False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Reviews and Books Galore · 31-12-2019 3:07pm

Noodleworm wrote: »

I disagree.

5. Most instances or rape are not strangers in dark alleys. and as such its possible that rape cases exist where neither party is entirely wrong. They disagree over whether consent was there. This is why an honest belief of consent is a defense. But we also know that psychologically freezing is defense mechanism along with fight or flight. I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we have men claiming they were falsely accused - when the accuser absolutely does not believe themselves to be lying, because they are not.
.

Yeah, I really don't like these vague arguments about consent. It's hard to argue against as there is nothing really to argue against, and it is pretty bad if you have to change the notion of consent to show that somebody has been raped.

Reviews and Books Galore · 31-12-2019 3:09pm

Die Hard 2019 wrote: »

I don't get this statement, is it a lack of understanding that the accusation and prosecution of an innocent person for rape is a terrible thing?

I honestly believe that I'd rather be butt fxuked by bubba once ! than be convicted for raping some young wan and doing jail (probably get butt fxuked) and having everyone hate me forever and be on the sex offenders list

So in that case I'd rather be raped than accused of rape

But a woman who never has to worry about false accusation of rape can't see that I suppose,

Hit the nail on the head. And I am definetly getting defensiveness in a lot of the arguments agaisnt treating the crimes the same.

the_pen_turner · 31-12-2019 3:39pm

Noodleworm wrote: »

I disagree.

1. The crime you are describing is libel. It already exists.

2. No one here is saying how you PROVE a false conviction. Most instances of rape will not have the evidence for a prosecution to go anywhere. The only way prove an accusation is false to the same extent that we attempt to prove it is true, is to have further time and money spent on a police investigation where it must be proven that the accuser was knowingly lying. Which, even if it happened - is not usually going to be possible.

3. Considering the disregard people in this thread have for protecting actual rape victims, and making it possibly to report crimes, such laws would only serve to dissuade rape victims, leaving more rapists on the streets, and increasing rape over all.

4. Even in this thread we see a lack of evidence that men's lives are being ruined. We hear about it being hard on him, but these men still go onto have families, kids and careers. A lot of rape victims get PTSD, anxiety, struggle to ever have relationships with men or normal sexual relationships. Many attempt suicide.

5. Most instances or rape are not strangers in dark alleys. and as such its possible that rape cases exist where neither party is entirely wrong. They disagree over whether consent was there. This is why an honest belief of consent is a defense. But we also know that psychologically freezing is defense mechanism along with fight or flight. I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we have men claiming they were falsely accused - when the accuser absolutely does not believe themselves to be lying, because they are not.
Instances, often where alcohol is involved where the accuser does honestly believe the accused knew they didn't want it. They were unresponsive, incoherent, they froze, they indicated that they were uncomfortable or in pain and actually thought the other person knew they didn't want it.
Now the accused might have not looked, or cared much about any of these clues (which is why consent is important, and active consent will save many men from this stress). They didn't notice, didn't pay attention, didn't hear her, thought that was normal etc etc.

The accused blames the accuser - "if she didn't want it she would have fought harder! She must have just changed her mind". Is the assumption they come to, because most people don't want to consider that their selfishness, callousness and plain stupidity made them deeply hurt another person.

I don't disagree with any of that except that libel laws arnt enough. This needs to be a criminal matter the same as attacking someone

I know it is very hard to prove a false rape claim , bit if it can be proven then it should be prosecuted as harshly as posible

seamus · 31-12-2019 3:47pm

Reviews and Books Galore wrote: »

I have very little knowledge of that case, but wasn't the argument that she was drunk and could not consent?

No, not in that case. The fundamental argument was over consent and whether it had been given. The accused said they believed it had, the accuser said it hadn't.
Drunkeness was continually brought up as a factor, but I don't believe "too drunk to consent" was the prosecution's case.

Reviews and Books Galore · 31-12-2019 3:57pm

seamus wrote: »

No, not in that case. The fundamental argument was over consent and whether it had been given. The accused said they believed it had, the accuser said it hadn't.
Drunkeness was continually brought up as a factor, but I don't believe "too drunk to consent" was the prosecution's case.

I dunno Seamus, I was reading up a little and it doesn't sound very plausible to me. I'd even go as far to say it is most probably a false allegation based on the evidence.

It's a very dangerous slope to legally say 'a lack of a verbal yes to every act means it's a no and is rape'.

