Sleeper12 wrote: » They know as much as you. They know that wearing a thong does not mean that you are out looking for sex. They know that it was wrong for the barrister to make the comments that she made. Good old Leo doesn't believe that a thong equals sex.
LLMMLL wrote: » The defendant.
Rennaws wrote: » See this is part of the problem.. Leo really should spend less time virtue signaling on social media and more time sorting out the serous issues we face as a country just now..
"It doesn't matter what you wear. It doesn't matter where you went, who you went with or what you took, whether it was drugs or alcohol," the Taoiseach said.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It also isn’t either for the defence or the prosecution to prove one way or the other that the complainant has been the victim of rape. That’s not the purpose of a trial.
Sleeper12 wrote: » That maybe so and yet no one has denied what was said. No one. Not the DPP. Not the defense. Not anyone in the court at the time. Its all a huge conspiracy with dozens of people involved ensuring that we get fake news. I bet you are a Trump fan.
Deleted User wrote: Did Coppinger ignore the fact the Defence Barrister was a woman? The law and its practitioners are far from perfect in many cases but in recent months the legal system has been disgracefully undermined by a bias third wave feminist agenda
Sleeper12 wrote: » Actually he was in the Dail when he said If It doesn't matter what you wear then it should NOT have been brought up in court. Change is a commin
mickrock wrote: » I'm a bit confused by this statement. What, then, was the purpose of the trial?
One eyed Jack wrote: » Precisely, because what ........ ........for the complainant.
One eyed Jack wrote: That being said, if you understand anything at all, a lot of the reason why nobody who was involved in this specific case will comment on it is because they can’t, or they will be found in contempt of court, like the juror who was whipping up a storm on social media in the trial in Belfast. They can’t comment on it, it’s as simple as that.
Rennaws wrote: Leo won’t be changing anything..
Sleeper12 wrote: » Female defence is the best defense for a rape trial. Subconsciously people think that a woman would only defend an innocent man accused of rape. In the states its common get a black lawyer to defend a racist hate crime. What black person would defend a racist person?
Sleeper12 wrote: » OK. Stop responding then.
LLMMLL wrote: » I agree with almost everything you wrote there. Most people do. But it had absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendant beliefs. Have you moved into a different argument or are you trying to confuse with a wall of text?
Deleted User wrote: Well no the defence was pure rubbish to be honest. That is up there with the weakest defence argument ever put forward by any defence team. if they are reduced to showing the girls underwear in court then you know they are well and truly fúcked. Thats how the law works though, facts over feelings. It may not be nice for a girl who is a genuine victim but its the fairest system going. You cant always assume the woman is correct in such an accusation. The left are intent on making it easier to convict men on accusation alone though rather than hard facts and are using these instances in cases as ammunition to strengthen their argument.
nullzero wrote: I'll stop correcting you when you stop posting the same incorrect information.
Sleeper12 wrote: » I have to disagree. It was clever defence. There are still some people who believe that some deserve to be raped because of the way they are dressed. Some believe that it's not a man's fault when you put so much flesh in front of them. Judges themselves have made comments over the years alluding to as much. In summing up in the 80s many judges talked about the way the girl was dressed & then went on to hand down a light or suspended sentence.. I'm not suggesting that this guy was guilty but the defence only has to put reasonable doubt in the jurors mind. The thong & her comment might be enough to put doubt in someone's head. If wearing a thong does not mean that you are looking for sex then the defense should not have been allowed to make the comment. As I said before it would be like saying that a teenager is guilty because he is in a tracksuit or a hoodie. Just because we see some trouble makers in hoodies doesn't mean that wearing a hoodie makes you guilty of a crime. To encourage the jury to believe that a hoodie =criminal is wrong too
One eyed Jack wrote: Mens rea (/ˈmÉ›nz ˈriËÉ™/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes.
One eyed Jack wrote: If the defence counsel can show the jury that the defendant was not intending to commit rape, and had no intention of committing rape, and was not aware they were committing rape, then that adds to casting reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant. One of the easiest ways to do that is to appeal to the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes so to speak (or underwear, if you like?), and imagine what they would be thinking in those circumstances. It’s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. They’re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.
