What is rape in Ireland?

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:37PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

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.

And when they do, as in this case, a surprising number of people decide to dismiss that, and to assume the girl, and whoever she saw in the hospital, don't know the difference between menstruation and physical injury.

Would that happen in any other crimes? "Ah sure that bang on your head probably happened when you slipped in the bath!"

runawaybishop · 27-02-2016 04:40PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Would that happen in any other crimes? "Ah sure that bang on your head probably happened when you slipped in the bath!"

Ehh, that's exactly what happens in other crimes.

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 04:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

No that wasn't the question. Look I'll paste it again.

midlandsmissus wrote: »

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

Is my answer to this question innacurate? No, it's not. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you don't know anything about me but based on my correct answer to whats an absolutely stupid question you've apparently drawn the conclusion that I'm for some reason intending to muddy the waters in an open and shut rape case. I'm not, and it's boards.ie so you can have a little look at my post history and confirm that actually I'm not some kind of rape apologist. Which you probably don't but sure the option is there if you do.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:46PM

runawaybishop wrote: »

Ehh, that's exactly what happens in other crimes.

Hang on, you're saying that when a victim has an injury that's been seen by a doctor, they still have to prove that it was caused by the assault?

How exactly would they do that, if the injury itself is not evidence?

MarkAnthony · 27-02-2016 04:47PM

osarusan wrote: »

Not guilty, rather than innocent.

That's not a comment on this case, but on the actual terms.

There is a difference, and there's a reason it is 'not guilty' rather than 'innocent'.

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?

It's for the prosecution to prove all elements of an offence. If a defence barrister has a good faith basis to point out to the jury that the victim/witness is lying then they should do so. They are perfectly right and free to point out that there is no evidence to corroborate the claims of a victim/witness also.

So yes, with a good faith basis, they should be attacking all elements of the prosecutions case. The jury then needs to make a decision on who to believe. It's an incredibly difficult thing to do in a rape case, and difficult for all involved.

If a jury returns a verdict of not guilty then the person is de facto innocent and always has been throughout the case.

Tasden · 27-02-2016 04:49PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Hang on, you're saying that when a victim has an injury that's been seen by a doctor, they still have to prove that it was caused by the assault?

How exactly would they do that, if the injury itself is not evidence?

What exactly did the doctor say about the injury? No link in op so don't know the details.

Rattser · 27-02-2016 04:50PM

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?

Their job is to get the accused off or to get them the shortest sentence possible. If they have the opportunity to discredit the victim, they will do the same in a violent assault case too. It's not pretty and you have to be a cold-blooded sort to succeed in that line of work.

MarkAnthony · 27-02-2016 04:52PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Hang on, you're saying that when a victim has an injury that's been seen by a doctor, they still have to prove that it was caused by the assault?

How exactly would they do that, if the injury itself is not evidence?

The Prosecution has to has to prove both the action and the mental state; not all injuries are assaults. If they were kinky sex and rugby would both me illegal.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 04:53PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

No that wasn't the question. Look I'll paste it again.

Is my answer to this question innacurate? No, it's not. I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you don't know anything about me but based on my correct answer to whats an absolutely stupid question you've apparently drawn the conclusion that I'm for some reason intending to muddy the waters in an open and shut rape case. I'm not, and it's boards.ie so you can have a little look at my post history and confirm that actually I'm not some kind of rape apologist. Which you probably don't but sure the option is there if you do.

Yes it is inaccurate in the context of this thread which was not about menstrual blood. so that wasn't what Midlandmissues was asking (unless you think she's stupid).

Now you can either say
- A) you got the wrong end of the stick, either because you didn't realize what the thread was about or else didn't know that menstrual blood and haemorrhagic blood have different characteristics, or you can say
-

you did know but you still wanted to introduce an irrelevance to this thread (with all that this implies).

You seem to be saying the latter. That's your problem not mine, but "I'm a pedant who answers questions without any reference to the context in which it's asked" is still a form of Answer B all the same.

Lisacatlover · 27-02-2016 04:54PM

There was a jury, who presumably saw and heard all the evidence, not just what was posted in the Irish Times article, and found him not guilty.

MarkAnthony · 27-02-2016 04:57PM

Rattser wrote: »

Their job is to get the accused off or to get them the shortest sentence possible. If they have the opportunity to discredit the victim, they will do the same in a violent assault case too. It's not pretty and you have to be a cold-blooded sort to succeed in that line of work.

I do love After Hours and the misconceptions it highlights.

