Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Formerjudge:rape conviction rates will not improve until 'women stop getting so drunk

24567

Comments

  • #32
    hairyprincess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,300 ✭✭✭hairyprincess


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    It is not really taking into account being spiked though is it? where your memories and actions are seriously compromised as a result although the sentiment is correct sexual assault or rape is a complex thing when it comes to conviction.

    I thought about this and I think the only way to get around that would be witness statements, if there were any.

    I had my drink spiked years ago, my male friend knew I was acting strangely so he brought me home, thankfully. I shudder to think what could have happened otherwise. Although I think the guy who did it did it for the 'craic', I don't think he had any malicious intent to harm me. Very scary experience though.


  • #33
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    Defence Barrister. You were very drunk on the night.
    Witness. Yes. I was
    Defence Barrister. So it is possible that you gave consent but were too drunk to remember.
    Witness. That is possible, yes.

    End of story. Not guilty.
    And of course it is not only a male female issue. There have been cases of females being sexually assaulted by other females.

    Well no, it's not 'end of story.'

    If a woman is so drunk that she cannot give informed consent, legally that is rape.


  • #34
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    ruthloss wrote: »
    What if she only had one drink but some bas%ard slips a Pill in it?.

    Should she be believed in that circumstance?.

    If it can be proved that's what happened then of course she must be believed.

    But if she simply says she was blotto and blacked, that's where the grey area is.


  • #35
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Being drunk doesn't release anything other than what is already there, rape is not a sexual thing its a psychological need.

    That's correct with the larry murphy's of this world. But going out, getting locked and winding up in bed with some woman who once the cold sobering light of the morning after hits her, for whatever reason, regret, shame, catholic guilt, her husband off working the oil rigs, could be a million things, decides that she wouldn't have chosen to do such a thing - that's a different thing entirely. That's a drunken mistake. What it most certainly is not, is rape!

    Alcohol can change some people dramatically, and those people should not drink, it's up to them to look out for them, not up to everyone else. We all know people who become aggressive when drunk, those who become over emotional, wallflowers who go all extrovert. Similarly we all know people who are magically transformed into sluts by the addition of a couple of jaeger bombs. Just because you would not have done something sober, in no way means you didn't wholeheartedly commit to it drunk.
    There is a reason why you see all those girls flashing their tit's and hopping from bloke to bloke in cocktail bars on holidays and not so much in Tesco when you're doing your shopping of an average Thursday.


  • #36
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Dravokivich wrote: »
    The quote in Seamus' post referenced the defence needs to prove that the defendant was under the impression there was consent.

    I've no way of doing that. Honestly who does? It becomes speculation. It's not evidence.

    The accused must have honestly believed that there was consent but in criminal trials the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defence does not have to prove anything.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    green_screen wrote: »
    If a woman is so drunk that she cannot give informed consent, legally that is rape.
    OK, but at what point does alcohol remove the ability to make an informed choice? That's a hard one to call. Sure if she's blacked out unconscious it's an easy call.

    Plus what if the guy is equally drunk? There can be an element of "a drunk woman loses agency and responsibility for her actions, while drunk men must maintain agency and responsibility for their actions throughout". More they're expected to maintain agency and responsibility for her actions too.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #38
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    That's correct with the larry murphy's of this world. But going out, getting locked and winding up in bed with some woman who once the cold sobering light of the morning after hits her, for whatever reason, regret, shame, catholic guilt, her husband off working the oil rigs, could be a million things, decides that she wouldn't have chosen to do such a thing - that's a different thing entirely. That's a drunken mistake. What it most certainly is not, is rape!

    Alcohol can change some people dramatically, and those people should not drink, it's up to them to look out for them, not up to everyone else. We all know people who become aggressive when drunk, those who become over emotional, wallflowers who go all extrovert. Similarly we all know people who are magically transformed into sluts by the addition of a couple of jaeger bombs. Just because you would not have done something sober, in no way means you didn't wholeheartedly commit to it drunk.
    There is a reason why you see all those girls flashing their tit's and hopping from bloke to bloke in cocktail bars on holidays and not so much in Tesco when you're doing your shopping of an average Thursday .


