Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

RWCNT wrote: »

Are we still seriously getting stuck over "Not Guilty" =/= "Innocent" - this has been explained dozens and dozens of times at this stage.

It has been explained in the view of certain posters. That doesn't make it true.

If you don't believe me try looking into the next high profile case that ends in an aquittal - then publish somewhere that "I maintain they are guilty".

You'll be in civil court so fast your bollocks will spin.

retro:electro

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't think anything you typed was incorrect to my memory, it just wasn't clear whether or not you were asking in sincerity or rhetorically.

As well as being completely illegible.

RWCNT wrote: »

Are we still seriously getting stuck over "Not Guilty" =/= "Innocent" - this has been explained dozens and dozens of times at this stage.

It has, and some people will never accept that the accused has the right to the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial. They are presumed innocent by default, this means they haven’t committed the offence of which they are accused. If the prosecution fails to make its case, that’s a reflection on the prosecution, not the accused.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, it leaves people who in your view, should have been found guilty of a criminal offence, free to continue their lives as innocent individuals who are not guilty of having committed any criminal offence. Again, the whole point of a trial is because the person accused of an offence maintains they are innocent. In that context, the law does supersede people’s personal opinions that the accused should have been found guilty of committing a criminal offence.

They are your words not mine. Some guilty people walk free from court. This is a fact. You know this, I know this, in fact everyone knows this

Are really trying to tell me that you believe that every person acquitted is innocent? You honnestly believe that we don't have guilty people walking the streets?

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They are your words not mine. Some guilty people walk free from court. This is a fact. You know this, I know this, in fact everyone knows this

Are really trying to tell me that you believe that every person acquitted is innocent? You honnestly believe that we don't have guilty people walking the streets?

For the last time, it is not a matter of BELIEF.

The system presumes everyone innocent TILL PROVEN GUILTY.

Then some are proved guilty.

The rest are still presumed innocent.

I really don't get why this is so hard to follow.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It has been explained in the view of certain posters. That doesn't make it true.

If you don't believe me try looking into the next high profile case that ends in an aquittal - then publish somewhere that "I maintain they are guilty".

You'll be in civil court so fast your bollocks will spin.

See, thats where I think we're getting tripped up. To say "X person wasn't proven innocent, they were found not guilty due to lack of evidence" isn't the same thing as saying "I maintain that they're guilty", which is what the poster accused of making a libellous statement seemed to be saying.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It has been explained in the view of certain posters. That doesn't make it true.

If you don't believe me try looking into the next high profile case that ends in an aquittal - then publish somewhere that "I maintain they are guilty".

You'll be in civil court so fast your bollocks will spin.

As that politician found out when he tweeted a defamatory statement about the defendants in the trial in Belfast, and he quickly retracted the same tweet. He was aware that the defendants could very possibly win their case.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As that politician found out when he tweeted a defamatory statement about the defendants in the trial in Belfast, and he quickly retracted the same tweet. He was aware that the defendants could very possibly win their case.

Could have, would have and bloody well should have!!!

YFlyer

RWCNT wrote: »

Are we still seriously getting stuck over "Not Guilty" =/= "Innocent" - this has been explained dozens and dozens of times at this stage.

I don't think anything you typed was incorrect to my memory, it just wasn't clear whether or not you were asking in sincerity or rhetorically.

The person that ask a question, it assumes it is sincere unless that person has been arguing previously a different viewpoint.

retro:electro

I wish the people who had an issue with those acquitted being referred to as “not innocent” were as principled when it comes to calling the victim a liar.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

They are your words not mine. Some guilty people walk free from court. This is a fact. You know this, I know this, in fact everyone knows this

Are really trying to tell me that you believe that every person acquitted is innocent? You honnestly believe that we don't have guilty people walking the streets?

No, I don’t know that. I know that if a person is accused of a crime, and they are found not guilty in a court of law, then they maintain the presumption of innocence. That’s all I’m telling you. Whatever else you infer from that statement is your own business.

YFlyer wrote: »

The person that ask a question, it assumes it is sincere unless that person has been arguing previously a different viewpoint.

I'm sorry mate, but your posts are quite difficult to understand. I'm genuinely not trying to be insulting here. Can you please rephrase what you've said to be a bit more clear?

retro:electro wrote: »

I wish the people who had an issue with those acquitted being referred to as guilty were as principled when it comes to calling the victim a liar.

I know you'll hate this but they're two halves of the same coin.

[Deleted User]

One eyed Jack wrote:

No, I donâ€™t know that. I know that if a person is accused of a crime, and they are found not guilty in a court of law, then they maintain the presumption of innocence. Thatâ€™s all Iâ€™m telling you. Whatever else you infer from that statement is your own business.

Back to my original comment. Again not taking about the current case. Women doesn't give consent. The jury might be 95 percent sure that she didn't give consent but still has to acquit because of the 5 percent. The jury does NOT find the girl to be telling lies. They just can't be sure. Therefore the man can be acquitted yet the woman can still be a victim.

nullzero

retro:electro wrote: »

I wish the people who had an issue with those acquitted being referred to as “not innocent” were as principled when it comes to calling the victim a liar.

There is legally speaking no victim unless the defendant is found guilty. Plaintiff or Complainant are the correct terms.

bloodless_coup

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Imagine how the girl felt having her thong held up in court.

