One eyed Jack wrote: » You have no objective basis for that assertion. I have an objective basis for my assertion given her most recent publicity stunt, to support my assertion that she is ignorant of the law. We have no way of knowing for certain whether or not she is actually ignorant of the law, or if she is simply feigning ignorance because it goes down well with a certain cohort of the Irish public who appear to be just as ignorant of the law and court procedures as she is. I’m certainly not irritated by anything Ms. Coppinger does, the woman has what is practically the opposite of the Midas touch - everything she associates herself with turns to shìt, IMO (your opinion will undoubtedly differ), and I have no reason to regard her as being capable of anything more than shìt-stirring to further her own political aims for herself.
Homer wrote: » Nowhere near as much shame as she has brought to her family with her false accusations of rape.
Sleeper12 wrote: » What I meant is when both parties admit sex took place then DNA plays very little part in the case & it becomes he said, she said. It's very difficult to get a conviction in such cases.
Ms Justice Carmel Stewart thanked the jury in a case dominated by the issue of consent.
FunLover18 wrote: » I know juries don't have to (or should have to) quantify their degree of certitude but it makes sense that 100% is beyond reasonable doubt and anything below that should technically lead to a not guilty verdict, I merely chose 99% as an arbitrary number to make a point. In the same way that "not guilty" is not the same as "innocent", I find it hard to equate "there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict" with "there was no rape". It just doesn't feel right that as a result of the acquittal, the victims therefore weren't raped ... but I'm aware that that may just be down to my own personal feelings. Can you elaborate on the crime statistics; if from a legal standpoint a rape can only be classified as rape once someone has been convicted, then that must mean Ireland has a 100% conviction rate
Rennaws wrote: » And there you go again.. Posting on a discussion board isn't attention seeking.If it is, you have a lot more posts on this thread then I do. You also have 5 times my post count despite joining boards 5 year later. You know, it is possible to debate without getting personal.
Sonics2k wrote: » He was found Not Guilty. He wasn't found to be Innocent. Learn the difference because it's very important.
Zulu wrote: » Jesus fu*kin christ; shameful post
retro:electro wrote: » Are those your debating skills? Amazing.
Homer wrote: » It was a tongue in cheek reply to the poster that claimed he had brought shame on his family :rolleyes: you can put your toys back in your pram now
retro:electro wrote: » You need to work on your wit, Homer.
retro:electro wrote: » Do you have proof
Boggles wrote: » Do you feel for the defendant?
retro:electro wrote: » For cheating on his wife with a 17 year old down a muddy alley while he had his hands on her throat? Nope.
Boggles wrote: » You know there has been absolutely no proof presented on here that he was married, it came from one poster, there was also a claim it wasn't his first time been accused of rape. Again no proof. There is absolutely no difference between that unsubstantiated rubbish and someone coming on here suggesting the girl has had multiple sexual partners and this isn't her first time alleging rape. It's equally as disgusting and absolutely pointless. Would you agree?
Rennaws wrote: » And the personal insults just keep coming..
retro:electro wrote: » Do you have proof they were false? You need to get in touch with the Gardai if so. And by proof I don’t mean “he was found innocent”, because as well as that term being technically incorrect, it’s also moronic to assume his acquittal implies she’s a liar. A bit like assuming her knickers imply she wants sex. But there you go.
Rennaws wrote: » You need to work on debating without constantly resorting to personal attacks.
batgoat wrote: » He was actually responding to your personal insults.
retro:electro wrote: » Are you just going to follow me around stalking my posts
batgoat wrote: » Can you illustrate the ignorance? Eg what she brought up is the exact same sort of stuff that the rape crisis center have bringing up for years. Do you think they are also ignorant of the law?
