seriously that we do not convict people on a whim, that we give people a fair trial. Any attempt to interfere with that process in order to address some perceived imbalance would mean ensuring that the defendant did not receive a fair trial, and that in my mind at least, would be very wrong. It’s shìt for the victim of course, but the process isn’t at fault because the prosecution fails to make their case. Blaming the jury, or the defence, or the defendant for the prosecution failing to make their case, is wrong. It’s the prosecution are entirely responsible for whether or not they fail to make their case, and there is one simple way to address this - the prosecution shouldn’t take cases to trial unless they are guaranteed they can secure a conviction. I don’t see that happening no matter how much the judicial process is tinkered with in order to favour the prosecution. At the end of the day it will still come down to what the members of the jury believe about the defendant, as it is the defendant is on trial, not their accuser.