Edit: Do you have a link to the prosecutions case as I can only find the defence's arguments

thecityguy · 31-12-2019 4:43pm

Intentional False accusations where the person is doing it out of of pure spite or malice is one of the worst things you can do to another human being especially today with the spread of social media. I`m not talking about cases where people have different accounts and opinions of an event that actually took place and alcohol or drugs are involved but a clear case of false allegations. I also believe every case is unique and people rarely read the actual facts in these cases they just repeat what they see on social media

Silentcorner · 31-12-2019 5:54pm

Noodleworm wrote: »

Kind of horrifying to see this thread. I know several people who were raped. I had to give a statement to police about one friend.
Nothing happened to the guy. He DID rape someone and he is doing just fine. Most of them are.

You have to remember most victims don't report it because it's so difficult for anything to come of it.
If it happens in private and you don't the right kind of injuries, or you wait too long and the evidence is gone, you have a very weak case.
The person who raped you will always claim it was consensual. Because if there's no proof, or clear indication it wasn't, nothing happens.
The thing people don't like to hear is that at least some people who claim to be falsely accused ARE actually rapists who know what they did. It's the easiest defense - play the victim.

Of course false accusations happen but I do believe they are are rare because there is nothing to gain from it. We don't worry about people walking into garda stations and saying a lad they don't like assaulted them in a non sexual way. No one here can imagine doing that to a guy, even one they hated - because it doesn't make sense. Inviting the police to comb over a fabricated crime is nothing but bringing trouble on yourself.

Now go look at some of the convicted rape cases in the news.
In so many cases where there is CCTV, injuries, even witnesses - those accused of rape always say they had consensual sex.

Most rapes happen with people you know, People you are in relationships with, friends, behind closed doors. They prey on you when you are drunk or sleeping. Or they don't stop when you tell them too.

Unfortunately this topic is a can of worms that no one wishes to open, but we are dealing with one of the most serious crimes on the statue book, due process, and the implications of false allegations.

These all need to be discussed rationally as cases are going to come upon us thick and fast over the next few years, no one should be shamed out of expressing an opinion on it, it is too important a topic.

Victims of rape can feel rightly aggrieved by the conviction rate of sexual assault/rape.

People can also feel rightly aggrieved by the fact that boys can be convicted of statutory rape and a girl can't, or that we do not even have a crime on the statue books for making up a false rape allegation, which can destroy a man's marriage/life/relationship with his kids.

I don't have the answers, do you think our society has the ability to discuss this or do you think we should hand control to some other entity like The Church or The UN?

Regarding how rare false allegations are, they are a lot more common than you think, I'm sure we all have anecdotal accounts that back up our respective opinions, but we should all be looking at the Title IX kangaroo court system (in place since 2011 in the US on a huge number of US campuses) for data but it is extremely hard to find...

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

I saw an online account, I have not being able to find it since, but the amount of cases that were dismissed by even this system was over 50%.

These courts have removed due process to accused men, they are being legally challenged all over the US at this stage....horrifying doesn't even begin to describe it!

31-12-2019 5:58pm

Suspected offenders in this country are not named. Anyone who doesn't find themselves on the receiving end of a false accusation, will not be named.
Anyone who is convicted of a sexual offence isn't even automatically named.

the_pen_turner · 31-12-2019 6:11pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Suspected offenders in this country are not named. Anyone who doesn't find themselves on the receiving end of a false accusation, will not be named.
Anyone who is convicted of a sexual offence isn't even automatically named.

While that is true it doesn't mean that people locally don't know or that the victims name isn't tarnished.

The only thing that would sort this out is that in the odd case that can be proven to be fake that the book be thrown at the perpetrator and a very serious punishment aplied

jimwallace197 · 31-12-2019 6:26pm

Noodleworm wrote: »

Kind of horrifying to see this thread. I know several people who were raped. I had to give a statement to police about one friend.
Nothing happened to the guy. He DID rape someone and he is doing just fine. Most of them are.

You have to remember most victims don't report it because it's so difficult for anything to come of it.
If it happens in private and you don't the right kind of injuries, or you wait too long and the evidence is gone, you have a very weak case.
The person who raped you will always claim it was consensual. Because if there's no proof, or clear indication it wasn't, nothing happens.
The thing people don't like to hear is that at least some people who claim to be falsely accused ARE actually rapists who know what they did. It's the easiest defense - play the victim.

Of course false accusations happen but I do believe they are are rare because there is nothing to gain from it. We don't worry about people walking into garda stations and saying a lad they don't like assaulted them in a non sexual way. No one here can imagine doing that to a guy, even one they hated - because it doesn't make sense. Inviting the police to comb over a fabricated crime is nothing but bringing trouble on yourself.

Now go look at some of the convicted rape cases in the news.
In so many cases where there is CCTV, injuries, even witnesses - those accused of rape always say they had consensual sex.