    But it's cool if men do it? Why denounce only the woman as a slut?


  • #39
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Wibbs wrote: »
    OK, but at what point does alcohol remove the ability to make an informed choice? That's a hard one to call. Sure if she's blacked out unconscious it's an easy call.

    Plus what if the guy is equally drunk? There can be an element of "a drunk woman loses agency and responsibility for her actions, while drunk men must maintain agency and responsibility for their actions throughout". More they're expected to maintain agency and responsibility for her actions too.

    Absolutely, it's difficult to call. I'd imagine that if a woman can't remember whether or not she consented, then that's drunk enough to not give informed consent. Proving that she didn't actually remember is a problem though, because of course, women/men can always say that yhey don't remember just because they regret it.

    I'm pretty sure the law doesn't consider it rape if the man is ****-faced drunk, which is a disgrace because it should be the same for both genders.


  • #40
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    green_screen wrote: »
    But it's cool if men do it?
    It's really not.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #41
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    But she's not. She clearly states



    All she's saying is that we can't expect convictions when the best we can say is 'I remember nothing but I know I wouldn't have consented'.

    That makes for a very unsafe conviction which could easily, and rightly, be appealed.

    Bull****, she is saying don't get drunk because nobody will believe you.

    Same as years ago don't wear short dresses and mini skirts because if you do and you get raped its your own fault, a image a lot of people still think is true.

    Her comments don't take into account a wide range of circumstances that can contribute to someone being put in a vulnerable position.

    Just because this is a former judge does not mean the words that were used are gospel, they are populous meanderings.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    green_screen wrote: »
    But it's cool if men do it? Why denounce only the woman as a slut?

    I think you're reading something from your own imagination there. I didn't denounce anybody. I also didn't limit it to women. I said people.


  • #43
    Penny Tration
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,687 ✭✭✭✭Penny Tration


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It's really not.

    I know, but I was addressing the poster who spoke about women being sluts, and ignored their male counterpart :)


  • #44
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    That's correct with the larry murphy's of this world. But going out, getting locked and winding up in bed with some woman who once the cold sobering light of the morning after hits her, for whatever reason, regret, shame, catholic guilt, her husband off working the oil rigs, could be a million things, decides that she wouldn't have chosen to do such a thing - that's a different thing entirely. That's a drunken mistake. What it most certainly is not, is rape!

    Alcohol can change some people dramatically, and those people should not drink, it's up to them to look out for them, not up to everyone else. We all know people who become aggressive when drunk, those who become over emotional, wallflowers who go all extrovert. Similarly we all know people who are magically transformed into sluts by the addition of a couple of jaeger bombs. Just because you would not have done something sober, in no way means you didn't wholeheartedly commit to it drunk.
    There is a reason why you see all those girls flashing their tit's and hopping from bloke to bloke in cocktail bars on holidays and not so much in Tesco when you're doing your shopping of an average Thursday.

    Have you been to the one in the Square? :P


  • #45
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    hairyprincess wrote: »
    I thought about this and I think the only way to get around that would be witness statements, if there were any.

    I had my drink spiked years ago, my male friend knew I was acting strangely so he brought me home, thankfully. I shudder to think what could have happened otherwise. Although I think the guy who did it did it for the 'craic', I don't think he had any malicious intent to harm me. Very scary experience though.


    This judge would have been better of lobbying for a nation wide campaign of education about going home with drunk people and the effects it can have on both people.

    Rape is very rarely about feeding a sexual desire more a psychological one.


  • #46
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    green_screen wrote: »
    But it's cool if men do it? Why denounce only the woman as a slut?