Here's two law lecturers from Ucc calling for reform of rape trials, are you now classifying them as ignorant of the law? But you are far more of an expert? Neither view it as one occurrence and rather an ongoing issue in rape trials...https://www.irishlegal.com/article/experts-back-rape-trial-reform-after-cork-trial-protests
One eyed Jack wrote: » Yes, I can illustrate the ignorance in that in my opinion at least, Ms. Coppingers stunt was an attempt to undermine the fundamental right to fair procedures in our Constitution, a right which every citizen is entitled to -The right to fair procedures The courts, and all other bodies or persons making decisions that affect you, must treat you fairly. There are two essential rules of fair procedure. •The person making the decision that affects you should not be biased or appear to be biased. •You must be given an adequate opportunity to present your case. You must be informed of the matter and you must be given a chance to comment on the material put forward by the other side. And Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights -Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is a provision of the European Convention which protects the right to a fair trial. In criminal law cases and cases to determine civil rights it protects the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter). I’m getting a 404 on that link. However I was talking specifically about Ms. Coppingers actions. The opinions of law lecturers (and I’m familiar with plenty of them) who are not Ms. Coppinger, is an entirely separate matter, and trying to turn it round on me, is also a separate matter. We were discussing indications of Ms. Coppingers ignorance of the law, not anyone else’s, and that’s what you asked for my opinion on, and that’s all you’re getting my opinion on. Focusing on anyone else’s opinion is a completely separate matter. They are not who we were discussing. In saying that, I have no doubt that in person Ms. Coppinger is lovely, I would have no issue with her in a personal capacity, but as a public representative, she has a responsibility to respect the law and the decisions of the Courts, and Irish citizens, all of them, especially those who are innocent of any wrongdoing. She did not do that in these circumstances when she used her public platform to undermine the Irish Constitution and human rights law, and gave the appearance at least, that IMO she is ignorant of the law.
batgoat wrote: » I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.
JohnCreedon81 wrote: »
Bigbagofcans wrote: » Those aren't even thongs :eek:
Roger Hassenforder wrote: » "Conducted differently"... So how should a rape trial be run to protect the enotional well being of a complainant without impacting on the emotional wellbeing of a defendant who may well believe they are 100% innocent? Would you afford these same protections to alleged victims of nonsexual violence..? Genuinely curious...
batgoat wrote: » Link works fine for me,just clicked on it via my browser. The case is of public interest as it highlights how rape trials are conducted. It is concluded so a politician commenting doesn't undermine it. We already withhold evidence when it's viewed as not pertinent to the case. What a woman is wearing is not pertinent to a rape. You may think it is but it categorically is not. Irish legal scholars have supported her on the issue.
I do suspect, in the years to come we will see things like this not being allowed in a court room because ultimately rape trials should be conducted differently to protect the emotional well being of the victim. We do this in other cases btw so this would not be unique. Other jurisdictions also do it to various degrees with rape trials.
I would also suggest that you really reconsider your own ignorant assumptions on how and why women dress as they choose to. Thongs don't represent some big desire to have sex. Likewise skirts etc.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I’ve taken your suggestion into consideration, and dismissed it as the utter nonsense it is. How a person dresses is often a representation of their desire to have sex. It is never an indication however, that anyone has any permission to commit rape. There’s a big distinction between the two concepts that I feel you’re feigning ignorance of in order to support your position and claim that it’s my assumptions about something else entirely are ignorant, in spite of all the evidence in the real world that suggests how a person dresses is an indication of how they wish to be perceived.
batgoat wrote: » You said that the majority of women want to have sex if they're wearing a thong.... So yep that's pretty ignorant and using choice of clothing in a rape trial is a disgrace.
One eyed Jack wrote: » That’s not my logic. All of your hypothetical scenarios are based upon events preceding the encounter, whereas any disagreement over whether or not consent was present is argued after the encounter. Determining whether or not consent is present preceding any encounter is irrelevant to any argument regarding whether or not consent was present after the encounter. In a case where the defendant claims that the encounter was consensual, then we are obligated to investigate the basis for their belief, by asking them, and allowing them the opportunity to explain themselves. Whatever criteria the defendant explains as the basis for their honest belief can only be determined as reasonable or unreasonable only after we hear their justification for their honest belief. If the defence for their honest belief relates to what the complainant was wearing, then what the defendant was wearing at the time of the encounter is relevant evidence in assisting the defendant in their own defence, whether or not that makes the complainant uncomfortable and casts doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant.
LLMMLL wrote: » Can you show a quote from the trial where the barrister mentions he underwear in relation to the defendants belief? Because you seem to be making this up.