Most rapes happen with people you know, People you are in relationships with, friends, behind closed doors. They prey on you when you are drunk or sleeping. Or they don't stop when you tell them too.

Very naive, there is unfortunately a growing contingent of women that know if they make a false accusation against a man, it can be hugely damaging to his mental health, his family, his job/business amongst other things & with the extremely low conviction rate of false accusations of this type, there is nothing for them to lose. Perfect for them if they want to make him suffer especially if their affections are not being reciprocated.

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

Put the shoe on the other foot. How come there is no way a woman can be convicted of rape in this country (shows the bias), I know plenty of men who have gone through with sex out of fear of upsetting their partner, under threats, etc. Is that right?

Also, how do you know the guy that was accused of rape is doing just fine, do you know personally, intimately.

Serious waft of bull**** of your post

Phoebas · 31-12-2019 6:32pm

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Very naive, there is unfortunately a growing contingent of women that know if they make a false accusation against a man, it can be hugely damaging to his mental health, his family, his job/business amongst other things & with the extremely low conviction rate of false accusations of this type, there is nothing for them to lose.

Can you link to the stats for the growing number of reports and the low conviction rate?

LoughNeagh2017 · 31-12-2019 7:34pm

SNIP.

One eyed Jack · 31-12-2019 7:57pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

Unfortunately this topic is a can of worms that no one wishes to open, but we are dealing with one of the most serious crimes on the statue book, due process, and the implications of false allegations.

These all need to be discussed rationally as cases are going to come upon us thick and fast over the next few years, no one should be shamed out of expressing an opinion on it, it is too important a topic.

Victims of rape can feel rightly aggrieved by the conviction rate of sexual assault/rape.

People can also feel rightly aggrieved by the fact that boys can be convicted of statutory rape and a girl can't, or that we do not even have a crime on the statue books for making up a false rape allegation, which can destroy a man's marriage/life/relationship with his kids.

I don't have the answers, do you think our society has the ability to discuss this or do you think we should hand control to some other entity like The Church or The UN?

In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional. What is also a fact is that we actually do have an offence on the statute books that makes false allegations a criminal offence, and it’s not libel, or defamation, it’s the offence of perverting the course of justice. The offence applies equally to both men and women and can carry a maximum sentence of five years upon conviction here, or up to 10 years in the UK. It is not the equivalent of the criminal offence of rape which is a completely separate offence and can carry a maximum sentence of 10 years or life imprisonment if convicted of rape under section 4. Aggravated sexual assault is an offence which women can be charged with, which also carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Women can also be charged with rape under common law.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Regarding how rare false allegations are, they are a lot more common than you think, I'm sure we all have anecdotal accounts that back up our respective opinions, but we should all be looking at the Title IX kangaroo court system (in place since 2011 in the US on a huge number of US campuses) for data but it is extremely hard to find...

https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-campus-rape-policy/538974/

I saw an online account, I have not being able to find it since, but the amount of cases that were dismissed by even this system was over 50%.

These courts have removed due process to accused men, they are being legally challenged all over the US at this stage....horrifying doesn't even begin to describe it!

The data isn’t all that hard to find, nor are false allegations of rape any more common than anyone thinks they are. The data isn’t hard to find, it’s just difficult to quantify as depending upon where you choose your sources, statistics vary anywhere between 2% and 40%. 40% of allegations of rape are false? I suppose anyone can choose what they wish to believe. The onus of course is still upon anyone claiming the figures are that high to provide evidence of their claims, and the facts are that their evidence could only best be described as a laughable contortion of statistical data.

I also don’t think we should be looking at Title IX cases in the US as the legislation refers to equality in education and prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, in spite of the Atlantic’s version of events which clearly leads to a misunderstanding of Title IX legislation and it’s aims -

Title IX and Sex Discrimination

The reason I wouldn’t suggest anyone in Ireland start fretting about Title IX is because apart from the fact that it would be completely irrational to even entertain such an argument, Title IX legislation only applies within the education system in the US, and judgements made by Educational Administrators have no standing in Criminal Law. They’re closer to the equivalent of civil cases, and even then, as of 2017, Trump being Trump has rolled back on much of what the Obama Administration sought to do -

The Trump administration has made changes to guidelines that were implemented during the Obama administration. These changes shift the determination of sexual assault from "preponderance of the evidence" to a "clear and convincing" evidence standard, which is typically used for civil cases in which serious allegations are made (as opposed to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases). On September 22, 2017, US Secretary of Education Secretary Betsy Devos rescinded the Obama-era guidelines which had prodded colleges and universities to more aggressively investigate campus sexual assaults.

