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.
nullzero wrote: » Let's say you have a son or brother who is falsely accused of rape by somebody? We can suppose all kinds of things.
Mrsmum wrote: » So let's say you yourself definitely got raped but you couldn't prove it - were you raped or not ?
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
Mrsmum wrote: For my brother, son or anyone else being found 'not guilty' only means the case wasn't proven against them. Both innocent men and rapists can be found to be 'not guilty' in a court.
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » Its an uncomfortable truth, and the law, but just because you say you were raped, doesnt mean you were. The offender must know he doesnt have consent.
Sleeper12 wrote: » You might feel that you have addressed it earlier you have only posted nonsense. There is still a victim because no one has proved her wrong. To acquit someone only says that there is not enough proof to prosecute.
As always I'm not talking about recent cases but I haven't seen any girl found guilty of telling lies or a conviction pending. There state of can't prove the victim wrong in a case no more can they pr reasonable doubt against a man. How someone can find that a case proves that the man is innocent and the girl not innocent is beyond my. If the girl lies would she not be in court?
One eyed Jack wrote: That’s not what it says at all. The prosecution felt there was enough evidence in this case for them to believe the case could proceed to trial and they could secure a conviction against the accused.
Lillybloom wrote: » You are making a sweeping generalisation when you say underwear can't be used as evidence. It entirely depends on the specifics of the case. If the defendant claims the accuser intended to have sex with him from the moment she woke up, then the choice of underwear could very well give doubt to his assertion if she chose old unflattering underwear. It very much depends on the specifics of eaxh unique case.
Sleeper12 wrote: » And the prosecution feels that there is less of a chance of convicting the victim for lying. Now why is that?
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: Eh? They would be two completely separate trials?
Sleeper12 wrote: » It is totally wrong to assume that the victim is guilty just because there was reasonable doubt
FishOnABike wrote: Agreed, beyond reasonable doubt says nothing about anything other than the evidential threshold. It is not rigidly defined but lies somewhere between "more likely than not" and "absolutely certain". Where exactly it lies in a particular case depends on the individual jury and individual jurors.
Sleeper12 wrote: » Yes two totally different trials. Unless the victim in a case has been prosecuted proving the she has been lying is on an equal footing as the defendant being found not guilty, reasonable doubt. Both have been through the court proceedings and neither has been found guilty. It is totally wrong to assume that the victim is guilty just because there was reasonable doubt
Sleeper12 wrote: » You might feel that you have addressed it earlier you have only posted nonsense. There is still a victim because no one has proved her wrong. To acquit someone only says that there is not enough proof to prosecute. As always I'm not talking about recent cases but I haven't seen any girl found guilty of telling lies or a conviction pending. There is a reason for this. There state of can't prove the victim wrong in a case no more can they pr reasonable doubt against a man. How someone can find that a case proves that the man is innocent and the girl not innocent is beyond my. If the girl lies would she not be in court?
Sleeper12 wrote: » No that's not true. A jury can feel 95 percent guilt but under Irish law must acquit. 5 percent is reasonable doubt. 95 percent of guilt & they cannot convict. Many jury members worldwide have expressed their frustration at not being allowed to convict someone that most likely committed a crime but there was 5 percent doubt.
The victim is still the victim until the dpp proves otherwise
Faugheen wrote: » If you want to use evidence, the WhatsApp group was used as evidence that the accused had sex with the complainant, which had been denied by the accused. It absolutely is relevant because their messages implied a different statement to the one they provided. Saying someone wore lacy knickers so she must have been out for the ride is completely and utterly wrong, and is not evidence whatsoever. When that statement was made it set a dangerous message out there that if you wear sexy knickers and get raped, then it’s your fault because the sexy knickers implied you wanted sex. How on Earth can you even argue that?
Sleeper12 wrote: » No that's not true. A jury can feel 95 percent guilt but under Irish law must acquit. 5 percent is reasonable doubt. 95 percent of guilt & they cannot convict. Many jury members worldwide have expressed their frustration at not being allowed to convict someone that most likely committed a crime but there was 5 percent doubt. The victim is still the victim until the dpp proves otherwise
However, many jurors said that they, and the jury as a whole, were uncertain what “beyond reasonable doubt” meant. They generally thought in terms of percentages, and debated and disagreed with each other about the percentage certainty required for “beyond reasonable doubt”, variously interpreting it as 100 per cent, 95 per cent, 75 per cent, and even 50 per cent. Occasionally this produced profound misunderstandings about the standard of proof.
Mrsmum wrote: » For my brother, son or anyone else being found 'not guilty' only means the case wasn't proven against them. Both innocent men and rapists can be found to be 'not guilty' in a court.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You can infer what you like. Whether it’s reasonable or not would be a matter for the jury to decide how it relates to the defendant and whether or not the defendants contention that their belief that consent was present is reasonable or unreasonable. If the jury decides that the defendants contention that they believed the encounter was consensual, and that there was a reasonable basis for that belief, then they would take that into consideration in determining whether or not the defendant could be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Key point is whether or not the individual members of the jury were of the opinion that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, was reasonable.
