Girl allegedly raped on Brazilian Big Brother

Bullseye1 · 18-01-2012 02:06AM

Millicent wrote: »

It is the case here and it's a ridiculous law (nicknamed the Romeo and Juliet law). Apparently, the girl is the innocent who needs protecting in the eyes of the law, and the lad is a sex-hungry criminal. Absolutely horrible law.

That is a ridiculous law. Has it been tested in the European courts? Is this also the case in other Jurisdictions?

starbelgrade · 18-01-2012 02:07AM

Pissmire wrote: »

So we have a conflict of opinion and you want to shut me up?

I prefer the latter option where you shut up.

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:07AM

krudler wrote: »

doesnt the guy wind up on the sex offenders register as well but the girl doesnt? or is that something else

He can be prosecuted and face up to five years for defilement of a minor whereas a girl of the same age cannot. I can't find a definite source but I would assume for a conviction of that sort, registry on the sex offenders' list would be usual.

Fluorescence · 18-01-2012 02:10AM

Millicent wrote: »

It is the case here and it's a ridiculous law (nicknamed the Romeo and Juliet law). Apparently, the girl is the innocent who needs protecting in the eyes of the law, and the lad is a sex-hungry criminal. Absolutely horrible law.

That law isn't really there to condemn minors sleeping with each other though. It exists as a means of prosecuting an adult who sleeps with underage people. It's unfortunate that it can be used against underage boys however.

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:10AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

That is a ridiculous law. Has it been tested in the European courts? Is this also the case in other Jurisdictions?

It exists in other countries, but I'm not aware of a similar law within Europe. It has been challenged in Irish courts but not, AFAIK, in European court.

Dyr · 18-01-2012 02:10AM

Millicent wrote: »

Do you understand what prejudicial means? How do you think questioning a girl on whether she was a virgin, how many partners she has had, does she enjoy sex, how long has she been sexually active etc. etc. have any bearing on a rape case?

I understand what prejudicial is alright, its what people are at when they load an argument with spurious examples just like you did there. :pac:

So lets use our spurious examples then:

man meets woman in nightclub, both are drunk, both head back to his and intercourse occurs.

A few days later man gets his collar felt by gardai and man becomes the accused. The case is going to swing around the issue of consent and malice on the part of the victim due to an argument.

If you are his solicitor and you can produce 5 good witnesses who had the exact same experience in the last year with the victim bar the accusation of rape, would you want to use them? Would you not think it's valid that the jury should hear them?

midlandsmissus · 18-01-2012 02:10AM

Rape - always a hugely emotive topic.

Potential-Monke · 18-01-2012 02:11AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What "evidence" ?

Sorry, just going on what people who have seen the video have said. if it's completely obvious that there was sex taking place while she was unconsious then thats fantastic evidence, and if partnered with early evidence it would get a conviction. Now that i have seen that other people who have seen the video are of the opinion that not much happened it can change the evidence. Without seeing it, i don't know, i was making a (potentially wrong) assumption.

(This thread is hard to keep on top of at work!!! Too much quick replying!)

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:12AM

fluorescence wrote: »

That law isn't really there to condemn minors sleeping with each other though. It exists as a means of prosecuting an adult who sleeps with underage people. It's unfortunate that it can be used against underage boys however.

There have been trials of underage boys resulting from it though, and the wording seems to be deliberately open to allow for such prosecution. It needs revision to protect who it was supposed to protect, minors, not just minor girls.

Pissmire · 18-01-2012 02:12AM

starbelgrade wrote: »

I prefer the latter option where you shut up.

I'm sure I will, long before I get to 18,000+ posts.

Johro · 18-01-2012 02:12AM

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Just quit it. You're wrong and appear to be looking for an argument.

You claimed that I was putting some of the blame on the victim which I never did.

Now, you have a choice - admit that was misrepresentation and a made-up claim on your part, or get reported for the third time in the one thread for labouring the point despite being repeatedly corrected.

It's your call because I have better things to do than repeatedly correct you.

Tbh, I don't look for arguments, and maybe I read it wrong, but to me your post said you would never make excuses for rape, after which you said there was an onus on the person not to get comatose drunk. You seemed to be contradicting yourself.
Like I said, if I got it wrong, apologies, but that post is easily misread simply because you say a person should not put him/herself into that vulnerable situation. As for 'misrepresentation', 'made up claim', 'labouring the point', all accusations which make me think, enough of this crap.

