Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution.
Uh ... okay. And I presume you believe all rape victims should be required to do this. That'd certainly change things.
And if not, why not?
-
Oh, great. So we may as well not prosecute any gang rapes, then.
Well, unless they go on-line and confess (with some cellphone footage uploaded to You Tube as a chaser). Still, I'd like to know if the apparent "absolute certainty of conviction" threshold for prosecuting sex criminals in Preston is applied to other classes of offending.
No, I mean she should not lie about her fantasies. She should inform the police/prosecution.
Oy... Angus, I'll add to what Russell has already said better (and more calmly) than I could, with another wacky notion:
When you've just laid a criminal complaint of horrific and brutal sexual degradation (and are facing the prospect of an horribly prolonged trial process where you fully expect to have your character assassinated by the defence), your non-brutal, non-degrading sexual fantasies aren't exactly foremost in your mind.
That may be the hallmark of a lying whore to you; sounds more like an entirely rational human response to me.
-
Both of which are entirely unsupported.
a) That defence was always likely.
b) The notion exists.
Reasonable doubt is the standard.
Someone is offering testimony to incarcerate someone for 5 - 10 years, should be wholly truthful. If they can be demonstratably found to be less than wholly truthful on relevent facts, how credible is the rest of their testomy?
I think what's confusing you is that this is that rarely-seen thing, the funny funny rape joke, calling card of the Brave Speaker of Truth to Power. You have to listen quite hard because their call sounds a lot like that of the Greater Crested Fuckwad.
Leave aside that this is a rape case - you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot or don't want to say and I am not.
Greater Crested was it?
-
And those of you familiar with the Guardian Comment is Free section can take a moment to play a little imagination game. Which columnist was irate enough over this woman being considered unrape-able to write on it? Now, who picked this one?
Keep meaning to say: this defines the phrase "damning observation".
In the context of the other discussions we've been having about CiF columns, of course, it's not exactly a surprise. But, still.
-
you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot
You are, let me get this straight, not in favour of people not mentioning things they don't remember?
Yes, yes it was.
-
you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot
Yes? Now, do you expect Russell to have perfect recall of the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of words he's spoken, published and blogged under the Public Address banner over the last two decades? And if not, does that make him a liar?
Sorry, Angus, I'm usually reluctant to join a pile-on, but your idea of a "lie" is so broad I can imagine anyone who wouldn't be damned by it.
-
Someone is offering testimony to incarcerate someone for 5 - 10 years, should be wholly truthful. If they can be demonstratably found to be less than wholly truthful on relevent facts, how credible is the rest of their testomy?
Angus you seem to be edging somewhat over to an argument of prudence, which is more defensible. If the defence is likely to discover such online musings, then it could be prudent to outflank them.
But it's basically insane to declare that a rape complainant is morally obliged to volunteer to the defence any prior thought or utterance that could potentially be used to personally destroy them in court.
-
a) That defence was always likely.
b) The notion exists.
...because, what, you say so?
(I would also like to second Danielle's motion in re: Emma's awesomeness.)
-
But it's basically insane to declare that a rape complainant is morally obliged to volunteer to the defence any prior thought or utterance that could potentially be used to personally destroy them in court.
It's also an extraordinarily naive expectation on Angus' part, Russell. If you already expect to have your character assassinated by the defence, why are you going to hand them any more ammo?
-
Russell. If you already expect to have your character assassinated by the defence, why are you going to hand them any more ammo?
I could see it as a tactical move: we're not going to let the defence drop this on the jury: we'll do it first and put it in context before they get the chance. I imagine that happens sometimes.
-
You are, let me get this straight, not in favour of people not mentioning things they don't remember?
I didn't say people, I said the prosecution, the state. I am against the state being allowed to forget the truth. I am against the state being able to ignore the truth.
But it's basically insane to declare that a rape complainant is morally obliged to volunteer to the defence any prior thought or utterance that could potentially be used to personally destroy them in court.
However the state is morally obliged to provide credible witnesses, thus ruling out those who lie or appear to lie due to some innate forgetfulness. This woman's testimony was revealed as not credible, the state withdrew its case - good decision.
To remedy this state of affairs I suggest she should have provided police/prosecution with a truthful recounting of her relevent sexual interests, so that they could treat this in much the same way as they treat any date rape. Emma disagrees and thinks the prosecution should have plowed on regardless by presenting what they know to be an untruthful (or forgetful) witness as entirely credible.
-
I could see it as a tactical move: we're not going to let the defence drop this on the jury: we'll do it first and put it in context before they get the chance. I imagine that happens sometimes.
Indeed -- as Georgina Beyer said, in another context, she spilled all her own dirt because she wasn't going to give her opponents a chance to do it for her. My point is that when we live in a world where so many rape and abuse victims don't report their abusers because the prospect of being (figuratively) raped all over again during the trial is impossible to swallow, I just think Angus is being a wee bit naive.
Or to put it another way: I can respect the courage of women like Louise Nicholas, but I can't get too judgemental about abuse victims who can't follow suit.
-
Jesus Christ, Angus, you're giving me a stabby pain. As has been pointed out, more than once, there is more than one possibility:
1. She realised that the fantasies could cast her in a bad light and deliberately withheld information from the police.
2. She didn't think the information would be at all relevant to the case, so didn't bother to mention it. Or thought it was none of the cops' bloody business.
3. She may or may not have thought the information could be used against her, but was too embarrassed to mention it to the police.