Title IX, Wikipedia

I’m all for having a rational discussion of the issues involved, and to that end I’d be wary of getting our collective knickers in a bunch, fuelling paranoia and suspicion, playing the victim and essentially becoming all of the things you claim to be rallying against.

EmptyTree · 31-12-2019 8:00pm

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

My first reaction is to believe the woman as rape is a very strong word but if you take into account how vile modern western females are then you would start to question if she is being honest.

I do enjoy it when popular handsome men get accused though, I loved watching that rugby news saga last year, they looked like such wan**rs too. As a virgin man who women would never touch I don't have any sympathy for handsome men when they get accused. As Elliot Rodger once said "They deserve it simply for the crime of living a better life than me".

I will probably get banned for saying this but I have no sympathy for a women either if she was a victim. Those date rape cases, it is not like you were snatched and pulled into a bush, you willingly went into a handsome thugs bedroom whereas a nice gentle guy like me rots in loneliness.

What a disgusting post. Both a person this is falsely accused of rape and a person who has been raped are victims and will have to live with the horrible consequences of their assailants actions for the rest of their lives. Something no person deserves under any circumstances. You on the other hand have every opportunity to remove yourself from your loneliness (unlike someonewwho cannot remove themselves from the circumstances of being a victim), if you choose to wallow in that and enjoy someone else's unimaginable suffering, then perhaps you're not as nice as you think you are and there's a reason you're alone.

o1s1n · 31-12-2019 8:01pm

LoughNeagh2017 wrote: »

I will probably get banned for saying this but I have no sympathy for a women either if she was a victim. Those date rape cases, it is not like you were snatched and pulled into a bush, you willingly went into a handsome thugs bedroom whereas a nice gentle guy like me rots in loneliness.

The first part of this paragraph and the last part are completely contradictory.

iptba · 31-12-2019 8:07pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not sure why you are saying this?

Mar 5th 2016
16-year-old faces charge for having consensual sex with girl the same age as him

A CO KILDARE district judge is voicing ‘serious concerns’ for a 16-year-old boy in State care who is facing statutory rape charges after having consensual sex with a female the same age as him.

https://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

https://spunout.ie/life/article/what-is-consent

What does Irish law say about consent?

In Ireland the legal age of consent to sex is 17.
Consensual sex with anyone under the age of 17 may be legally referred to as statutory rape. What this means is, even if the person has consented to sex themselves, their consent is not considered legally valid because they are underage.
Sentences

The maximum sentence for having sex with someone over the age of 15, but under the age of 17, is five years. It is ten years if the person is in a position of authority i.e. a relative, teacher, sports trainer. If a person can prove that they believed the victim was over the age of 17, however, the court may view this situation differently. Asserting that the person consented to sex is absolutely not considered a valid defence.
Currently, women under the age of 17 cannot be prosecuted for having sex with someone under the age of 17.
It is illegal to have sex with anyone under the age of 15 years of age. It is considered a criminal offence under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment. If a person can prove that they believed the person was over the age of 15 however, the court may view this situation differently.
Once you are over the age of 17, you are legally able to have sex with anyone you want, even someone much older than you.

KaneToad · 31-12-2019 8:27pm

seamus wrote: »

Yeah, as a man I used to think like this.

But then I had a look at the impact of rape accusations on peoples' lives. And you know, it's not actually the world-ending thing that we traditionally tell ourselves it is.

It is no doubt humiliating and deeply upsetting. Mentally difficult and all the rest.

But it's far from life-destroying. Look at the Belfast rape trial. Paddy Jackson is now back playing rugby professionally and earning a great wage. And that wasn't even a false rape allegation. So even when a plausible rape allegation is made, someone's life isn't destroyed. Paddy Jackson's career was "disrupted" by it, and that's about it. Whatever reputational damage has been suffered, is small and short-lived...

Not a great example to prove your point. Jackson went from being the first choice out-half in Ulster - his hometown team. He was second choice, behind the close to retiring Jonny Sexton, for the National team.

He missed a full year of what is already a short career (although he was fully paid by Ulster). He now plays for London Irish and is unlikely to play for Ireland again.

We would probably need an actuarial scientist to calculate his career financial losses...but a pleb like me would put it at 7 figures.

Quite an outcome for someone who has been found not guilty of rape. The British system is nuts, the defendants should not be named.

