Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » Women can hold whatever opinions they like as long as their opinion doesn’t interfere or damage another person. The SC believes that women have no right to access terminations, which she’s entitled to believe, but not content at stopping there she blames and shamed a 17 year old victim for her own rape, because of the knickers she wore, and would happily deny her have a termination of a pregnancy resulting from said rape. Do you know what that sounds awful like? Slut shaming.
doylefe wrote: » Why are you saying she was raped when a court found that she wasn't?
Sleeper12 wrote: » Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean that the VICTIM is not telling the truth. She is still the victim. A not guilty verdict for the man does not mean that the victim is untruthful. If it did she would be prosecuted.
SusieBlue wrote: » No it didn’t. A court found the defendant not guilty. There was nothing in the judgment about the rape never occurring or that the victim lying.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » No the court didn’t find she wasn’t raped, the court couldn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was
nullzero wrote: » I have to say that a man of 27 who is in that situation with a 17 year old isn't a person who deserves much sympathy, in addition his being married is another strike in my book . However we have to accept that the evidence provided must have compelled the jury that no rape occurred, regardless of the immoral behaviour of this man.
doylefe wrote: » So what makes you so sure a rape occurred?
limnam wrote: » Being 10 yrs older than someone doesn't make you a rapist. Cheating on your wife doesn't make you a rapist. The same way wearing a thong doesn't mean you're "looking for it"
retro:electro wrote: » When someone is found not guilty of murder, does that mean that the murder never happened? Is the victim then brought back to life? Not guilty= not enough evidence to prove the crime happened in the way the prosecution state it did. Not that it didn’t happen at all.
Harvey Attractive Baby wrote: » So apparently the SC that shamed the 17 year old rape victim, and blamed her for her own rape due to the underwear she was wearing was also advocating for a No vote to repeal the 8th. So not only are women to blame for their own rape, because they wore a thong, they should also be denied abortions from those rapes. Don’t want to become pregnant? Don’t wear a thong!
doylefe wrote: » Same argument as the Belfast case. Murder is because there's a dead person. Evidence. What evidence is there for a rape to have occurred in this case?
nullzero wrote: » A medical examination would have been carried out to determine if penetration occurred which I would assume is most likely to have not be conclusive, in which case this would have been the most compelling evidence that rape did not occur, although this is supposition on my part it would seem to be consistent with the man's claim that he was unable to maintain an erection.
retro:electro wrote: » I don’t know. I know very little about this case as there’s not much info available. No proof that a rape occurred does not mean a rape didn’t occur.
doylefe wrote: » There's no proof that you aren't a pedophile, but...
One eyed Jack wrote: » Not necessarily, and it wouldn’t provide conclusive evidence of anything either, they generally don’t provide conclusive evidence of whether or not an encounter was either rape or consensual sex. The man didn’t claim he was unable to maintain an erection either, he claimed that he was unable to get an erection, and that he wasn’t sure his penis had entered her vagina, but that it might have.
nullzero wrote: » It may have ruled out penetration occuring. It was all supposition anyway.
Lillybloom wrote: » Some people don't seem to understand that a jury needs to balance the probabilities of the likelhood of a particular crime being committed by the defendant. Lots of seemingly insignificant details could be relevant for a jury to determine those probabilities in their heads.
Rennaws wrote: » Because they’re right and the jury are wrong. It’s as simple as that apparently. Open and shut case..
retro:electro wrote: » Really.. that low huh? Also, courts rely on the proof of guilt, not innocence. You’re not asked to prove a negative. Bye bye now.
Mrsmum wrote: » So let's say you yourself definitely got raped but you couldn't prove it - were you raped or not ?
nullzero wrote: I addressed this earlier. The defendant was found not guilty, so the term victim is incorrect. Plaintiff or Complainant is what you're looking for. By referring to her as a victim you are conferring guilt upon the defendant, which makes your statement libelous and as such potentially in breach of the site rules.
batgoat wrote: » Using her underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is trying to paint a picture. It is not a reasonable piece of proof. It's also incredibly humiliating for a woman who has been through an immense trauma. Many people don't think it was an open and shut case. The likes of underwear as proof of wanting to have sex is completely ridiculous and raises the question of the credibility of the actual trial, there's a legitimate argument that it should not have been allowed as evidence. I don't think she made up a rape btw. 8% of reported rapes reach trial and a conviction, it's incredibly stressful and difficult to even reach the point where there is a trial. While false accusations do occur, it amounted to 9% so there's a substantial that may not have enough evidence or the victim couldn't cope with the strain of going to trial. You might believe that 80% of those women weren't raped at all but that's a bat**** insane assumption to be frank.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/just-8-of-reported-rapes-result-in-convictions-1.756237
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)