Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

The Bishop Basher · 17-11-2018 07:18PM

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.

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..

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2018 07:22PM

LLMMLL wrote: »

The defendant.

Precisely, because what initiated a trial is because the defendant plead not guilty, whereas there is no trial if a defendant pleads guilty. The defendant is the only individual at risk of being deprived of their liberty if they are found guilty, and because they plead not guilty and put the complainant and the State through what is often a very costly and drawn out and traumatic experience for all involved, the Judge in sentencing will take these factors into account in accordance with sentencing guidelines.

A defendant if they had plead guilty might receive a suspended sentence, whereas if a defendant is found guilty after a trial, this may have far more substantial consequences for the defendant as an outcome of the trial.

The handful of cases that are reported in the media are in no way representative of the approximately 200 other rape trials held in the CCC in just one year alone. The reason they happen is because the defendant has plead not guilty, they claim that they are innocent of the charge of rape. That doesn’t take account of the hundreds of other cases where the accused pleads guilty and therefore there is no trial. The defendant is entitled to a fair trial as it is the defendant who is accused of a criminal offence. There are no legal consequences for the complainant as an outcome of any trial, unless the complainant is discovered during an investigation or at the trial of the defendant to have attempted to pervert the course of justice, and those cases are rare.

The Courts have to regard the rights of the defendant, whereas the complainant has no such legal rights as they are appearing as a witness for the States prosecution of the defendant. The complainant is entitled to legal representation when the defence counsel applies for a Section 3 application to introduce into evidence a complainants previous sexual history and will be granted permission to do so only in very limited circumstances.

This idea that the complainant is made to feel like they are on trial is because their evidence is being questioned, and nobody wants to have their evidence questioned, but that is the only way in which the defendant is able to maintain their right to a fair trial, whereas there are no legal consequences for the complainant.

batgoat · 17-11-2018 07:22PM

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..

Since people have taken their lives over similar court room scenes. I would classify it as serious.. What relevance do you think thongs have in relation to consent?

17-11-2018 07:26PM

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..

Actually he was in the Dail when he said

"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.

If It doesn't matter what you wear then it should NOT have been brought up in court.

Change is a commin

mickrock · 17-11-2018 07:28PM

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.

I'm a bit confused by this statement.

What, then, was the purpose of the trial?

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2018 07:31PM

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.

Dafuq? :pac:

As an aside, I was always a fan of Hillary until she rolled out Lena Dunham, who was known to have sexually molested her sister and was then a figurehead of the metoo movement saying believeher, until one of her mates was accused of sexual assault, then she threw one of the Sisterhood under the bus, not unlike Hillary did with her sisters when her husband Bill was accused of all sorts of sexual misconduct.

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.

17-11-2018 07:31PM

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

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?

The Bishop Basher · 17-11-2018 07:32PM

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

They’re just empty sound bites to keep people like you happy..

I see they work too..

Leo won’t be changing anything..

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2018 07:37PM

mickrock wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this statement.

What, then, was the purpose of the trial?

To allow the defendant the right to defend themselves against the accusations made against them by the prosecution. A trial only commences if the accused maintains they are not guilty. Then it is the job of the prosecution to present their case for the jury to support their assertion that the defendant is guilty of committing the offence they are accused of by legal counsel for the State, which is often mistaken as representing the complainant.

LLMMLL · 17-11-2018 07:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Precisely, because what ........

........for the complainant.

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?

17-11-2018 07:40PM

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 canâ€™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 canâ€™t comment on it, itâ€™s as simple as that.

Nah that doesn't wash. "a lot" isn't everyone. Courts are full of people not involved in the case. I've sat through a few days in court for the entertainment. It can be fascinating. The court has always been full. You can't be in contempt of court for reporting the truth without identifying anyone. If anything I'd imagine the reporter would be in contempt of court for deliberately twisting the truth. Certainly a greater chance of being in contempt for telling lies than someone telling the truth

Try make up something else. It might sound more believable

17-11-2018 07:44PM

Rennaws wrote:

Leo wonâ€™t be changing anything..

I think you are wrong about that but we'll have to wait & see what the new recommendations are from the committee.

Bottom line is we can't have a court system that discourages victims from reporting crimes. That's a failed court system.

17-11-2018 07:49PM

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?

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, (evidence presented as fact 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 so there has to be a strong case to put forward that a rape took place or else an innocent person could go to jail. 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 · 17-11-2018 07:52PM

Sleeper12 wrote: »

OK. Stop responding then.

I don't take instructions from you.

I'll stop correcting you when you stop posting the same incorrect information.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2018 08:01PM

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?

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.

17-11-2018 08:03PM

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 fÃºcked. 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.

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

17-11-2018 08:04PM

nullzero wrote:

I'll stop correcting you when you stop posting the same incorrect information.

But, but, but you said that was the end of it?

17-11-2018 08:15PM

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

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.

A good prosecution should be able to counter argue and swat that argument aside at this stage. Surely its not the first instance of such a defence and wont be the last even if the feminists kick and scream from here to Timbuktu

17-11-2018 08:15PM

One eyed Jack wrote:

Mens rea (/ËˆmÉ›nz ËˆriËÉ™/; 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. Itâ€™s dangerous because the defence has no idea what the jury is thinking. Theyâ€™re basing their strategy on an assumption that could be wrong, and could be a disaster for the defendant.

I was trying to make this point earlier. Consent trials are very difficult trials. It is he said, she said. It is entirely possible that a jury might 100 percent believe that the victim did not give consent & at the same time have reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that there was no consent. A jury can 100 percent believe that the girl didn't give consent yet still acquit the defendant. Unlike what some posters will have you believe the defendant getting not guilty does not mean that she brought false charges. It does not mean that she lied

In some trials there is no winner

17-11-2018 08:25PM

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.

Humans don't evolve that fast. Yes 30 years ago but do you honestly suppose that we have rid planet of that type of thinking in 30 years? Some people still believe that the earth was created in 7 days. They believe that noah had baby dinosaurs and dinosaur eggs on the ark. Some people actually believe that the earth is flat or that man hasn't walked on the moon. Some believe everything Trump says. There is all kinds of stupid on this planet. 30 years is not long enough to suggest that these people have become extinct. Imo the stupid is increasing rather than decreasing

LLMMLL · 17-11-2018 08:32PM

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.

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 · 17-11-2018 08:47PM

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 · 17-11-2018 08:49PM

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.

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 · 17-11-2018 08:52PM

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.

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 · 17-11-2018 08:57PM

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.

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.

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.

And whether the complainant is credible has no bearing on the beliefs of the defendant. You've just proved my point.

Mrsmum · 17-11-2018 09:00PM

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.

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 · 17-11-2018 09:08PM

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.

Yes? She can give consent, and it can be determined later that consent was vitiated.

And whether the complainant is credible has no bearing on the beliefs of the defendant. You've just proved my point.

It has of course. The jury have to weigh the credibility of the defendants evidence against that of the complaing witness. If it can be demonstrated by the defence that the complainant has a credibility issue, then that lends weight to their case that the defendants belief that the encounter was consensual, has more merit.

One eyed Jack · 17-11-2018 09:10PM

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.

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 · 17-11-2018 09:17PM

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.

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.

17-11-2018 09:20PM

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.

Or go commando. Though that is obviously another invitation to sex according to some

Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

Comments