One eyed Jack · 31-12-2019 8:43pm

iptba wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are saying this?

https://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/

https://spunout.ie/life/article/what-is-consent

I’m saying there is no such offence as statutory rape in Irish law and there hasn’t been since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional, because that is a fact -

Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional

(and not just because if the journal or spunout were printed media, I still wouldn’t wipe my arse with them)

Ironicname · 31-12-2019 8:47pm

LoughNeagh2017 wrote:

My first reaction is to believe the woman as rape is a very strong word but if you take into account how vile modern western females are then you would start to question if she is being honest.

Mate, please get some help. This rest of this post which I haven't quoted is further alienating yourself from conversation.

Between this post and others on different topics l, I'm genuinely concerned.

Look after yourself.

iptba · 31-12-2019 9:11pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/statutory-rape-boy-concern-2643527-Mar2016/
https://spunout.ie/life/article/what-is-consent

I’m saying there is no such offence as statutory rape in Irish law and there hasn’t been since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional, because that is a fact -

Statutory rape law ruled unconstitutional

(and not just because if the journal or spunout were printed media, I still wouldn’t wipe my arse with them)

What is this law then?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

It looks very much like a statutory rape law.

One eyed Jack · 31-12-2019 9:45pm

iptba wrote: »

What is this law then?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

It looks very much like a statutory rape law.

No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.

The defences to an allegation of the criminal offence of rape are listed right there in subsections 3, 4, 5 and 8. The 2006 Act was introduced pretty quickly precisely as a result of the case I linked to above. The 2017 Act only expands on what was already in the 2006 Act in Sections 2 and 3 -

Defilement of child under 15 years of age.

Defilement of child under the age of 17 years.

Whoever wrote that piece for spunout clearly doesn’t understand what the term ‘statutory offence’ means in the context of Irish law when they publish this shìte -

What does Irish law say about consent?

In Ireland the legal age of consent to sex is 17.

Consensual sex with anyone under the age of 17 may be legally referred to as statutory rape. What this means is, even if the person has consented to sex themselves, their consent is not considered legally valid because they are underage.

No it may not be legally referred to as statutory rape because there is no such offence in Irish law.

And as for that journal article, well at least a different journalist was only slightly more accurate in reporting that the boy was charged with rape (as opposed to the other journalist taking liberties with the facts and suggesting that the boy was facing ‘statutory rape charges’. No he wasn’t, because there is no such offence in Irish law). The more accurate update is here -

16-year-old charged with raping a girl the same age as him granted bail

The teenager has been charged with two counts of rape – which allegedly occurred in February last year.

I can only surmise that the author of the first article was influenced by American legal dramas she may have been exposed to on tv. I’m the sort of immature person that would giggle at an irony like that, only under the circumstances it’s so facepalm inducingly stupid that it’s just unfortunate that there is such confusion and nonsense being put about by the media and the likes of spunout who purport to educate teenagers about relationships and sex education. They can’t even get the basic facts right themselves! It’s just incredibly frustrating to see nonsense like that being expected to be taken seriously.

thecityguy · 31-12-2019 9:50pm

Speaking of false accusations. About a year ago after a well known local man died in a traffic accident a person I work with who basically lives for malicious gossip came into work and ran around telling everyone that it wasn't an accident and he killed himself because he was a pedophile and someone found a load of pictures of underage girls on his phone
A couple of days later the same individual came into work and said oh actually he wasn't a pedophile after all but his son in law is the pedophile and he killed himself because he fell out with his daughter because she didn't believe the accusations about her husband
Obviously a dead man cant defend himself
What really annoyed me about this is the same individual who loves spreading malicious rumors about people and is very active on social media has a grand uncle who was actually arrested for abusing his little grandson. His grand uncle was found dead the morning after he was released by the guards presumably a suicide
This guy goes around telling everyone his grand uncle was this wonderful person who wouldn't hurt a fly and his family have no idea why he took his own life he also takes every chance he gets to put down his cousin the victim at every opportunity telling everyone about his addiction problems and issues with the guards

I'm convinced he does all this purely for attention and it works because most of the people I work with lap up his BS even though he is constantly shown to be lying

iptba · 31-12-2019 10:05pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

iptba wrote: »

What is this law then?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

It looks very much like a statutory rape law.

No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.

The defences to an allegation of the criminal offence of rape are listed right there in subsections 3, 4, 5 and 8. The 2006 Act was introduced pretty quickly precisely as a result of the case I linked to above. The 2017 Act only expands on what was already in the 2006 Act in Sections 2 and 3 -

Defilement of child under 15 years of age.

Defilement of child under the age of 17 years.

Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?

I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.

One eyed Jack · 31-12-2019 10:35pm

iptba wrote: »

Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?

I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.

