What is rape in Ireland?

armaghlad · 27-02-2016 01:58PM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Face palm

I think it's a reasonable statement. Palm away there.

Tipperary Fairy · 27-02-2016 02:00PM

armaghlad wrote: »

I think it's a reasonable statement. Palm away there.

Of course you think it's a reasonable statement, you're the one who said that it. Doesn't make it true though.

armaghlad · 27-02-2016 02:26PM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Of course you think it's a reasonable statement, you're the one who said that it. Doesn't make it true though.

Are you trying to tell me that someone who is innocent of a crime will take the hit on it all because Sergeant McGinley from Letterkenny garda station shouted at them in an interview?

josephryan1989 · 27-02-2016 03:36PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's stuff like this that deters rape victims from coming forward. After this guy admitted having sex with her without her consent she is still subjected to this rubbish

What's rubbish about it?

You cannot safely convict someone of a crime just because he confesses.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that first of all a crime was committed and second of all that he did do it.

The prosecution did neither.

There is a possibility the girl had consensual sex with the accused and the blood on her clothes led to her making up a rape story to cover up her embarrassment.

The accused was not convicted of rape because of insufficient evidence.

Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove and therefore there will always be low conviction rates however there cannot be unsafe convictions of men based on suspicion without evidence.

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 03:52PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

What's rubbish about it?

You cannot safely convict someone of a crime just because he confesses.
You have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that first of all a crime was committed and second of all that he did do it.

The prosecution did neither.

There is a possibility the girl had consensual sex with the accused and the blood on her clothes led to her making up a rape story to cover up her embarrassment.

The accused was not convicted of rape because of insufficient evidence.

Rape is a notoriously difficult crime to prove and therefore there will always be low conviction rates however there cannot be unsafe convictions of men based on suspicion without evidence.

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 27-02-2016 04:00PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

That's a defence lawyers job.You can't have someone making an accusation and then not having to go before a court, it would lead to a ridiculous situation where people could be accused and simply have to accept their fate without their accuser being challenged.

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 04:01PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

BalcombeSt4 · 27-02-2016 04:04PM

Wow, the guards interviewing the accused sound like complete morons who just f*cked the whole case up for the victim.

tritium · 27-02-2016 04:07PM

armaghlad wrote: »

Without any more detail it's a case of his word against hers. Guards seem to have messed things up. Unfortunate for the victim that even when he basically admits his guilt he still gets away with it. I don't care what any guard shouts at you, if you're innocent you'll not cave.

Not a comment in this case but your last statement is one of the dumbest things ive seen on after hours recently. Why its dumb is the reason that so much focus is put on how a confession is obtained...

Commenting on the case, I think (and not having been party to all the evidence) the judge himself made a very telling if sad statement at then end

.
Mr Justice Tony Hunt told the jury in such cases any verdict would be hurtful to someone. “I suspect that’s why I see what I see this morning,” he said, referring to the woman’s distressed state.
He said all rape trials were difficult but cases where “consensual things are alleged to have turned into something else are extraordinarily difficult to probe”.

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:07PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

He said in his police interview 'I'm sorry I tried to have sex with her without her consent'.
She had blood on her clothes.

You really think she had her period, really?!!! Honestly, sometimes I feel like banging my head of a brick wall with this bloody country!

She wept bitterly in court, I feel so sorry for this girl.

tritium · 27-02-2016 04:11PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.

There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

So you propose to change the burden of proof and innocent for until proven guilty requirements that form the basis of our legal system? Just for rape or for all crimes?

I assume all witnesses will now get a free pass on any critical cross examination of their testimony?

And as a matter of interest, if subjecting the alleged victim to this level of questioning is unfair in your view, do you also view the level of questioning the alleged attacker was subjected to as unfair?

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:12PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That's a defence lawyers job.You can't have someone making an accusation and then not having to go before a court, it would lead to a ridiculous situation where people could be accused and simply have to accept their fate without their accuser being challenged.

I disagree, there's always room for change.

It's a ludicrous and stone age defense. It's not even a good defense, using any good evidence or detective work!

Imagine you were beaten up by a man in an alley, and you had blood on your shirt, you bring him to court, and the defence says 'you claim to have beaten up because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your shirt'.

There's no evidence it came anywhere but from the defense lawyer's mind. 'You were embarrassed to have blood on your dress'. So how is something that is an opinion that he thought, allowed to be a defense?

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:14PM

tritium wrote: »

So you propose to change the burden of proof and innocent for until proven guilty requirements that form the basis of our legal system? Just for rape or for all crimes?

I assume all witnesses will now get a free pass on any critical cross examination of their testimony?

Critical cross examination = 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your dress'?????

Did he pick this out of thin air. In what sense whatsoever is this a critical cross examination? How is his opinion allowed in court?

josephryan1989 · 27-02-2016 04:15PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

A woman who is a virgin can bleed but not always.
Some women bleed after vigorous sex.
And of course some women are in the middle of their period.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to (1) prove a rape occurred (2) prove the accused committed the rape.