Johro · 18-01-2012 02:15AM

krudler wrote: »

I didnt say it was in this case, she was asleep in a bed and the guy arrived in and did whatever it was that happened. I'm talking about cases where both people are too drunk to remember consent being an issue, hell I've had drunk sex, as have a lot of grown adults, luckily its never been a case where consent or lack thereof has ever been an issue but it'd make you wonder.

I know that, I was agreeing with ya.

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:15AM

Bambi wrote: »

I understand what prejudicial is alright, its what people are at when they load an argument with spurious examples just like you did there. :pac:

So lets use our spurious examples then:

man meets woman in nightclub, both are drunk, both head back to his and intercourse occurs.

A few days later man gets his collar felt by gardai and man becomes the accused. The case is going to swing around the issue of consent and malice on the part of the victim due to an argument.

If you are his solicitor and you can produce 5 good witnesses who had the exact same experience in the last year with the victim bar the accusation of rape, would you want to use them? Would you not think it's valid that the jury should hear them?

It's not a spurious argument; it is a regular feature of rape cases in Ireland. I might understand your argument if you said that it was permissible to allow previous claims of sexual assault to be permitted. (I don't personally agree but I see the reasoning.)

For what other reason can a defence counsel ask a woman about her virginity, number of sexual partners, years of sexual activity etc. etc. than to prejudice a jury against her by depicting her as promiscuous and "asking for it"?

Namlub · 18-01-2012 02:15AM

I knew the 'Erra she shouldn't have gotten so drunk/dressed like that/stayed so quiet, the poor guy couldn't control himself' comments were inevitable, but wow.

starbelgrade · 18-01-2012 02:16AM

Pissmire wrote: »

I'm sure I will, long before I get to 18,000+ posts.

Take your time.

Based on your posts in this thread I don't think anyone will be in any great hurry to read your next 17,974 posts.

midlandsmissus · 18-01-2012 02:21AM

Bambi wrote: »

I understand what prejudicial is alright, its what people are at when they load an argument with spurious examples just like you did there. :pac:

So lets use our spurious examples then:

man meets woman in nightclub, both are drunk, both head back to his and intercourse occurs.

A few days later man gets his collar felt by gardai and man becomes the accused. The case is going to swing around the issue of consent and malice on the part of the victim due to an argument.

If you are his solicitor and you can produce 5 good witnesses who had the exact same experience in the last year with the victim bar the accusation of rape, would you want to use them? Would you not think it's valid that the jury should hear them?

How awful. That's truly awful really. So if she had sex with five men before, this means she couldn't have been raped. How on earth does that even make any sense? And I want to ask, seeing as you seem to know the legal side of things: in all other crimes such as shoplifting for example is it not true that that the shoplifter's past convictions cannot be taken into account let alone his previous BEHAVIOUR, and yet here we have the VICTIM of a crime being hauled over the coals for her previous behaviour. Its an absolutely shocking system from the dark ages. Things have got to change!

Mr.Biscuits · 18-01-2012 02:23AM

Christ folks, it's Big Brother.

Makosi had a week long pregnancy scare after being fingered .. pinch of salt and all that.

Bullseye1 · 18-01-2012 02:24AM

There is no excuse for rape full stop.

However there is no excuse for getting blind drunk and not knowing what had happened the night before. People have been ostracized for getting behind the steering wheel of a car when drunk and rightly so. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and stop drinking to excess.

When you have victims of rape who where drunk the night of the crime and their inability to give a cohesive account of what happened leads to a case not being persued by the prosecution who is to blame? If the victim was not blind drunk then they give their case a much stronger chance of success.

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:27AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is no excuse for rape full stop.

However there is no excuse for getting blind drunk and not knowing what had happened the night before. People have been ostracized for getting behind the steering wheel of a car when drunk and rightly so. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and stop drinking to excess.

When you have victims of rape who where drunk the night of the crime and their inability to give a cohesive account of what happened leads to a case not being persued by the prosecution who is to blame? If the victim was not blind drunk then they give their case a much stronger chance of success.

Or, some predatory asshole knew that she would be too drunk to resist or remember much so he took advantage.

Logical Fallacy · 18-01-2012 02:28AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

How awful. That's truly awful really. So if she had sex with five men before, this means she couldn't have been raped. How on earth does that even make any sense? And I want to ask, seeing as you seem to know the legal side of things: in all other crimes such as shoplifting for example is it not true that that the shoplifter's past convictions cannot be taken into account let alone his previous BEHAVIOUR, and yet here we have the VICTIM of a crime being hauled over the coals for her previous behaviour. Its an absolutely shocking system from the dark ages. Things have got to change!