Deleted User wrote: You gave no specific example of this and then referred to the 80s.... Three decades ago its the defences job to discredit the prosecution. Rape is a serious allegation so the burden of proof as in the case of murder should be put on the prosecution.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It is, because in order for the defendant to be found guilty of having committed a crime, the prosecution has to be able to demonstrate that the defendant knew that they were committing an offence -Mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈriːə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind") is the mental element of a person's intention to commit a crime; or knowledge that one's action or lack of action would cause a crime to be committed. It is a necessary element of many crimes. The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". In jurisdictions with due process, there must be both actus reus ("guilty act") and mens rea for a defendant to be guilty of a crime (see concurrence). As a general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law. Exceptions are known as strict liability crimes. If the defence counsel can show the jury that the defendant was not intending to commit rape, and had no intention of committing rape, and was not aware they were committing rape, then that adds to casting reasonable doubt on the prosecutions case against the defendant. One of the easiest ways to do that is to appeal to the jury to put themselves in the defendants shoes so to speak (or underwear, if you like?), and imagine what they would be thinking in those circumstances. It’s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. They’re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.
LLMMLL wrote: » I am aware of mens rea and agree that a potential strategy for any defense team in any rape case is that the defendant honestly believed he had consent. This does not support your assertion that the whole trial process is centered around the defendants beliefs. Another strategy, seemingly common from rape cases I've seen reported, is to imply that the complainant intended to have sex, and did actually consent. As pointed out, the "evidence" used by the defense to support these implications often has nothing to do with the defendant or his beliefs. In fact it would be impossible for the defendant to know anything about them, such as private text messages sent by the complainant to friends a day after the incident.And your 100% focus on mens rea ignores the other essential.part of a crime, the actus reus. If a man intends to have sex with a woman regardless of whether she consents, but she does in fact consent, has a rape taken place? I assume you'd say no (as would I). So the logic that mens rea is crucial therefore the "whole trial process" is about this aspect is false from first principles. The actus reus is also crucial and this is why the defense focus on the behaviour of the complainant in situations where the defendant has no opportunity to form beliefs about her.
Mrsmum wrote: » From reading this thread I think women should be very, very nervous putting on any underwear other than a pair of bloomers, preferably with a chastity belt. Anything remotely sexy apparently gives a consent message and in court these knickers are enough to cause reasonable doubt. Nice get out of jail card for accused persons where consent is disputed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You’d be wrong in assuming that because I can think of numerous examples where a defendant was found guilty of rape because the victim had no capacity to give consent. In fact there are numerous examples of circumstances where consent is vitiated laid out in the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017.
That aside, any evidence you’re referring to is presented in a case against the defendant. The defendants counsel may introduce evidence which will assist the defendant in their defence, and that includes all the scenarios you present above, as it goes to show that the complainant who is appearing as a witness for the prosecution is not a credible witness.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Not at all. A persons choice of underwear only may be relevant when they accuse someone of rape. That ‘argument’ btw is the same disingenuous nonsense as the kind of guy who says they have to have consent forms now or a girl could cry rape six months later. Frankly, it’s stupid.
LLMMLL wrote: » I said in the case where she consents. Not a case where she is incapable of consent. Those examples in the act are situations where consent cannot be given. Nothing to do with what I said.
And whether the complainant is credible has no bearing on the beliefs of the defendant. You've just proved my point.
Mrsmum wrote: » No 'may' about it. It was relevant in the Cork case. It is relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be.
One eyed Jack wrote: » It’s relevant in any case the defendant wants it to be if they’re accused by you of committing rape. If you don’t accuse someone of committing rape, what underwear you choose to wear is your own business.
Mrsmum wrote: We are discussing rape cases after all. And yes I get it - if you don't want your undies to feature in court, don't bring the case.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b6984b3dff155c34b5a9498bb42f9c13.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