    Any man flashing to women in a bar would promptly be kicked out. Not cool.


  • #47
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,387 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Bull****, she is saying don't get drunk because nobody will believe you.

    Same as years ago don't wear short dresses and mini skirts because if you do and you get raped its your own fault, a image a lot of people still think is true.
    It's not the same though. The one big obvious difference between short skirts or whatever and imbibing a mind altering drug is that one doesn't make a person more vulnerable, less able to give consent, more likely to engage in risky behaviour and clouds judgement.

    Many worry about Artificial Intelligence. I worry far more about Organic Idiocy.



  • #48
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,810 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    green_screen wrote: »
    I know, but I was addressing the poster who spoke about women being sluts, and ignored their male counterpart :)

    If you mean me, you couldn't be more wrong. There's nothing wrong in my book with being a slut, but just because someone might not be one sober, doesn't mean they aren't when drunk.
    It's a mood altering substance, that's kind of it's selling point, if you were the exact same drunk as you were sober, there would be no point in spending good money to get drunk now would there?


  • #49
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    Wibbs wrote: »
    It's not the same though. The one big obvious difference between short skirts or whatever and imbibing a mind altering drug is that one doesn't make a person more vulnerable, less able to give consent, more likely to engage in risky behaviour and clouds judgement.

    It is the seed of doubt I am talking about not that they are in anyway the same thing.

    It is giving freedom to the fact that if you are drunk and get raped then the likelihood of getting a conviction against the perpetrator is practically non existent so why bother?

    In other words a woman or man should not get drunk because if you do get sexually assaulted then the chances are no one will believe you, its a classic case of putting a band aid on a broken foot.


  • #50
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    AudreyHepburn wrote: »
    But she's not. She clearly states



    All she's saying is that we can't expect convictions when the best we can say is 'I remember nothing but I know I wouldn't have consented'.

    That makes for a very unsafe conviction which could easily, and rightly, be appealed.



    And plus a ****ing judge? of all people? they have shown over the years that even when getting a conviction against a rapist they have been treated very leniently in a lot of cases and in some cases are able to buy themselves out it all in front of a judge and in some cases get thanked for wearing condoms so please excuse me if I take what they say with a pinch of salt.


  • #51
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    It is the seed of doubt I am talking about not that they are in anyway the same thing.

    It is giving freedom to the fact that if you are drunk and get raped then the likelihood of getting a conviction against the perpetrator is practically non existent so why bother?

    In other words a woman or man should not get drunk because if you do get sexually assaulted then the chances are no one will believe you, its a classic case of putting a band aid on a broken foot.

    If someone gets drunk and encounters any crime, their chances of getting the perpetrator convicted are probably reduced. A person's explaination of what happened when they were drunk does not carry as much credibility as it would had they been sober. That's just a fact, whether unfair or otherwise.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    0O0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭0O0


    Wibbs wrote: »
    OK, but at what point does alcohol remove the ability to make an informed choice? That's a hard one to call. Sure if she's blacked out unconscious it's an easy call.

    Plus what if the guy is equally drunk? There can be an element of "a drunk woman loses agency and responsibility for her actions, while drunk men must maintain agency and responsibility for their actions throughout". More they're expected to maintain agency and responsibility for her actions too.

    If the guy is equally drunk i.e that blocked he can't make an informed decision - not just drunk but hammered... Then surely he wouldn't be able to 'perform'

    I agree women should be proactive in protecting themselves but not to the extent that, when they're vulnerable they can be taken advantage of & it's their own fault.


  • #53
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Bull****, she is saying don't get drunk because nobody will believe you.
    She's not saying don't get drunk, she's saying 'don't get so drunk that you have to get on the stand and say that you can't remember if you consented or not'.


  • #54
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    newport2 wrote: »
    If someone gets drunk and encounters any crime, their chances of getting the perpetrator convicted are probably reduced. People explaining what happened when they were drunk does not carry as much credibility as they would had they been sober. That's just a fact, whether unfair or otherwise.