But what way to do you change them?

The majority of rape cases boil down to (i imagine) a case of the word of one person versus another.

Bullseye1 · 18-01-2012 02:29AM

Millicent wrote: »

Or, some predatory asshole knew that she would be too drunk to resist or remember much so he took advantage.

Absolutely. So why give them that opportunity. There will always be those type of people you need to protect yourself against them.

Chuck Stone · 18-01-2012 02:30AM

Johro wrote: »

Right. You did not say this?: 'I would NEVER even remotely excuse rape, but there is an onus on someone to have enough cop-on and self-respect not to get paralytic drunk and comatose.'

You see what's happening here Johro?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I would NEVER even remotely excuse rape, but there is an onus on someone to have enough cop-on and self-respect not to get paralytic drunk and comatose.

What Liam gets to do here ^^ is condemn both people who get pissed and rapists in the one post - the message within being that Liam always makes good and moral choices.

This being AH, I know a few people will probably twist that into excusing, but they are separate valid issues.

This is a cynical preemptive block against being queried on what you wrote - you wrote it - if people have questions about it then suck it up.

If they are two seperate and valid issues then don't they deserve to be, at the very least, in two separate sentences if not two separate posts?

Namlub · 18-01-2012 02:31AM

Bullseye1 wrote: »

There is no excuse for rape full stop.

However there is no excuse for getting blind drunk and not knowing what had happened the night before. People have been ostracized for getting behind the steering wheel of a car when drunk and rightly so. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and stop drinking to excess.

When you have victims of rape who where drunk the night of the crime and their inability to give a cohesive account of what happened leads to a case not being persued by the prosecution who is to blame? If the victim was not blind drunk then they give their case a much stronger chance of success.

If you're trying to make an analogy here, you failed. You are responsible if you get drunk and get behind the wheel of a car. You are not responsible if you get drunk and someone rapes you. See the difference?

Johro · 18-01-2012 02:32AM

People are always going to find themselves in situations where they might drink way too much, whether they do it regularly or once in a blue moon, but that hardly makes them, even partly, responsible for their own rape. I thought everyone would get that.

midlandsmissus · 18-01-2012 02:33AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But what way to do you change them?

The majority of rape cases boil down to (i imagine) a case of the word of one person versus another.

Why is her past behaviour brought up, is his past behaviour brought up (I actually don't know if some-one could answer)

Logical Fallacy · 18-01-2012 02:34AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is her past behaviour brought up, is his past behaviour brought up (I actually don't know if some-one could answer)

I would imagine so...I mean, surely an integral part of any investigation is to check the background of the accused?

midlandsmissus · 18-01-2012 02:39AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I would imagine so...I mean, surely an integral part of any investigation is to check the background of the accused?

I thought previous offences aren't allowed to be mentioned in court, it's a case by case basis, correct me if I'm wrong, anyone know for sure?

Millicent · 18-01-2012 02:39AM

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

But what way to do you change them?

The majority of rape cases boil down to (i imagine) a case of the word of one person versus another.

There are very good reasons for the laws around sexual history questioning in rape cases. I've read testaments that this sort of cross examination was as damaging as the rape itself. It has no bearing on whether someone was raped. Currently, they don't ask a rapist about when they lost their virginity, how many sexual partners they had etc.--why ask the victim?

amacachi · 18-01-2012 02:40AM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I thought previous offences aren't allowed to be mentioned in court, it's a case by case basis, correct me if I'm wrong, anyone know for sure?

Can't be said in court usually, cops and investigators seem to take it into account.

Johro · 18-01-2012 02:40AM

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You see what's happening here Johro?

What Liam gets to do here ^^ is condemn both people who get pissed and rapists in the one post - the message within being that Liam always makes good and moral choices.

This is a cynical preemptive block against being queried on what you wrote - you wrote it - if people have questions about it then suck it up.

If they are two seperate and valid issues then don't they deserve to be, at the very least, in two separate sentences if not two separate posts?

Exactly my point, I wrote three posts trying to point it out, this little exchange apparently warranted my being reported, twice, (though I heard nothing from moderators of this forum), and to be accused of 'looking for an argument'. Such is life.

Girl allegedly raped on Brazilian Big Brother

Comments