Barristers assist the court and not the client directly. It's there jobs to present a robust prosecution case and a robust defence. The burden rests with the prosecution to prove the case. The accused is an innocent party who has had their life put on hold, in some cases for years, while this all goes on.

You have to be able to separate your personal views from your advocacy but must of the barristers I know who do defence work are far from cold blooded.

Penny Tration · 27-02-2016 05:00PM

With regards to the blood - let's be blunt here. I'm sure most of us have had rough sex, or the accidental thrusting too hard that led to a small tear for the woman. As a woman who's had it happen numerous times - small tears bleed a LOT. I've had a small tear from slightly too rough sex lead to blood on my underwear/skirt. It happens. It can of course be proof of rape but could also just be proof of rough sex - ie not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The confession - the interviewing officer shouted and cursed at him throughout and he confessed. Could have been an honest confession that he did indeed rape her, but because of the actions of the officer, it could also look like a coerced confession from a scared teenager - ie not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know if the guy is innocent, and the girl is clearly very hurt by what happened.

But it couldn't be proven. There was doubt because there were other believable explanations for the blood and the confession.

It's a sorry state of affairs, and the questions from the defending team being published could easily away another rape victim into never seeking justice, but they couldn't prove it was rape. If they convicted on a case that was not proven, it'd be the end of the 'innocent until proven guilty' aspect of our justice system.

I feel awfully sorry for the girl though. Whatever happened, she's suffering and I hope she's able to get help from the RCC and any other available resources.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:03PM

Tasden wrote: »

What exactly did the doctor say about the injury? No link in op so don't know the details.

I don't know. But it was admissible in court, therefore it was not menstrual blood. (Clearly a lot of male posters on this thread, given the level of confusion about this very easily identifiable physical difference. :rolleyes:)

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 05:03PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes it is inaccurate in the context of this thread which was not about menstrual blood. so that wasn't what Midlandmissues was asking (unless you think she's stupid).

Now you can either say
- A) you got the wrong end of the stick, either because you didn't realize what the thread was about or else didn't know that menstrual blood and haemorrhagic blood have different characteristics, or you can say
- you did know but you still wanted to introduce an irrelevance to this thread (with all that this implies).

You seem to be saying the latter. That's your problem not mine, but "I'm a pedant who answers questions without any reference to the context in which it's asked" is still a form of Answer B all the same.

How insistent you are that this exchange will have to be on your terms complete with answering for me in your own words is very arrogant.

It wasn't the context because there's no mention of either menstrual blood or injury in the article linked. The only thing it says is that she went to the hospital bleeding and that there was blood on ber clothes. Any other context one way or the other is posters bringing their biases to the thread. I'm not doing that at all, I'm merely answering one question correctly. The blanks you're filling in of your own accord say absolutely nothing about me.

ceadaoin. · 27-02-2016 05:04PM

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.

The woman was suffering from severe bleeding and went to the ER. Suffering from bleeding to that extent after sex is not normal and does indicate that force was used. I would take that as evidence. The prosecution alleged she made up the rape to explain a blood stain on her dress. How did the stain get there? I mean, really? That's ridiculous.

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.

I don't think she would be going to hospital because she got her period.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:06PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

With regards to the blood - let's be blunt here. I'm sure most of us have had rough sex, or the accidental thrusting too hard that led to a small tear for the woman. As a woman who's had it happen numerous times - small tears bleed a LOT. I've had a small tear from slightly too rough sex lead to blood on my underwear/skirt. It happens. It can of course be proof of rape but could also just be proof of rough sex - ie not proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The confession - the interviewing officer shouted and cursed at him throughout and he confessed. Could have been an honest confession that he did indeed rape her, but because of the actions of the officer, it could also look like a coerced confession from a scared teenager - ie not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

I don't know if the guy is innocent, and the girl is clearly very hurt by what happened.

But it couldn't be proven. There was doubt because there were other believable explanations for the blood and the confession.

It's a sorry state of affairs, and the questions from the defending team being published could easily away another rape victim into never seeking justice, but they couldn't prove it was rape. If they convicted on a case that was not proven, it'd be the end of the 'innocent until proven guilty' aspect of our justice system.

I feel awfully sorry for the girl though. Whatever happened, she's suffering and I hope she's able to get help from the RCC and any other available resources.

Maybe you should read the link. It was heavy bleeding and she went to A and E because of it. That's not rough sex, or else it's very very rough sex for an 18 year old in an alleyway - the sort that doesn't sound consensual in other words.