    Yes 100% right and correct. What is not right is a judge putting the emphasis on drunk people, society needs education in these things and that comes from government, shouldn't the judges be lobbying them for more awareness to be made available to the general public? shouldn't health care be better funded for mental health instead of having to privately seek donations for it? shouldn't bars, night clubs etc be better regulated to deal with drunk people? shouldn't rape crisis centres be better funded and more public in dealing with the obvious break down in social decorum?


  • #55
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    kylith wrote: »
    She's not saying don't get drunk, she's saying 'don't get so drunk that you have to get on the stand and say that you can't remember if you consented or not'.


    Jesus and what is she had one drink and that drink was spiked and she couldn't remember anything?

    Defence solicitor: so you had drink taking?

    Victim: I drank one drink

    DS: so you were not sober.


  • #56
    0O0
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 79 ✭✭0O0


    kylith wrote: »
    She's not saying don't get drunk, she's saying 'don't get so drunk that you have to get on the stand and say that you can't remember if you consented or not'.

    No, it translates to most as "consume any amount of alcohol & people cannot be expected to believe you wholly, as your memory would not be as reliable as a sober persons"

    That element of tsk tsk who'll believe you now, will be extremely detrimental to sexual assault victims. Most rapes are by strangers & take place out of your home & I doubt the majority of the population doesn't have even one wee drink when going out to the cinema, dinner, theatre, obviously club etc etc.


  • #57
    El Guapo!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,450 ✭✭✭✭El Guapo!


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Jesus and what is she had one drink and that drink was spiked and she couldn't remember anything?

    Then that's a totally different situation to what the judge is referring to.


  • #58
    hairycakes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 103 ✭✭hairycakes


    mylefttesticle wrote: »
    Bull****, she is saying don't get drunk because nobody will believe you.

    Same as years ago don't wear short dresses and mini skirts because if you do and you get raped its your own fault, a image a lot of people still think is true.

    Her comments don't take into account a wide range of circumstances that can contribute to someone being put in a vulnerable position.

    Just because this is a former judge does not mean the words that were used are gospel, they are populous meanderings.

    No, what she is saying is that there won't be any increase of convictions for rape because too many people bringing forward cases were too drunk at the time to credibly say they did not give consent or even what happened. A jury will not be able to convict due to a victim who isn't even sure of what happened.

    I don't see the problem in her highlighting this as another reason people should be wary of their own personal protection. As if they should need another.


  • #59
    newport2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,642 ✭✭✭newport2


    0O0 wrote: »
    No, it translates to most as "consume any amount of alcohol & people cannot be expected to believe you wholly, as your memory would not be as reliable as a sober persons"

    Which applies to any crime you encounter. You won't be taken to be as reliable as a sober person when drunk.
    0O0 wrote: »
    That element of tsk tsk who'll believe you now, will be extremely detrimental to sexual assault victims. Most rapes are by strangers & take place out of your home & I doubt the majority of the population doesn't have even one wee drink when going out to the cinema, dinner, theatre, obviously club etc etc.

    Untrue

    Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
    73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
    38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.

    https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-offenders


  • #60
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,059 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    0O0 wrote: »
    Most rapes are by strangers
    Really?

    I thought that was a misconception.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    mylefttesticle
    Closed Accounts Posts: 305 ✭✭mylefttesticle


    hairycakes wrote: »
    No, what she is saying is that there won't be any increase of convictions for rape because too many people bringing forward cases were too drunk at the time to credibly say they did not give consent or even what happened. A jury will not be able to convict due to a victim who isn't even sure of what happened.

    I don't see the problem in her highlighting this as another reason people should be wary of their own personal protection. As if they should need another.

    because its not fixing anything, its giving another reason to potential victims not to seek justice and is giving the person who assaults a get out of jail card.


Advertisement
Advertisement