Film, Media & TV2 mins ago
This Is Not Consent!
I am shocked and disgusted by this especially as a woman did it to another woman.
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by woofgang. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
JJ109 - // The jurors will also look at character. How both parties dress will be a factor, whether accurate or not, as will the build of the man and general demeanour of both, whether they have tattoos and Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all! //
I absolutely disagree.
The entire premise of the justice system is that a verdict is reached on the basis of evidence presented, and only on evidence presented.
This works both for and against in all cases, but it is an essential aspect of delivering a fair trial.
Because a man is built a certain way - something which he cannot control, can have no bearing on the likelihood of him being a rapist, any more than the choice of underwear of the victim should be a factor on whether or not she was complicit in being sexually assaulted.
Similalry, a faultness charater sturdy of either accused or victim is not an accurate indication of the part either played in the case in which they are involved - and is therefore not considered by the jury.
Evidence is the only acceptable way of deciding guilt or innocence, and that is absolutely how it should be.
I absolutely disagree.
The entire premise of the justice system is that a verdict is reached on the basis of evidence presented, and only on evidence presented.
This works both for and against in all cases, but it is an essential aspect of delivering a fair trial.
Because a man is built a certain way - something which he cannot control, can have no bearing on the likelihood of him being a rapist, any more than the choice of underwear of the victim should be a factor on whether or not she was complicit in being sexually assaulted.
Similalry, a faultness charater sturdy of either accused or victim is not an accurate indication of the part either played in the case in which they are involved - and is therefore not considered by the jury.
Evidence is the only acceptable way of deciding guilt or innocence, and that is absolutely how it should be.
And what evidence is there in the example i have quoted?
Only testimony of the accused and the alleged victim.
How do you determine which is to be believed and which is a pack of lies?
But cases are determined from testimony - one person is believed and one isn't. Characterisation generally determines that
Only testimony of the accused and the alleged victim.
How do you determine which is to be believed and which is a pack of lies?
But cases are determined from testimony - one person is believed and one isn't. Characterisation generally determines that
JJ109 - // And what evidence is there in the example i have quoted?
Only testimony of the accused and the alleged victim.
How do you determine which is to be believed and which is a pack of lies? //
Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making.
Your apparent reference to the 'character' of the accused cannot, and should not, stand up - and here's why -
https:/
Only testimony of the accused and the alleged victim.
How do you determine which is to be believed and which is a pack of lies? //
Sorry, I don't understand the point you are making.
Your apparent reference to the 'character' of the accused cannot, and should not, stand up - and here's why -
https:/
Not quite, there is usually more evidence than that.
There are two mistakes here: firstly, it's worth pointing out that the complainant's character is not on trial and cannot, should not, and must not be held against them. A natural consequence of that would presumably be that, say, a serial drug addict could never expect to bring a successful rape accusation -- which is to say that the most vulnerable in society would be least protected.
Secondly, the simple fact of rape is that it boils down to the state of the victim's mind, and their intents, at the moment of sex. Naturally the circumstances leading up to it shape the story, but a victim can make a whole host of decisions that invite this sort of judgement and still be raped, because at the moment that truly matters they did not want sex, be that with the person accused specifically, or just in general.
The problem, then, with bringing the complainant's choice of underwear in is that it ignores this -- of course it does, because it's a deliberate and underhand tactic. Most defences of rape inevitably, and sadly, end up trying to paint the picture that the woman actually consented, and the only way defending counsels seem to know to do this is by painting the woman as a ***, who was absolutely gagging for it, and what man could fail to be tempted by such wiles?
It's unacceptable, it's pathetic, and it's demeaning to victims.
There are two mistakes here: firstly, it's worth pointing out that the complainant's character is not on trial and cannot, should not, and must not be held against them. A natural consequence of that would presumably be that, say, a serial drug addict could never expect to bring a successful rape accusation -- which is to say that the most vulnerable in society would be least protected.
Secondly, the simple fact of rape is that it boils down to the state of the victim's mind, and their intents, at the moment of sex. Naturally the circumstances leading up to it shape the story, but a victim can make a whole host of decisions that invite this sort of judgement and still be raped, because at the moment that truly matters they did not want sex, be that with the person accused specifically, or just in general.
The problem, then, with bringing the complainant's choice of underwear in is that it ignores this -- of course it does, because it's a deliberate and underhand tactic. Most defences of rape inevitably, and sadly, end up trying to paint the picture that the woman actually consented, and the only way defending counsels seem to know to do this is by painting the woman as a ***, who was absolutely gagging for it, and what man could fail to be tempted by such wiles?