How about the fella who was accused?

His life, career and reputation in the balance for something he was found to have not done, unanimously by a jury of his peers.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For the last time, it is not a matter of BELIEF.

The system presumes everyone innocent TILL PROVEN GUILTY.

Then some are proved guilty.

The rest are still presumed innocent.

I really don't get why this is so hard to follow.

Exactly. They are not proven innocent, they retain the same presumption of innocence they had at the beginning of the trial. They do not lose that presumption of innocence until they are found guilty. That is why it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt rather than for the accused to prove innocence. That is why to say "acquitted/not guilty does not mean the accused has proven their innocence" is not terrifying or libellous but a statement of fact.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I know you'll hate this but they're two halves of the same coin.

It’s actually worse, because it implies that people should have no trust in our judiciary, that they should have no trust in the judicial process. It’s one thing to claim that the victim in any specific case is a lying, it’s very different to imply that the whole process is at fault and that the verdict reached by the jury after hearing all the evidence presented against a defendant, is meaningless. The same people who are concerned about the low conviction rate are suggesting that the whole process is meaningless. If they’re truly concerned about myths being perpetuated in criminal trials where the accused is on trial for committing rape, then they are perpetuating the myth that the judicial process is flawed, simply because the outcome of any specific case didn’t go their way.

Riskymove

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

For the last time, it is not a matter of BELIEF.

The system presumes everyone innocent TILL PROVEN GUILTY.

Then some are proved guilty.

The rest are still presumed innocent.

I really don't get why this is so hard to follow.

because you are focusing on an alleged perpetrator and linking the existence of a victim to that

Just because a person on trial is found guilty does not mean that the complainant actually explicitly consented or willingly had sex with the person in question. therefore it is fully possible to be a victim even if there is no offender found guilty in court

People are found not guilty of assault/murder/theft etc. That does not mean there is no injured person/body/victim of theft

RWCNT wrote: »

Exactly. They are not proven innocent, they retain the same presumption of innocence they had at the beginning of the trial. They do not lose that presumption of innocence until they are found guilty. That is why it is up to the prosecution to prove guilt rather than for the accused to prove innocence. That is why to say "acquitted/not guilty does not mean the accused has proven their innocence" is not terrifying or libellous but a statement of fact.

The mental gymnastics that some people do so they can seem woke is ridiculous.

doylefe wrote: »

How about the fella who was accused?

His life, career and reputation in the balance for something he was found to have not done, unanimously by a jury of his peers.

What would you like to see done for men in his situation? Would anonymity for the accused remedy this for you?

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The mental gymnastics that some people do so they can seem woke is ridiculous.

Like what? I'm stating nothing but objective facts here.

RWCNT wrote: »

What would you like to see done for men in his situation? Would anonymity for the accused remedy this for you?

It would for me.

retro:electro

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

The mental gymnastics that some people do so they can seem woke is ridiculous.

Woke? Wtf are you even on about? More like the mental gymnastics you’re pulling here to try and stereotype and box people off for thinking these comments are damaging. “Idiots” “jobless” “I believe her brigade”, are just some of the insults and jibes I have ready to hand, and all while you demand respect from everyone else for holding your own point of view.
Laughable.

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

It would for me.

Same, I'm interesting in Doylefe's take though. Are you going to expand on the "mental gymnastics" remark you made in response to my post earlier? I'm unsure if you were referring to me or not since I offered you nothing but logic in facts. If you regard what I said as "mental gymnastics to appear woke" then you're either intellectually unable to understand what I'm saying or unwilling to for some reason. I can take you to water, but I cannot make you drink.

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Back to my original comment. Again not taking about the current case. Women doesn't give consent. The jury might be 95 percent sure that she didn't give consent but still has to acquit because of the 5 percent. The jury does NOT find the girl to be telling lies. They just can't be sure. Therefore the man can be acquitted yet the woman can still be a victim.

I agree with you.

It’s also worth pointing out that any judgement delivered by the jury specifically relates to the defendant, as it is the defendant who was on trial, not the victim, who appears as a witness for the States prosecution against the defendant. You aren’t talking about the current case, but I will - in the current case, the verdict of the jury was unanimous, not 5% or 95% one way or the other, 100% not guilty. That’s still not saying anything about the victim and it would be wrong for anyone to claim it says anything about the victim. It’s a judgement entirely focused on the defendant, and it is an acknowledgment that they shall continue to maintain the presumption of innocence in accordance with the law.

To suggest otherwise is what is meaningless, because the only place a judgement matters is in a court of law. Whatever anyone does or doesn’t think outside of a court of law is their own business as their opinion generally doesn’t have any legal consequences.

Riskymove

doylefe wrote: »

How about the fella who was accused?

His life, career and reputation in the balance for something he was found to have not done, unanimously by a jury of his peers.

tbh none of us know why the jury found him not guilty. there is little point in us going around about the particular outcome

The issue people are protesting about is one line of defence taken that because the complainant wore a thong that this meant she was up for sex. That somehow the thong alone is evidence that she must have consented to sex (sure why else would a young woman wear a thong? nudge nudge wink wink).

do you or others on this thread honestly believe this concept?

Roger Hassenforder

Bigbagofcans wrote: »

Imagine how the girl felt having her thong held up in court.

Imagine how the guy felt being charged with rape if he genuinely thought it was consensual sex...