4. She didn't even remember writing the fantasy down until being surprised by it in court.From what you're saying, you're assuming it was option 1., or as the argument has morphed slightly over time, perhaps option 2. It's just as likely - with the information we have - that it was one of the other two explanations as well.
If you're happy to tell the cops about your entire sexual fantasy life on the off-chance it may be relevant to some case, good luck to you. Me, I don't want them knocking on my door every time there is an assault with a knife, just because I've fantasised about using knives in the bedroom. And purchased them for the purpose. And even if I were arrested for a knife crime, I wouldn't dream of mentioning it to them - it wouldn't be relevant (unless I did have someone in the boudoir, and tripped over while holding a knife in my hand).
On another tangent, I just deleted some TMI about how I feel about the semantics of "rape" vs "sexual violation" in the law in NZ. I'm glad I wasn't "raped" due to my abusive step-father's choice of orifices - it makes all the difference. Not. FWIW, they should ditch that paragraph, and make all just sexual violation.
Getting back to Emma's post, that is an excellent sporking of the beliefs of some stupid feminists and their hatred of prostitution screwing up that whole quaint notion of "consent".
-
Emma disagrees and thinks the prosecution should have plowed on regardless by presenting what they know to be an untruthful (or forgetful) witness as entirely credible.
Your argument seems to keep coming back to the belief that the complainant was honour-bound to inform the defence that she was in fact a dirty whore.
-
And even if I were arrested for a knife crime, I wouldn't dream of mentioning it to them - it wouldn't be relevant (unless I did have someone in the boudoir, and tripped over while holding a knife in my hand).
I... have actually accidentally stabbed someone in the bedroom. I've also written sexual fiction involving cutting. Perhaps I should email everything I can think of to Angus, so he can turn it over to the police should I ever be charged with a crime. Oh, no, wait. Should I ever claim to be the victim of a crime.
I didn't say people, I said the prosecution, the state
No you didn't, Angus. Do yourself a favour and don't try to lie about things you said in print on the same page you said them. What you said was:
you are in favour of prosecution witnesses being allowed to omit relevant facts because they forgot or don't want to say and I am not.
Witnesses are, I believe, people. And this, I believe, makes you a liar and fundamentally unreliable.
-
Touche. I believe the key word in Angus's posts is "relevant". And his argument isn't.
-
Apropos of nothing, but bearing in mind PAS's deep love of neologism, a couple of days ago, I said on Twitter:
There needs to be a word for that thing that happens on the net where, in attempting to disagree with you, someone proves your point for you
My friend Fitz was wonderful enough to provide the perfect answer. It's called a pwn goal.
-
It's called a pwn goal
Genius.
-
deep love of neologism
there has to be a word for that..
-
I agree Tracy, a loaded yet redundant term that erodes the harm caused to others.
Dumb question time. Is a sexual assult anything of a sexual nature that that was not penatrative?
-
I'm trying to figure out how anything that happens before someone says "no" is relevant.
-
I have to say, can we think about the woman's state of mind here? Assuming I was just gang raped, when I got to the police for help, I'm not going to be thinking about telling my lawyer about my sexual fantasies.
And this is what I want to know, suppose I write down a violent sexual fantasy, does that mean I've just torpedoed any future defence if I become a victim of violent sexual crime?
I'm genuinely concerned about this. Think how many people discuss their sexuality online or in txt. It used to be phone calls which weren't recorded, now these recorded written conversations just became future evidence. The thought that expressing a specific sexual fantasy destroyed this woman's credibility (assuming the articles are correct) is terrifying.
I mean she was expressing a fantasy, yes? It wasn't as though she was detailing what was actually going to happen that day, she wasn't _planning_ groups sex, and even if she was planning it, she still has the right to change her mind and say no.
-
Witnesses are, I believe, people. And this, I believe, makes you a liar and fundamentally unreliable.
Wow - reductio ad absurdum. Yes, Emma "witnesses" are people.
My point is that "prosecution witnesses" are a smaller group governed by rules which I thought you were seriously debating the nature of. Prosecution witnesses are currently not allowed to lie or mislead the court or provide untruthful testimony, they should tell the truth. Someplaces even make them swear that they have to tell the whole truth. I think this system works well.
Occasionally however witnesses do behave in the ways you so clearly endorse. Do you remember the Peter Ellis trial, the one where he was convicted of sexually molesting all those children? I think it was a miscarriage of justice occured, brought about by the prosecution presenting as irdeemable fact that children can't lie about the big things. I don't believe he has a black penis and I don't think him guilty.
There is the possibility that these 6 men are innocent of rape and they deserve a fair trial, where the prosecution is confined to presenting credible evidence.
I can't say it much clearer than this - the state should be required to present a credible case and be prepared to acknowledge evidence that damages their case.
-
Angus, you seem to be missing the very basic point which others have explained eloquently - that fantasy is not relevant. It can hardly constitute "lying" to not mention it in a court process.
I understand your point about pragmatic decisions about prosecution, but this has not been described as a general matter of truthfulness, rather of a (false) equivalence between fantasy and actuality - which you're perpetuating here. Only tired stereotypes make that anything to do with credibility, and it seems they're alive and well on the English bench.
Unless you have some new evidence to present, I'd say you've said more than enough, wouldn't you?
-
I'm trying to figure out how anything that happens before someone says "no" is relevant.
If she said "no" a miscarriage of justice has occured. If she said "yes" a miscarriage of justice has been averted.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.