Irish rape trial

I dont know if this man did rape the teenager but to suggest that wearing provocative underwear is in some way consent is outrageous in this day and age.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46207304

Your thoughts?

I agree. Totally appalling.

I dont know if this man did rape the teenager but to suggest that wearing provocative underwear is in some way consent is outrageous in this day and age.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46207304

 

Your thoughts?

Did you read this bit - "The 27-year-old man was found not guilty of rape"?

Did you read this bit - "The 27-year-old man was found not guilty of rape"?

Doesn't mean he didn't do it; the underwear and the comments made about it may have been enough to convince the jury that the victim 'wanted it'.

Disgusting victim shaming. No place in modern society.

That's Ireland for you still holding onto outdated religious ideas

That's Ireland for you still holding onto outdated religious ideas

The defence lawyer said it - not Ireland.

---------- Post added 17-11-2018 at 11:11 ----------

Doesn't mean he didn't do it; the underwear and the comments made about it may have been enough to convince the jury that the victim 'wanted it'.

If you go down the route that anyone charged with rape is guilty regardless of the findings of the court you are on very dodgy ground.

 

If you go down the route that anyone charged with rape is guilty regardless of the findings of the court you are on very dodgy ground.

I don't see anyone making that connection. The debate is around whether introduction of the woman's underwear as evidence is OK.

Do you agree that women's underwear should not be used as evidence in a rape trial?

I don't see anyone making that connection. The debate is around whether introduction of the woman's underwear as evidence is OK.

 

Do you agree that women's underwear should not be used as evidence in a rape trial?

Apart from post 4 which makes that exact connection when it says “doesn’t mean he didn’t do it”

He was found not guilty.

As there has been due judicial process and a verdit of not guilty the "victim" in this matter was the 27 year old man accused of rape.

I dont think any lawyer is saying if your wear such underwear that is consent. However, we are talking about a defence argument against allegations of a very serious crime. It is certainly an arguable point and should be.

17 year old girl meets guy and ends up in someone's bedroom. Sexual intercorse takes place and they claim it was not consented to and they were raped.

Now, what if that 17 year old girl was evidenced to be wearing Ann Summers crotchless knickers and a peekaboo bra. What if perhaps they were were wearing a dominatrix outfit and whip under their clothing.

Should the court be debarred from raising these key facts? Should they be discounted as evidence when challenging whether a girl went out with an intent of finding a man to have sex with? Should they be discounted as evidence when the defence attempt to cast doubt on the the Girl's non-consensual allegations?

Its a slippery slope for government to edit what a court advocate can and cannot use as evidence when presenting their case. That's what the prosecution counsel and judge is there for. THEY should have the choice over whether something is relevant.

Did you read this bit - "The 27-year-old man was found not guilty of rape"?

I did read it and I know he was found not guilty.

My worry is that a 17 year old girls underwear was used as part of the proceedings. This underwear in a place like Ireland (a quite conservative country) may have been seen by some of the jury as "slutty or provocative" and so the girl may have been looked at as promiscuous and may have not got a 100% fair trial.

Dont worry, Im not saying the man DID do it, im just saying that using her underwear in the defense could have prejudiced some of the jury against this girl who may have been seen as a whore who "deserved it" or was "gagging for it".

Maybe she was? We dont know that. We weren't there.

That's the whole point of judicial process. The Prosecution raising their evidence and arguments and the Defence raisng their evidence and arguments.

Its then for the Judge to control how the evidence is presented and the weight of the same and for the Jury to make a decison once they have all the facts and evidence.

Using your own analogy, if Ireland is this conservative country whose Jurors are likely to be prejudicial by the sight of provocative underwear then why shouldn't a defence counsel use it to cast doubt and raise argument on what an Irish girl's true intentions were when they themselves chose to wear such underwear??

A court of law is not all one sided.

Can we also not completley ignore the obvious fact that the underwear alone would not have been the sole evidence factor in which the not guilty verdict was reached.