Unless you mean that was your fantasy at 18? 30 seconds of sex leading to a visit to A and E for heavy bleeding? It certainly wasn't mine.

Penny Tration · 27-02-2016 05:07PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

The woman was suffering from severe bleeding and went to the ER. Suffering from bleeding to that extent after sex is not normal and does indicate that force was used. I would take that as evidence. The prosecution alleged she made up the rape to explain a blood stain on her dress. How did the stain get there? I mean, really? That's ridiculous

The blood was caused by an injury which would indicate force was used. Force can be used during consensual rough sex, roleplay, sub/Dom play, rape fantasies, and so on. It's evidence, but not proof of rape.

I don't think she would be going to hospital because she got her period.

Yeah, saying it could be a period is bollocks. Period blood is a different colour, consistency and smell.

Penny Tration · 27-02-2016 05:10PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Maybe you should read the link. It was heavy bleeding and she went to A and E because of it. That's not rough sex, or else it's very very rough sex for an 18 year old in an alleyway - the sort that doesn't sound consensual in other words.

Unless you mean that was your fantasy at 18? 30 seconds of sex leading to a visit to A and E for heavy bleeding? It certainly wasn't mine.

I did read the article.

Why are you the judge of what kind of sex an 18 year old would have? Rough sex can cause bad bleeding, especially if the male is sexually inexperienced and doesn't know safe limits of what's rough and what's dangerous.

Who has a fantasy of heavy bleeding? Why would you imply I've said that was a fantasy?

I actually believe the girl, which is why I hope she gets help so she can get past it in time.

But ultimately, even heavy bleeding can be attributed to rough sex. I'm not saying she agreed to rough sex, I'm saying it's an alternative that can be offered in court, thereby making it very difficult to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt, because it automatically puts doubt into the jurors' heads.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:10PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

How insistent you are that this exchange will have to be on your terms complete with answering for me in your own words is very arrogant.

It wasn't the context because there's no mention of either menstrual blood or injury in the article linked. The only thing it says is that she went to the hospital bleeding and that there was blood on ber clothes. Any other context one way or the other is posters bringing their biases to the thread. I'm not doing that at all, I'm merely answering one question correctly. The blanks you're filling in of your own accord say absolutely nothing about me.

Sure. Have it your own way. You're only making yourself look worse by not knowing when to stop digging. :rolleyes:

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:17PM

Penny Tration wrote: »

I did read the article.

Why are you the judge of what kind of sex an 18 year old would have? Rough sex can cause bad bleeding, especially if the male is sexually inexperienced and doesn't know safe limits of what's rough and what's dangerous.

Who has a fantasy of heavy bleeding? Why would you imply I've said that was a fantasy?

I actually believe the girl, which is why I hope she gets help so she can get past it in time.

But ultimately, even heavy bleeding can be attributed to rough sex. I'm not saying she agreed to rough sex, I'm saying it's an alternative that can be offered in court, thereby making it very difficult to prove rape beyond reasonable doubt, because it automatically puts doubt into the jurors' heads.

I'm actually objecting to the claim that it might have been her period, more than anything else. I realize that isn't what you were claiming, but the second claim, that it might have been rough consensual sex (which was what I understand the defence were claiming) is IMO unbelievable too, for several reasons, including her undisputed evidence about where the sex took place (that she said "this is not going to happen here", which he didn't, afaiaa, deny.)

That being so, the fact that rough sex can, in some cases, lead to bleeding while true is just another excuse, afaict. Not saying you're necessarily trying to excuse him, but that's what happened all the same. Which is why I hate seeing that brought in as an explanation - because it is only barely more relevant here than the period blood howler.

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 05:18PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure. Have it your own way. You're only making yourself look worse by not knowing when to stop digging. :rolleyes:

You made your mind up about me by my first post on this thread so excuse me if I'm not too bothered by how much worse you think I look a few posts later. Anyone who's read a few of my posts on here knows that I'm not about what you've inferred about me and that's good enough for me.

Gatling · 27-02-2016 05:22PM

There was case a while back where a young girl was held down and raped by several lads ,
The victim said she was held down and forcibly raped ,she reported the attack to the gardai who when investigated found used condoms and Dna matching from the victim and attackers At the scene of the attack

At the trial the attackers were found not guilty of rape but guilty of defilement

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:24PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

You made your mind up about me by my first post on this thread so excuse me if I'm not too bothered by how much worse you think I look a few posts later. Anyone who's read a few of my posts on here knows that I'm not about what you've inferred about me and that's good enough for me.

