Irish rape trial

[Halibut 12]

I am not sure what your point is supposed to be.

 

We are talking about a court of law here. If you want to put it simply EVERYONE is being judged.

 

A defence lawyer is quite rightly entitled to act in the best interests of their client and defend.

 

They use all available evidence and raise all relevant arguments against the Girl's submissions to challenge her intentions on the night in question, her behaviour generally and seek to rebut and cast doubt on the very serious allegations of non-consent.

 

The prosecution are perfectly free to challenge the use of evidence they feel is not relevant and would unfairly lead a jury or form unjust sterotypes against her.

 

A judge makes the decision whether to admit the evidence, reduce the weight of it, and/or instruct the Jurors to discount it altogether.

 

In this particuar case the Judge chose not to. This would seemingly mean that upon hearing BOTH sides and making considerations they did think it was relevant to the particulars of the case.

 

That's a matter for the court and the court alone. None of us, without seeing the entire transcript of the hearing is in any position to make substantive comment either way.

 

This was not just about the underwear - although seemingly that's the only thing the protestors and government officials are latching onto.

 

As I said earlier, I feel very uncomfortable with Government interfering with judicial process.

 

There are 1001 prejudicial opinions that a lay public juror could potentially make in their heads, but its for the court to direct them otherwise. Do we really want a procedure where we repeatedly redact factual evidence about a suspect's or victim's apperance or clothing or location or residence or background just because of the risk of a sterotype being formed in a juror's head? Where does it end.

 

Are all tracksuited and baseball cap wearers lowlife chavs? Are all S5 and S3 postcode residents knife weilding drug dealers? Are all old grannies and gentle flat cap blokes sweet and innoncent who could never commit a crime? Are all suit and tie businessmen the highest respectful members of society? Are all women who choose to wear provocative clothing automatically victims of rape and not capable of lying? Are all single gym-loving testosterone filled men sexual predetors just hunting round for their next victim?

 

Its a slippery slope.

 

If you think a woman's choice of underwear should be admissible in evidence, do you also think a woman's sexual history is fair game?

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

If you think a woman's choice of underwear should be admissible in evidence, do you also think a woman's sexual history is fair game?

 

If a JUDGE decided it was reasonable evidence to be considered when determining allegations of rape against a man then Yes it should be.

 

Its not "fair game" its evidence in court being used in determination of a serious sex crime allegation.

 

Has the woman done something like this before, does she have a history of casual sex with random men, has she being involved in sexual trade, is there a history of intent to attract men and intent to have sexual relations with them....

 

You dont think a defence should be able to consider such things when defending rape allegations?? Out of interest, what do you think the Defence counsel should be entitled to probe and use as evidence to challenge a "victim's" allegations?

Edited November 18, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Halibut 12]

 

Has the woman done something like this before, does she have a history of casual sex with random men, has she being involved in sexual trade, is there a history of intent to attract men and intent to have sexual relations with them....

 

 

How are these things relevant?

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

Well, I am not a criminal lawyer but perhaps it might cast some doubt on a woman's submissions that the sex was "not consenual"'.

 

Now I ask again, if clothing and behaviour seemingly irrelevant and untouchable issues - what exactly do you think a Defence counsel would be able to investigate and challenge?

 

Do you think that such a restriction on the rules of evidence outside of any court powers is fair and just?

[tinfoilhat 11]

Well, I am not a criminal lawyer but perhaps it might cast some doubt on a woman's submissions that the sex was "not consenual"'.

 

 

By that definition it's arguably impossible to rape a prostitute then?

[ECCOnoob 1,016]

I didn't say proves 100% categorically. I said casts doubt.

 

That's something a Defence is entitled to do. A JUDGE decides the weight of it and JURY decides the verdict.

 

The point I thought I was clearly making, its that it should be for the Court to decide what is and isnt relevant evidence not the governemnt or the population.

 

It should be for the Court, being the only ones with the full facts from both parties, to decide what weight any such evidence has.

 

Nobody has yet answered my own questions. IF this starts a trend of redactions and withholding facts just to avoid potential prejudical stereotypes, what else is going to have to be avoided. Race, income, nationality, residency, marital status, acquaintences...??

 

Justice is supposed to be impartial and evidence wholly transparent.

Edited November 18, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[Top Cats Hat 10]

Genuine question, in 2018 are rape victims underwear (design, colour or lack of) being used in closing arguments in England?

 

I doubt it.

 

A rape trial is ultimately about whether consent is given. Trying to point out that if someone is more sexually active or wears what some consider 'sexually provoactive' items of clothing, they are more likely to give consent is factually untrue and therefore irrelevant to the case and any judge doing their job should rule such evidence or discussion inadmissible.

[carosio 185]

I doubt it.

 

A rape trial is ultimately about whether consent is given.

 

And whether there was a genuine belief that consent was given?

[Top Cats Hat 10]

And whether there was a genuine belief that consent was given?

 

And anyone who tries to argue in 2018 that the fact that the victim was wearing 'sexy knickers' is reasonable grounds for their client to believe she gave her consent to sex should be admonished by the judge and it certainly should play no part in the summing up which is effectively the judge outlining both sides' arguments.

[El Cid 210]

I haven't seen any specific examples on this thread, but women are constantly judged on what they wear. Ask any women you know.

 

If, as a man, I told you lot that I wore big dark green knickers you would all judge

[Doubtful 0]

Its a  gamble. 

To women on the jury the suggestion alone could **** them off and put their backs up enough to doubt the validity of other points made by the the defence.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2018 by Doubtful