Ruth Coppinger holds up thong in Dail

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

It's not a matter for the jury. It's not a matter for anyone to consider.

Wearing a thong is not consent.

How can wearing a thong possibly be consent?

https://www.thejournal.ie/rape-trial-underwear-4348391-Nov2018/

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is a matter for the jury to consider if a thong is not consent. It is not for her to decide what is consent or not. It would have been unethical for her not to invite the jury to consider it, if she thought that it might help her client. the jury is composed of randomly chosen people who presumably are able to form their own views. Why do you assume that the only 12 people in the country who think a thong is evidence of consent were the ones on the jury?

THE VAST MAJORITY of people believe a person’s underwear should not be discussed during a court case relating to rape.

Almost nine in 10 people (88%) said No, 7% said Yes, and 5% said Don’t Know.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Wearing a thong is not consent.

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

BBFAN

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

Extremely worrying.

BBFAN wrote: »

Extremely worrying.

The poster thinks that it's a matter of opinion that a thong indicates consent, I would classify that as a pretty worrying view.

Edit: Scratch that, think we agree on this? Emoticons confused me.

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise. Is there any legal authority for your proposition that a thong is not a form of consent? Where is it written down?

SusieBlue

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact. What a barrister can't do is run a defence of consent if the accused admitted to her or her solicitor that it was rape. If consent is claimed anything that could assist the accused must be put to the jury. If 12 people on the jury think the same as you then they will ignore the thong as a factor in any consent defence.

Please explain how an inanimate item of clothing can consent on behalf of the living, breathing person wearing it.
What faculties does a pair a knickers possess in order to be able to do so?

If this is the case then maybe we really do need to segregate underwear into ‘safe’ and ‘dangerous’ sections.
I mean it’s frightening and disgraceful that we’d have to do this, and frankly an insult to the 99.9% of decent respectful men in society.
But if a lace thong can consent on behalf of the woman wearing it, and some men actually seem to believe that they can have sex with a woman based purely on her choice of underwear, maybe it’s necessary.

I never want to see a case like this again.
That poor girl must be in bits.

BBFAN

batgoat wrote: »

The poster thinks that it's a matter of opinion that a thong indicates consent, I would classify that as a pretty worrying view.

Edit: Scratch that, think we agree on this? Emoticons confused me.

I'm totally agreeing with you.

That anyone thinks an item of underwear is a form of consent is worrying in the extreme.

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise. Is there any legal authority for your proposition that a thong is not a form of consent? Where is it written down?

Are you considering what you're saying? A person can give consent, an item of clothing cannot.

Sardonicat

4ensic15 wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

That is your opinion. Some people might think otherwise.

Some people like rapists?

4ensic15 wrote: »

That is a matter of opinion, not a proposition of fact.

No, it is a matter of fact.

Please explain how wearing a thong or any item of clothing, even perhaps a t-shirt saying 'I want to have sex tonight' is consent to have sex in a muddy laneway with a man ten years older.

El_Duderino 09

BBFAN wrote: »

batgoat wrote: »

No, that's really not a matter of opinion. A thong is not a form of consent and it's deeply worrying that you think it is a matter of opinion that it is.

Extremely worrying.

Giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, I presume they're highlighting the difference between the law and justice.

Saying a thong might be consent is about as classy as a defence barrister in a sexual abuse case saying the child was asking for it.

If you can convince the jury then the law is satisfied. Justice is not.

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

No, it is a matter of fact.

Please explain how wearing a thong or any item of clothing, even perhaps a t-shirt saying 'I want to have sex tonight' is consent to have sex in a muddy laneway with a man ten years older.

It is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe some people think it indicates consent. The jury are capable of deciding for themselves. You are trying to claim your own opinions are facts.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Giving the poster the benefit of the doubt, I presume they're highlighting the difference between the law and justice.

Saying a thong might be consent is about as classy as a defence barrister in a sexual abuse case saying the child was asking for it.

If you can convince the jury then the law is satisfied. Justice is not.

Presumably, if you were on the jury you would be able to convince your fellow jurors of your position. Justice is satisfied when a person gets a fair trial. A fair trial is when, evidence is presented, a person is allowed to put their defence and the jury are properly directed. What the end result is doesn't matter.

SusieBlue

Armadildo wrote: »

Girl should not have been drunk and walking home alone at that hour.