It's unacceptable, it's pathetic, and it's demeaning to victims.
JJ109 - // In that case if it is his word against hers - you are saying he should be acquitted everytime - as there is nothing else to go on. All of a sudden no more rape trials...... //
Of course that is not what I am saying, and I can add little to Jim's excellent and comprehensive demolition of that argument, except to add -
If it came down to 'his word against hers ...' as you suggest, all rape trials would take as long as it takes the respective councils to ask -
To the defendant - did you do it? Answer - "No."
To the victim - did he do it? Answer - "Yes."
and the judge to say - "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, please retire to consider your verdict …"
which of course is utterly ludicrous!
Each side offers evidence, if you recall, that was the opening point in the post you are arguing -
// The entire premise of the justice system is that a verdict is reached on the basis of evidence presented, and only on evidence presented. //
So that is what actually takes up the time in the trial process, and it is on the evidence that the jury reaches a decision, and not on whether the victim looks like she may be a bit of a party animal, or the accused looks like he might like a bit of rough.
If the jury believes on balance that the accused is innocent, or guity, the advise as such.
That is how our justice system works.
Of course that is not what I am saying, and I can add little to Jim's excellent and comprehensive demolition of that argument, except to add -
If it came down to 'his word against hers ...' as you suggest, all rape trials would take as long as it takes the respective councils to ask -
To the defendant - did you do it? Answer - "No."
To the victim - did he do it? Answer - "Yes."
and the judge to say - "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, please retire to consider your verdict …"
which of course is utterly ludicrous!
Each side offers evidence, if you recall, that was the opening point in the post you are arguing -
// The entire premise of the justice system is that a verdict is reached on the basis of evidence presented, and only on evidence presented. //
So that is what actually takes up the time in the trial process, and it is on the evidence that the jury reaches a decision, and not on whether the victim looks like she may be a bit of a party animal, or the accused looks like he might like a bit of rough.
If the jury believes on balance that the accused is innocent, or guity, the advise as such.
That is how our justice system works.
DeskDiary - // Sigh
The judge felt it was relevant to the case.
Nome of knows whether it was or it wasn't. But the judge felt it was.
That is the end of it. //
You have made that point several times, and as far as I can see, no-one argued that last time you said it - so why are you raising it again?
And why is your post 'the end of it'?
(I think you'll find it's not the end of it!)
The judge felt it was relevant to the case.
Nome of knows whether it was or it wasn't. But the judge felt it was.
That is the end of it. //
You have made that point several times, and as far as I can see, no-one argued that last time you said it - so why are you raising it again?
And why is your post 'the end of it'?
(I think you'll find it's not the end of it!)
The trouble is Andy, I'm becoming flippant because I cant think of how else to frame the same response.
I have literally no idea whether the knickers are relevant to the case. BUT nobody on this thread knows whether they are relevant or not.
The judge felt they were relevant.
Some people don't like my responses because they feel I should automatically consider that anybody who raises dress as a defence is wrong. And actually I generally agree with them. But the trouble is these same people are wilfully ignoring the point that the judge is in a far better position to decide on what is and what is not relevant than EVERYBODY on this thread.
But that appears to count for nothing.
I have literally no idea whether the knickers are relevant to the case. BUT nobody on this thread knows whether they are relevant or not.
The judge felt they were relevant.
Some people don't like my responses because they feel I should automatically consider that anybody who raises dress as a defence is wrong. And actually I generally agree with them. But the trouble is these same people are wilfully ignoring the point that the judge is in a far better position to decide on what is and what is not relevant than EVERYBODY on this thread.
But that appears to count for nothing.
Andy Hughes - both sides offer evidence - exactly! So why do you ramble on otherwise?
The panties COULD be evidence, due their state and not appearance.
If they are not torn, then it is "more" likely but not definite that it is consensual. and if they are torn it is more likely but not definite that it is rape. Other factors could also explain the condition of the panties and it is up to the jury to decide which explanation is the better fix. "PERCEIVED" character of both parties is bound to influence this.
The panties COULD be evidence, due their state and not appearance.
If they are not torn, then it is "more" likely but not definite that it is consensual. and if they are torn it is more likely but not definite that it is rape. Other factors could also explain the condition of the panties and it is up to the jury to decide which explanation is the better fix. "PERCEIVED" character of both parties is bound to influence this.
Character is a factor in trials. A defendant of good character is normally entitled to a gc direction from the judge in his summing up A defendant of bad character can have his character before the jury in certain circumstances. One is that he besmirches the character of a pros witness and thus loses his shield.