No, I’m saying exactly what it says in the article I linked to which is that before 2006, the legislation criminalised a person who had sexual intercourse with a person who was under the age of 15. It was a statute, introduced by legislation in 1935, which classified those circumstances as rape. There was no defence to an allegation of rape in those circumstances before 2006, it was considered a strict liability offence, which is why those circumstances were commonly referred to as ‘statutory rape’ -

The Supreme Court has unanimously declared unconstitutional the law under which any man is automatically guilty of a crime if he has sex with a girl under 15.

The court made its decision on several grounds, including the failure to allow the defence that a genuine mistake had been made about a girl's age.

The reasons the Supreme Court gave for it’s ruling are also in the article I posted earlier -

The Supreme Court agreed that the section offered absolutely no defence once the act of sexual intercourse was established.

Mr Justice Hardiman said that once a man has sex with a girl whom he honestly believes to be over the relevant age, a mentally innocent person is criminalised.

To criminalise in such a serious way a person who is mentally innocent inflicts a grave injury on that person's dignity and sense of worth, he said.

He said the right of an accused not to be convicted of a true criminal offence in the absence of intent was done away with by this Act.

But the court said today's decision does not prevent the Oireachtas from enacting different legitimate laws to discourage sex with very young girls.

Which led to the 2006 Act being rushed through the Oireachtas in order to address the issue, in order to avoid this sort of thing from happening -

When, on May 30th, the High Court released a 41-year-old man, “Mr A”, who had been convicted for having sex with a 12- year-old girl, the government decided to rush emergency legislation through the Dáil.

Looking back at the CC case

iptba · 31-12-2019 10:45pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

iptba wrote: »

Are you saying that because people could not offer a defence before 2006, it was a statutory rape law, but because they can now it isn't a statutory rape law?

I have no legal expertise, but it wasn't my understanding that that was required before something could be called a statutory rape law.

No, I’m saying exactly what it says in the article I linked to which is that before 2006, the legislation criminalised a person who had sexual intercourse with a person who was under the age of 15. It was a statute, introduced by legislation in 1935, which classified those circumstances as rape. There was no defence to an allegation of rape in those circumstances before 2006, it was considered a strict liability offence, which is why those circumstances were commonly referred to as ‘statutory rape’ -

I'm still confused, I'm afraid.

When I posted:

What is this law then?

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2017/act/2/section/17/enacted/en/html#sec17

It looks very much like a statutory rape law.

You said:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No it doesn’t? Because what constituted the statutory offence of rape before 2006 is that the person was immediately criminalised for the act, there was no defence, and that’s why it was ruled unconstitutional.

Is it still your contention that the 2017 legislation and similar legislation that existed between 2006 and 2017 are not statutory rape-type laws?

One eyed Jack · 31-12-2019 11:10pm

iptba wrote: »

I'm still confused, I'm afraid.

...

Is it still your contention that the 2017 legislation and similar legislation that existed between 2006 and 2017 are not statutory rape-type laws?

It has always been my contention that what was commonly referred to as the offence of ‘statutory rape’ has not existed in Irish law since 2006, because the offence of rape has not been a strict liability offence since 2006.

Before 2006 a man who had sexual intercourse with a minor was automatically criminalised, no defence existed in legislation - sexual intercourse with a minor was a strict liability offence of rape. This was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, and in 2006, legislation which allowed for a defence to a charge of rape in those circumstances was introduced by the 2006 Act.

If that’s what you mean by ‘statutory rape-type laws’, then I will at this stage simply refer you back to what I posted earlier -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I suppose anyone can choose what they wish to believe.

Christ I need a drink after that :pac:

iptba · 01-01-2020 12:03am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Silentcorner wrote: »

People can also feel rightly aggrieved by the fact that boys can be convicted of statutory rape and a girl can't

In discussing these issues rationally, I think it’s just as important that we stick to the facts as opposed to just what appears to be some people making it up as they go along. Boys in this country can not be convicted of statutory rape, as no such offence has existed in Irish law since 2006 when it was ruled unconstitutional.

This seems to be true based on the way you define statutory rape, which I'm not sure is the same way a lot of other people use the term, but there is a specific offence "sexual act with child under 17 years of age" and those under 17 can be convicted of it.

py2006 · 01-01-2020 9:42am

I noticed the comment section on the Cyprus case in the Daily Mail (surprise, surprise) was full of support for the girl. It seems the admins were filtering what comments could go through.

I tried posting, 'what if she WAS lying? ' a couple of times and it never appeared.

Eric Cartman · 01-01-2020 12:05pm

py2006 wrote: »

I noticed the comment section on the Cyprus case in the Daily Mail (surprise, surprise) was full of support for the girl. It seems the admins were filtering what comments could go through.