I don't think I've said anything about you, only about what you're posting. Though the fact that you take disagreement so personally dos seem to say something about you - but that's a side issue.

On the actual point, maybe you need to take a step back, look at the thread title, and think about why on a thread about what constitutes rape, you would find yourself explaining to an apparently female poster that menstrual blood can make a mess during sex.

Did you think she might not know that?
Did it ever cross your mind that menstrual blood might be an irrelevance, not to mention a red herring here?

I mean, seriously like? :rolleyes:

MarkAnthony · 27-02-2016 05:25PM

Gatling wrote: »

There was case a while back where a young girl was held down and raped by several lads ,
The victim said she was held down and forcibly raped ,she reported the attack to the gardai who when investigated found used condoms and Dna matching from the victim and attackers At the scene of the attack

At the trial the attackers were found not guilty of rape but guilty of defilement

Some of the attackers.

Some were found guilty of rape, others rape could not be proved.

Without wanting to get too graphic, one doesn't need much of an imagination to understand the mechanics involved.

Tasden · 27-02-2016 05:29PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think I've said anything about you, only about what you're posting. Though the fact that you take disagreement so personally dos seem to say something about you - but that's a side issue.

On the actual point, maybe you need to take a step back, look at the thread title, and think about why on a thread about what constitutes rape, you would find yourself explaining to an apparently female poster that menstrual blood can make a mess during sex.

Did you think she might not know that?
Did it ever cross your mind that menstrual blood might be an irrelevance, not to mention a red herring here?

I mean, seriously like? :rolleyes:

For someone preaching about how a poster's comments say alot about them your posts seem a little unnecessarily aggressive

27-02-2016 05:32PM

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Sometimes they can be caught on CCTV and still have half the town come out and say the girl was asking for it as what happened in Kerry a while back.

It's true most most girls don't report rape or sexual assault because of the harrowing nature of it within itself and what can be the additional painful and frightening experience of going to court. Many here probably have relatives and friends who experienced such acts but you'll never know about it.

There are also cases where for what ever reason a consensual act can then be then claimed as rape. Again this just makes things harder for actual victims of rape and can ruin the guys life. Alcohol etc can be major factor here.

All in all it's an emotive subject and its one everyone should think about before typing as it could be your sister or brother we're talking about.

LDN_Irish · 27-02-2016 05:36PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think I've said anything about you, only about what you're posting. Though the fact that you take disagreement so personally dos seem to say something about you - but that's a side issue.

I didn't say you said anything about me, I said what you've inferred about me from my post. Namely, that I come on threads about rape and muddy the waters to excuse rapists. I don't take disagreement personally at all, l. I just don't want people to think I come on threads about rape to intentionally muddy the waters. It's ironic you mention me taking it personal and "what that says about me" , because this is you getting personal for the first time in our exchange and there's no need for it at all.

Anyway, there's nothing to be gained from me engaging further so bye.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:40PM

Tasden wrote: »

For someone preaching about how a poster's comments say alot about them your posts seem a little unnecessarily aggressive

I don't think it's aggressive, I think it's understandable to feel a little irritated that three pages on someone is still insisting that bringing in the subject of period blood is not an irrelevance on this thread. But perhaps I'm just not a very nice person.

And I'm not the one doing the preaching, the other poster decided that because I was disagreeing with the contents of his posts, I had some preconceived opinion of him. I find that attititide a bit odd, which was all I was saying. Hardly preaching.

volchitsa · 27-02-2016 05:41PM

LDN_Irish wrote: »

I didn't say you said anything about me, I said what you've inferred about me from my post. Namely, that I come on threads about rape and muddy the waters to excuse rapists. I don't take disagreement personally at all, l. I just don't want people to think I come on threads about rape to intentionally muddy the waters. It's ironic you mention me taking it personal and "what that says about me" , because this is you getting personal for the first time in our exchange and there's no need for it at all.

Anyway, there's nothing to be gained from me engaging further so bye.

So you've decided that I've inferred something about you without me even saying it??

tritium · 27-02-2016 05:49PM

Gatling wrote: »

There was case a while back where a young girl was held down and raped by several lads ,
The victim said she was held down and forcibly raped ,she reported the attack to the gardai who when investigated found used condoms and Dna matching from the victim and attackers At the scene of the attack

At the trial the attackers were found not guilty of rape but guilty of defilement

My understanding is there was a degree of legal technicality there based on my recollection of the thread about it....

What is rape in Ireland?

Comments