Man should have had some self control, some consideration for his wife and children, and his previous suspended sentences for his violent crimes.
Man also should haven taken No for an answer and had no business approaching a teenager 10 years his junior.

Raheem Euro

In a case where there is no witnesses or physical injury marks and it is one persons word against the other on consent - the court and jury always look at everything both parties said or did before, during and after. That day, that night. Everywhere they went. Everyone they spoke to. How they acted or were perceived to act. What they said. What they wore. What they drank. Its all put before the jury. The jury decide what if anything to take into consideration from whats put in front of them.
They then make a judgement call on which party they find more credible. So you cannot isolsate one single factor of the multitude put in front of them and say "_____of so that means consent"
Each individual thread just becomes a small part of the overall fabric.
The alternative would be to throw out every case because "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar to reach in one persons word against another.

4ensic15 wrote: »

It is in the mind of the beholder. Maybe some people think it indicates consent. The jury are capable of deciding for themselves. You are trying to claim your own opinions are facts.

Consent is legally defined, it's not in the mind of the beholder. Do you think a short skirt can be consent in the mind of the beholder as well?

batgoat wrote: »

Consent is legally defined, it's not in the mind of the beholder. Do you think a short skirt can be consent in the mind of the beholder as well?

Where is it defined legally? It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence if there was consent. It is not up to me or anybody else to decide.

Armadildo wrote:

Girl should not have been drunk and walking home alone at that hour.

The defendant was also drinking and out alone. There is definitely responsibility for the situation he landed himself into or at least as much responsibility as the girl who let's not forget was a minor. Minors aren't exactly known for common sense. A 27 year old should have known better and not left himself open in such a way

Sleeper12 wrote: »

. A 27 year old should have known better and not left himself open in such a way

He got away with it though, didn't he?

4ensic15 wrote: »

Where is it defined legally? It is up to the jury to decide on the evidence if there was consent. It is not up to me or anybody else to decide.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Note how it repeatedly describes how 'a person consents', it doesn't describe consent being offered based on clothing.. How one dresses isn't a person consenting, it's clothing and that's all it amounts to. If you think a piece of clothing can be an act of consent, that is really worrying.

El_Duderino 09

4ensic15 wrote: »

Presumably, if you were on the jury you would be able to convince your fellow jurors of your position. Justice is satisfied when a person gets a fair trial. A fair trial is when, evidence is presented, a person is allowed to put their defence and the jury are properly directed. What the end result is doesn't matter.

Yeah. I get your point of view. The end result doesn't matter.

4ensic15 wrote:

He got away with it though, didn't he?

Not suggesting that he got away with a crime as the verdict is the verdict but I don't think he got away with leaving himself open. There has been two trials for this case. The first being in Dublin. This has been hanging over his head for three years. His wife says she's sticking by his but his family live must have suffered no end for the last three years.

I don't think he got away with it at all and the stress of the last three years are down to stupidly

batgoat wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/48/enacted/en/html

Note how it repeatedly describes how 'a person consents', it doesn't describe consent being offered based on clothing.. How one dresses isn't a person consenting, it's clothing and that's all it amounts to. If you think a piece of clothing can be an act of consent, that is really worrying.

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent.
It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

4ensic15 wrote: »

It defines consent as "A person consents to a sexual act if he or she freely and voluntarily agrees to engage in that act" but sub-section 2 repeatedly defines what is not consent. There is no clause to the effect that the clothing a person wears can never be defined as constituting consent.
It is a matter for the jury to hear the evidence and decide if the was consent or not.

So by your logic, a person leaving the home while wearing some pieces of clothing is offering consent to have sex. Doesn't matter who it is. Because the clothing acts as the consent, do you realise how stupid and messed up that sounds?

batgoat wrote: »

So by your logic, a person leaving the home while wearing some pieces of clothing is offering consent to have sex. Doesn't matter who it is. Because the clothing acts as the consent, do you realise how stupid and messed up that sounds?

I never said that. All I said was that if the person was raped the alleged rapist could offer that explanation to the jury.

4ensic15 wrote: »

I never said that. All I said was that if the person was raped the alleged rapist could offer that explanation to the jury.

That's the logical conclusion if you're claiming that one's clothing can be consent... What you're using are rape myths of 'she was asking for it'....