Legal arguments aren’t based upon absolute logic btw, they’re based upon an interpretation of the evidence gathered in an investigation - reasoning, to draw any conclusions about anything based upon the evidence. If any piece of evidence is excluded because it is deemed to be irrelevant, that immediately calls into question whether or not the defendant will receive a fair trial which they have the right to by law. Exclusion of evidence which could have assisted the defendant in their own defence at the original trial is one of the most common reasons why verdicts in the original trial are overturned on appeal.
Faugheen wrote: » If you want to use evidence, the WhatsApp group was used as evidence that the accused had sex with the complainant, which had been denied by the accused. It absolutely is relevant because their messages implied a different statement to the one they provided. Saying someone wore lacy knickers so she must have been out for the ride is completely and utterly wrong, and is not evidence whatsoever.When that statement was made it set a dangerous message out there that if you wear sexy knickers and get raped, then it’s your fault because the sexy knickers implied you wanted sex. How on Earth can you even argue that?
LLMMLL wrote: » The key point is whether the barrister should have been allowed use this argument in their closing remarks. Given that a.huge number of women wear this type of.underwear as their everyday underwear, it has zero evidentiary value as to intent to have sex.
Completely agree. However, this does not mean that exclusion of evidence is automatically unfair to the defendant. It happens all the time. Sometimes it benefits the defendant. Sometimes it harms the defendant. But assuming that any piece of evidence that could be used (fairly or unfairly) to aid the acquittal of the defendant should be allowed to be used or else his verdict might be overturned is nonsense.
batgoat wrote: » From the trial, "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front.”, this is the exact same logic that results in previous sexual histories being used in trials. Ultimately it isn't relevant unless you're planning to point out some forensic details on the underwear.. What a woman is wearing or how often she has had sex in the past does not mean they can't be raped. And such pieces of evidence have been highlighted as a real issue.
Lillybloom wrote: » Nobody is saying that someone can't be raped if they wear thongs or were promiscuous in the past. The colour of a notebook could be relevant to a particular case or it might not be, it depends on the specifics of a case. So you can't just ban the questioning of the colour of a notebook because for one case it's not relevant. It could be relevant for other cases.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Given that a huge number of women (and a smaller number of men) wear this type of underwear when engaging in sexual intercourse, it has plenty of evidentiary value in providing for the reasonable assumption that someone is interested in engaging in sexual intercourse at some point. It has never been an indication that someone wishes to be raped at some point. That would be an unreasonable assumption, IMO.
I didn’t say the exclusion of evidence is automatically unfair to the defendant. I said that it could result in the defendant not receiving a fair trial. It’s not nonsense to suggest that, and I would suggest that you familiarise yourself with the rules around disclosure of evidence before you claim that it’s nonsense that it could lead to a conviction being overturned on appeal. The idea is that the defendant is entitled to any evidence which the prosecution has, which the defendant maintains will assist in their own defence -In a criminal trial the prosecution is obliged to disclose to the defence, in advance of the trial, all relevant evidence which it has. If you are charged with a criminal offence, you have the right to be provided with the evidence the prosecution intends using at your trial, as well as the evidence which it has but does not intend to use, if that evidence could assist your defence. This duty to disclose is based on natural and constitutional justice, case law and statutory principles. However, the duty differs between summary prosecutions, which are tried in the District Court before a judge without a jury, and prosecutions on indictment, which are tried before a judge and jury in the Circuit Court or the Central Criminal Court.Disclosure of evidence in criminal trials
It’s not for the prosecution to determine what is or isn’t relevant to the defendants assistance in their own defence. It’s the job of the prosecution to present their case against the defendant to the jury, and just because they don’t regard a piece of evidence as relevant to their case against the defendant, doesn’t mean the defendant cannot use whatever evidence they feel is relevant to assist in their own defence.
In many cases, arguments for the defence are illogical, unreasonable, and indeed the stuff of nonsense, but that is for the jury to determine whether the arguments presented by both sides have any merit in their deliberations as to whether or not the defendant should be found guilty. The idea is to give the defendant every opportunity to defend themselves against the charge of rape when they maintain they are innocent, because we do not wish to have a judicial system where the burden of proof for the prosecution is so low that defendants are simply given no chance to defend themselves.
batgoat wrote: » None of the above was applicable to this scenario, it was simply to imply she wanted to have sex because of how she dressed. This relates to the case in terms of the psychological impact of such treatment of victims.https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/mum-ayrshire-girl-who-killed-13591548?fbclid=IwAR1Ep_gGqKEfyrcurkbsm55HfWd0XvAAlDr_7ed8t5DFoa--bE6O2suFxNs
Lillybloom wrote: » If the defence's reasoning is nonsensical the jury is free to see it as so.
batgoat wrote: » None of the above was applicable to this scenario, it was simply to imply she wanted to have sex because of how she dressed.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)