Bloody hell.

I think it's a very relevant discussion, and I'm glad some-one brought it up, about what the defence should be allowed to do in situations like this. They seem to nearly always resort to calling the accuser a liar.

The defendant has the right to the presumption of innocence.
The onus is on the prosecution to present the evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused is guilty.
The accuser of rape as a witness can expect to be cross examined in the witness stand and if her story is inconsistent the prosecution has the right to find the inconsistencies.
If this leads to the accused being acquitted then so be it.
That's how justice works.

How long has it been like this, and can any new guidelines be lobbied for to lessen the accuser's trauma in court.
There are stories of women committing suicide after defence lawyers spoke to them so badly in court, so I think this is a very relevant area for change.

The defense has no right to cross examine witnesses?
Should the cross examination stop just because the alleged victim turns on the tears when holes are torn in her story?

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:15PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I'd wager quite often. Seeing as most women bleed every month and this isn't always timed to the day and can happen at unexpected times. I don't usually wear clothes during sex though, but I've certainly had blood on me. I thought this had happened to most sexually active people at some stage.

You're confusing bleeding caused by injuries with menstrual blood. It would take a very special 18 year old to go to A and E with menstrual bleeding, never mind expect to use that in evidence later. No doctor would sign such a cert.

josephryan1989 · 27-02-2016 04:18PM

volchitsa wrote: »

You're confusing bleeding caused by injuries with menstrual blood. It would take a very special 18 year old to go to A and E with menstrual bleeding, never mind expect to use that in evidence later. No doctor would sign such a cert.

Blood on clothes proves nothing as it does not prove a rape has occurred. It may be suspicious but it doesn't prove rape conclusively and unless the rape is proven beyond reasonable doubt then no rape can be said to have occurred and the defendant walks.

josephryan1989 · 27-02-2016 04:21PM

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

Wow, the guards interviewing the accused sound like complete morons who just f*cked the whole case up for the victim.

What victim? Was she proven to be a victim of rape? Did a rape occur? Did the accused commit a rape or not? If you can't answer those questions conclusively then you cannot convict.

tritium · 27-02-2016 04:22PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Critical cross examination = 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your dress'?????

Did he pick this out of thin air. In what sense whatsoever is this a critical cross examination? How is his opinion allowed in court?

From reading the linked report you seem to have taken a very narrow piece of the reported cross examination and pit an even narrower interpretation on it. Rightly or wrongly (and neither of us I suspect have heard all the testimony) the crux of the cross examination seems to be that the accuser had attempted to withdraw the allegation later, and I can kind of see why a defence counsel would hone in on this

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:22PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

A woman who is a virgin can bleed but not always.
Some women bleed after vigorous sex.
And of course some women are in the middle of their period.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to (1) prove a rape occurred (2) prove the accused committed the rape.

The defendant has the right to the presumption of innocence.
The onus is on the prosecution to present the evidence that a crime has been committed and that the accused is guilty.
The accuser of rape as a witness can expect to be cross examined in the witness stand and if her story is inconsistent the prosecution has the right to find the inconsistencies.
If this leads to the accused being acquitted then so be it.
That's how justice works.

The defense has no right to cross examine witnesses?
Should the cross examination stop just because the alleged victim turns on the tears when holes are torn in her story?

Hi Joseph Ryan,

Can you explain, how the defense argument of, 'you decided to claim rape because you were embarrassed to have blood on your clothes', is anything but the defense lawyer's opinion?

This is not checking her story for discrepancies.
This is not challenging her recollection of events with evidence from any other source.
This is the defense lawyer's opinion that he has arrived at by no other way other than looking for a way to call her a liar.

So why is his subjective and biased opinion allowed in court? It is not backed u with any factual evidence.

Dirty Dingus McGee · 27-02-2016 04:24PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

I disagree, there's always room for change.

It's a ludicrous and stone age defense. It's not even a good defense, using any good evidence or detective work!

Imagine you were beaten up by a man in an alley, and you had blood on your shirt, you bring him to court, and the defence says 'you claim to have beaten up because you were embarrassed that you had blood on your shirt'.

There's no evidence it came anywhere but from the defense lawyer's mind. 'You were embarrassed to have blood on your dress'. So how is something that is an opinion that he thought, allowed to be a defense?

That is a defence lawyers job.

It may not be nice but it's their job to try and discredit the victims claims.

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 04:24PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

You really think she had her period, really?!!!

I don't have no opinion on whether she did or not.

volchitsa wrote: »

You're confusing bleeding caused by injuries with menstrual blood. It would take a very special 18 year old to go to A and E with menstrual bleeding, never mind expect to use that in evidence later. No doctor would sign such a cert.

I'm not confusing anything. I answered this question only.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Since when did consensual sex ever lead to blood on some-one's clothes - come on people!

The answer is very often. And I haven't offered an opinion on any other aspect of this because the only opinion I have is that it's hard to have an opinion based on the snippets we read in the media. Well, it's hard for me anyway.

sunshine and showers · 27-02-2016 04:26PM

Actually, you're all wrong. Well, one poster was half right.