I tried posting, 'what if she WAS lying? ' a couple of times and it never appeared.

Courts are only right when they convict men dont you know....

JMMCapital · 01-01-2020 12:06pm

thecityguy wrote: »

Speaking of false accusations. About a year ago after a well known local man died in a traffic accident a person I work with who basically lives for malicious gossip came into work and ran around telling everyone that it wasn't an accident and he killed himself because he was a pedophile and someone found a load of pictures of underage girls on his phone
A couple of days later the same individual came into work and said oh actually he wasn't a pedophile after all but his son in law is the pedophile and he killed himself because he fell out with his daughter because she didn't believe the accusations about her husband
Obviously a dead man cant defend himself
What really annoyed me about this is the same individual who loves spreading malicious rumors about people and is very active on social media has a grand uncle who was actually arrested for abusing his little grandson. His grand uncle was found dead the morning after he was released by the guards presumably a suicide
This guy goes around telling everyone his grand uncle was this wonderful person who wouldn't hurt a fly and his family have no idea why he took his own life he also takes every chance he gets to put down his cousin the victim at every opportunity telling everyone about his addiction problems and issues with the guards

I'm convinced he does all this purely for attention and it works because most of the people I work with lap up his BS even though he is constantly shown to be lying

Call him out so

Klonker · 01-01-2020 1:28pm

Jesus some of the posts here are horrible.

I know being accused of rape is a terrible thing to happen to someone but to compare it to actually being raped is bordering on insane.

As I said I know false accusations are very wrong but people on this thread are making it sound like they are happening everyday in this country and I'd be surprised if there are 5 a year. Its still wrong but its not the epidemic it's made to be here. Now I know there are a lot of cases where there is a dispute of facts by both parties, usually involving alcohol, but that's not a false acquisation, big difference.

I'm a man and far from a feminist but some of the attitudes here are horrible and I'm going generalise and take a guess here that most of the posters making these comments are single men lacking the social skills to talk to women without coming across creepy, driving the women away and giving them a hatred of women. There, I said it.

Silentcorner · 01-01-2020 2:43pm

Klonker wrote: »

Jesus some of the posts here are horrible.

I know being accused of rape is a terrible thing to happen to someone but to compare it to actually being raped is bordering on insane.

As I said I know false accusations are very wrong but people on this thread are making it sound like they are happening everyday in this country and I'd be surprised if there are 5 a year. Its still wrong but its not the epidemic it's made to be here. Now I know there are a lot of cases where there is a dispute of facts by both parties, usually involving alcohol, but that's not a false acquisation, big difference.

I'm a man and far from a feminist but some of the attitudes here are horrible and I'm going generalise and take a guess here that most of the posters making these comments are single men lacking the social skills to talk to women without coming across creepy, driving the women away and giving them a hatred of women. There, I said it.

How is it insane though?

How about we generalise and assume that all men are potential rapists...you can see why more and more men don't give a f##k anymore about generalisations made about men!!

Comparing a false accusation of rape to a situation where a man drags a woman down an alley and rapes her is insane.

But most rapes do not occur like that...we are now entering an era where having sex with a drunk women, can be interpreted as rape as she was too drunk to consent. If a woman wakes up and feels she was misled or influenced to have sex she has it in her control to accuse a man of one of the most serious crimes on the statute books.

Now, in that case, is comparing a false accusation to that kind of rape insane?

Because this issue is too important to have the likes of you shame men for having an opinion that you are uncomfortable with...

01-01-2020 3:24pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

having sex with a drunk women, can be interpreted as rape as she was too drunk to consent. .

Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.

Ironicname · 01-01-2020 3:51pm

bubblypop wrote:

Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.

So a man should never have sex with a woman who is over, say, the drink drive limit as it is rape?

Ok so.

Silentcorner · 01-01-2020 4:26pm

bubblypop wrote: »

Can be interpreted as rape? I'm not sure how else it could be interpreted, as, like you state above, she was too drunk to consent.

How is a man supposed to know if she is drunk...what is drunk, what if she has only had two drinks but three lines of coke...you can see the problem right?

We are not talking about a woman who is passed out here!

01-01-2020 4:28pm

Ironicname wrote: »

So a man should never have sex with a woman who is over, say, the drink drive limit as it is rape?

Ok so.

He said, the woman was too drunk to consent. So no ambiguity there?

01-01-2020 4:29pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

How is a man supposed to know if she is drunk...what is drunk, what if she has only had two drinks but three lines of coke...you can see the problem right?

We are not talking about a woman who is passed out here!

You said in your post that the woman was too drunk to consent.
So, there is no doubt in that case, right?

