Irish rape trial

[K1Machine]

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".

[ECCOnoob]

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.

Edited November 17, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[El Cid]

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'.

 

Have you read information that leads you to doubt the courts verdict?

[tinfoilhat]

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.

 

But it was enough of a factor to be used in a closing argument.

[Halibut]

Have you read information that leads you to doubt the courts verdict?

 

Yes - the fact that the girls underwear was used to suggest that she consented.

[El Cid]

Yes - the fact that the girls underwear was used to suggest that she consented.

 

So if all of the posters on here understand that the underwear was not the main reason, surely the jurors can see the logic too?

[max]

The simple answer to those who think it's alright to judge a woman on the clothes she wears is to make the wearing of burkas compulsory. That way, men would be under no illusion that the woman was begging for it plus, they wouldn't know if they were chatting up a man or not.

[ECCOnoob]

But it was enough of a factor to be used in a closing argument.

 

So that means after hearing the defence's reasons for bringing it up and the rebuttal from the prosecution, the judge held that it had sufficient weight to be used as primary evidence. It was clearly a relevant issue.

 

Due process in action.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2018 at 14:21 ----------

 

The simple answer to those who think it's alright to judge a woman on the clothes she wears is to make the wearing of burkas compulsory. That way, men would be under no illusion that the woman was begging for it plus, they wouldn't know if they were chatting up a man or not.

 

We are not "judging a woman on the clothes she wears"

 

We are considering the intentions, choices, behaviour and actions of a young woman who is accusing a young man of a very serious crime.

Edited November 17, 2018 by ECCOnoob

[tinfoilhat]

So that means after hearing the defence's reasons for bringing it up and the rebuttal from the prosecution, the judge held that it had sufficient weight to be used as primary evidence. It was clearly a relevant issue.

 

Due process in action.

 

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

[Guest makapaka]

The simple answer to those who think it's alright to judge a woman on the clothes she wears is to make the wearing of burkas compulsory. That way, men would be under no illusion that the woman was begging for it plus, they wouldn't know if they were chatting up a man or not.

 

Who has judged a woman on the clothes she wears?