"Rape" is a gender specific offence in Ireland. It can only be committed by a man against a woman. It is sexual intercourse without consent. Sexual intercourse is defined in Ireland as vaginally penetration by a penis. It doesn't matter how slight this penetration is. The alleged offender must have known the victim did not consent, or been reckless as to whether she did. Not objecting at the time/not trying to stop it does not equal consent. (Consent is a complicated area of law.) This all comes from the Criminal Law (Rape) Act 1981.

There is also the offence of "Rape under Section 4" which is governed by the Criminal Law (Rape) (Amendment) Act 1990. It is different to "rape" as discussed above. This is a gender neutral offence (ie women can commit it too). It covers pentration of the vagina with an object, and pentration of the mouth or anus by a penis (but not an object).

The maximum punishment for both "rape" and "rape under Section 4" is life imprisonment.

All other scenarios (eg digital penetration of vagina/anus, object penetration of the anus) are classed as sexual assaults.

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:26PM

tritium wrote: »

From reading the linked report you seem to have taken a very narrow piece of the reported cross examination and pit an even narrower interpretation on it. Rightly or wrongly (and neither of us I suspect have heard all the testimony) the crux of the cross examination seems to be that the accuser had attempted to withdraw the allegation later, and I can kind of see why a defence counsel would hone in on this

Her answer to this was she couldn't go through it with it the first time because she was scared of how formal and scary the process was getting, which would place her alongside 9/10 women who are afraid to bring their accusers to court, usually due to the awful treatment they know they will receive in court by the defense team, which happened here.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:26PM

josephryan1989 wrote: »

Blood on clothes proves nothing as it does not prove a rape has occurred. It may be suspicious but it doesn't prove rape conclusively and unless the rape is proven beyond reasonable doubt then no rape can be said to have occurred and the defendant walks.

As a matter of interest, what evidence do you think would be sufficient to prove rape then beyond reasonable doubt?

Other than a third party witness that is, or a dead woman, of course.

midlandsmissus · 27-02-2016 04:28PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

That is a defence lawyers job.

It may not be nice but it's their job to try and discredit the victims claims.

Why is it their job to discredit victims in rape cases only?

My question, in assault cases, GBH, are defence lawyers allowed to use a defense of 'you're a liar that's it', based on no evidence etc.

I'm genuinely asking, is this allowed with any other crime?

usernamegoes · 27-02-2016 04:30PM

28064212 wrote: »

Actual law: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1990/act/32/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

So it's not possible for a woman to rape a man. All other "combinations" (M->M, F->F, M->F) are possible.

In relation to the case referred to in the OP, a confession given by an 18 year old during an interview in which "a garda aggressively questioned and swore at the accused" is not proof beyond reasonable doubt. In a court of law, it was not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the accuser.

It doesn't say that the person raping has to have the penis. If a woman forces a man to penetrate her could this not be rape? What if a man forced a man to penetrate him? What is a female attacker forced another woman to penetrate the attacker with a handheld object?

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:32PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I don't have no opinion on whether she did or not.

I'm not confusing anything. I answered this question only.

The answer is very often. And I haven't offered an opinion on any other aspect of this because the only opinion I have is that it's hard to have an opinion based on the snippets we read in the media. Well, it's hard for me anyway.

You are confusing the two because the question (and the case) was not about menstrual blood, whereas your reply was.

Or if you aren't simply mistaken, then you must be doing it deliberately. Because menstrual blood was not relevant, and by creating that confusion about what happened, you are giving the accused a defence he did not have in real life. Why would you want to do that?

tritium · 27-02-2016 04:32PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Her answer to this was she couldn't go through it with it the first time because she was scared of how formal and scary the process was getting, which would place her alongside 9/10 women who are afraid to bring their accusers to court, usually due to the awful treatment they know they will receive in court by the defense team, which happened here.

And you would expect a defence counsel, with someone's life and future on the line, to just go "oh, right, only possible reason really, no further questions"?

Dirty Dingus McGee · 27-02-2016 04:33PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is it their job to discredit victims in rape cases only?

My question, in assault cases, GBH, are defence lawyers allowed to use a defense of 'you're a liar that's it', based on no evidence etc.

I'm genuinely asking, is this allowed with any other crime?

Because I would imagine that Rape is a very difficult crime to prove unlike a vicious assault.A lot of rape victims don't suffer any physical injuries because of it.

tritium · 27-02-2016 04:34PM

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Why is it their job to discredit victims in rape cases only?

My question, in assault cases, GBH, are defence lawyers allowed to use a defense of 'you're a liar that's it', based on no evidence etc.

I'm genuinely asking, is this allowed with any other crime?

Well, I've sat on a jury (violent non sexual crime) where they did exactly that. Didn't see much issue with it tbh, the witness stood their ground and the defence looked silly for it

What is rape in Ireland?

Comments