Silentcorner · 01-01-2020 4:31pm

bubblypop wrote: »

You said in your post that the woman was too drunk to consent.
So, there is no doubt in that case, right?

So you are going to ignore the two questions you have been asked?

Ironicname · 01-01-2020 4:31pm

bubblypop wrote:

He said, the woman was too drunk to consent. So no ambiguity there?

bubblypop wrote:

You said in your post that the woman was too drunk to consent. So, there is no doubt in that case, right?

Ok. So tell me exactly how drunk you need to be when your consent is out of your hands.

01-01-2020 4:33pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

So you are going to ignore the two questions you have been asked?

No, I posted a reply to your post. In it, you started the woman ' was too drunk to consent "

01-01-2020 4:33pm

Ironicname wrote: »

Ok. So tell me exactly how drunk you need to be when your consent is out of your hands.

Ask the poster who said the woman was too drunk to consent.

Silentcorner · 01-01-2020 4:34pm

bubblypop wrote: »

No, I posted a reply to your post. In it, you started the woman ' was too drunk to consent "

I am well aware of what I posted.

I am well aware of what you posted.

I am well aware that you have dodged two questions.

So, you can well see the difficulty...

Ironicname · 01-01-2020 4:37pm

bubblypop wrote:

Ask the poster who said the woman was too drunk to consent.

No I'm asking you. When do you think a woman cannot consent anymore? Should drunkenness, while still conscious, be grounds for calling sex rape? If so, what is the line?

01-01-2020 4:39pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

I am well aware of what I posted.

I am well aware of what you posted.

I am well aware that you have dodged two questions.

So, you can well see the difficulty...

No, I don't see any difficulty.
I would advise you that if you have any doubts about having sex with the drunk lady you are with, err on the side of caution & don't do it.
I'm going to guess that if you saw a guy attempting to take advantage of an extremely drunk girl, you would know something wasn't right?

Rape is not when a girl has regrets the next day. Too drunk to consent is obvious.
There was a case recently in the courts, where 2 men were convicted of raping a girl, at a party in leitrim. She was too drunk to consent.

01-01-2020 4:39pm

Ironicname wrote: »

No I'm asking you. When do you think a woman cannot consent anymore? Should drunkenness, while still conscious, be grounds for calling sex rape? If so, what is the line?

See above.

Silentcorner · 01-01-2020 4:45pm

bubblypop wrote: »

No, I don't see any difficulty.
I would advise you that if you have any doubts about having sex with the drunk lady you are with, err on the side of caution & don't do it.
I'm going to guess that if you saw a guy attempting to take advantage of an extremely drunk girl, you would know something wasn't right?

Rape is not when a girl has regrets the next day. Too drunk to consent is obvious.
There was a case recently in the courts, where 2 men were convicted of raping a girl, at a party in leitrim. She was too drunk to consent.

There you go making it personal...this is not about me or you...this is not about witnessing a guy "taking advantage" of a drunk girl, although it is usual for the likes of yourself to use emotive senario's to shame a person out of an opinion.

I am well able to make sure I don't put myself in harm's way.

When you consider that the one night stand culture typically involves drunk people, often involving drugs, where does that leave us?

So, please, answer the question you have being dodging, the most important question in this situation, how is a man to know how drunk a woman is?

Ironicname · 01-01-2020 4:45pm

bubblypop wrote:

Rape is not when a girl has regrets the next day. Too drunk to consent is obvious.

If it's so obvious, then please explain.

When exactly does someone turn from being capable to consent and unable to consent?

If it is a mitigating factor between rape and not rape, you would hope that you should be able to define something so obvious.

01-01-2020 4:50pm

Silentcorner wrote: »

l, although it is usual for the likes of yourself to use emotive senario's to shame a person out of an opinion.

Who's getting personal now? & what exactly is the 'likes of me'?

Like a said already, it's obvious when a female is too drunk to consent, & I'm sure you would also know if they were.

As stated, there is no such thing as 'regret rape'
Read the recent court case of the rape in leitrim., it's very interesting

Ironicname · 01-01-2020 4:50pm

bubblypop wrote:

Like a said already, it's obvious when a female is too drunk to consent, & I'm sure you would also know if they were.

No it isn't.

01-01-2020 4:51pm

Ironicname wrote: »

If it's so obvious, then please explain.

When exactly does someone turn from being capable to consent and unable to consent?

If it is a mitigating factor between rape and not rape, you would hope that you should be able to define something so obvious.

Well, I would hope that you would know where that line is. If not, you need to educate yourself.
Just being drunk doesn't mean a girl is raped.

False rape accusation...who would you believe?

Comments