Up Front: All Together Now
291 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Newer→ Last
-
But as a legal matter, it may be relevant in determining whether you believe the person actually said "no". Or even whether you believe it is reasonably possible the person didn't say "no".
Quite. That's what happens in courtrooms. Judges and juries do actually weigh the credibility of those they hear from -- that's the point of a trial -- and ought to be able to do so without veering in dirty-whore territory.
There are also clearly times when it's appropriate for the prosecution to withdraw a rape charge. As I've noted here before, that appears to be what happened in the "prominent entertainer" case, where the police agreed to drop very a serious charge after security camera evidence showed the alleged offence could not have taken place.
-
If you conclude in a rape case that it is highly probably that a complainant withdrew consent, and made this known, the charge hasn't been proved and the person is not guilty.
I had to read this three times to try and make sense of it.
Do you mean "highly probable" isn't good enough, it needs to be be "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because otherwise if you withdraw consent, and make that known, the charge would be proven, surely?
-
Do you mean "highly probable" isn't good enough, it needs to be be "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Yes.
-
Cheers.
-
-
That is an extremely confusing article.
-
@Megan - we all do our bit, eh, my love. Sometimes, it's necessary to argue our corner even when people don't get it, nor do they wish to get it.
-
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.
Classic.another victory for good sense. I strongly support team non-Angus.
"prominent entertainer" case, where the police agreed to drop very a serious charge after security camera evidence showed the alleged offence could not have taken place.
tangential, but the thing that never quite sat with me on that case was that the offense was deemed serious enough to the point that it would affect the entertainer's livelihood and thus necessitated permanent name suppression, and yet, not quite serious to incur any significant conviction. All dealt by a straight faced judge in a country with a population of 4 million who do have internet access. I try not to think about it too much. It's baffling.
-
Dammit Angus, don't go m.i.a. NOW!!!!!!!! just when it was getting really intresting... muttermutter Leave Us Hanging Out To Dry muttermutter
-
Basically, you're conducting this discussion by repeated your initial assertion that she's a dirty lying whore, albeit rephrased, but not responding to any criticism of that position.
No, Emma i am focusing on lying being the most important facet. The importance of truth in the judicial process. The "dirty whore" aspect I am not so interested in, because compared to the importance of truth it is trivial.
If you are a witness for the prosecution it is important that you are not caught lying. Or caught appearing to lie, because you (innocently) forgot the things you said where those forgetful moments happen to (by sheer fluke coincidence) match up to huge screeds of the defence case. If you have chosen to lie to the police & the prosecution and maintain that lie for six months (as they are bound to have asked you more than a couple of times, because like Russell says it prudent of them to do so) and factual testimony emerges that shows you to have lied to the police & the prosecution, the chance of you being believed by the police & the prosecution is greatly reduced. You are caught lying, means you lose credibility.
So either don't lie or if you do happen to give some less than wholely truthful answers use the 6 months to voluntarily modify your testimony to closer resemble the truth.
Eventually it comes down to who is more believable to the court, someone who lies to them or someone who sticks much closer to the truth.
She wrote these things on the internet and since one of the accused knows her web persona it isn't going to take rocket science to find what she wrote. She is going to be called a "dirty lying whore", but it is only through her attempts to conceal this info that the defence can provide proof of their assertion that she is a "dirty lying whore".
-
You are caught lying, means you lose credibility.
I was under the impression that what destroyed her credibility and why the judge ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts was because they had evidence of her (supposedly) wanting group sex with strangers; NOT that she was lying by omission and thus was untrustworthy.
-
Angus, can you please tell us all what sentence you imagine her saying that would be the "lie".
Eg: "I drive responsibly" or " I've never played hockey". Something where the answer is either true or false.
-
Let’s pause for a moment and examine this in a different light. Let’s say I’m chatting to a friend and suggest that I might be open to having sex with an Irish man – Aidan Turner, for instance. Later, I claim to have been raped by someone from Brixton. Before the trial, those chat logs appear, in which I have said that perhaps, if confronted with Aidan Turner covered in aerosol chocolate mousse, my morals might go out the window. My credibility is destroyed, and I don’t get a trial.
Since we are doing hypotheticals suppose a young lady lived in rural 1940s Alabama and she confided to her best friend that she had a fantasy of a fling with a black man. (We all know the narrative don't we, but lets continue anyway.) One day the local drunk stumbles upon the same young lady and a black man who she screams is raping her. The drunk saves her from rape, a real hero. Surprisingly a lynching doesn't take place and they go to trial. Now here she plays a good christian white girl who would never consider such a thing as consensually embracing a black man. The friend takes the shared secret fantasy to her grave. The trial is swift and the rapist is found guilty, justice is efficiently done.
Now Emma might say that this is a marvellous outcome, the fantasy (and after all it was only a ever fantasy) was completely irrelevent to the trial and young lady's testimony to her virtue can not be questioned. Emma would be most concerned should the victim ever be called a "dirty lying whore", that being the most important outcome of this or any other trial.
Me, though I'd identify other outcomes as being more important. And I'd dare to suggest if the young lady lies about the fantasy, she might be lying about other aspects to the case.
-
I was under the impression that what destroyed her credibility and why the judge ordered the jury to return not guilty verdicts was because they had evidence of her (supposedly) wanting group sex with strangers; NOT that she was lying by omission and thus was untrustworthy.
Actual quote from the prosecutor:
"This material does paint a wholly different light as far as this case is concerned. We take the view that it would not be appropriate to offer any evidence."
"Wholly different" from what? The victim is the prosecutions lead witness and is the author. How could they possibly find the case subject to a "different light", unless she has been lying by omission for 6 months?
-
Answer the question.
-
Angus, can you please tell us all what sentence you imagine her saying that would be the "lie".
Lies of omission are things unsaid, so no not able to.
-
And I am really not that imaginative, but she would have been told that the defence is likely to digging into her past and be asked to provide a heads up on anything that might be problematic to the prosecution. An incomplete answer to such an enquiry would be a lie of omission.
-
the most important outcome of this or any other trial.
I can't speak for Emma, but I think the most important part of a trial is justice being done.
Fantasy is unreal, it is imaginative, it is where we can explore aspects of our self that we wouldn't in real experiences. There isn't justice in determining consent through a person's sharing of an imaginative situation.
As Isabel said, consent isn't a one time deal; after someone says 'no' it's rape to continue no matter what was said prior to the 'no'. Your hypothetical example provides NO relationship between the fantasy of sex and the actuality of rape.
The question is not "Did she deep down want this sexual encounter?", it is "Did she provide consent for this sexual encounter?" How does having a fantasy give consent? I don't think it does.
-
she would have been told that the defence is likely to digging into her past and be asked to provide a heads up on anything that might be problematic to the prosecution.
Okay, fair enough, BUT... why should an expression of _fantasy_ (something unreal and imaginative) be problematic in the first place? If I was raped I would have never considered that previous discussion of my fantasies would be relevant to me not giving my consent and being forced into having sex.
What this case says is that if you told someone you think about a certain sexual act you've just given consent for that act to happen, even if you change your mind. Pretty much we've got the "She asked for it 'cos she talked dirty."
God help phone sex workers.
-
Lies of omission are things unsaid, so no not able to.
Angus, you know you're lying to yourself if not us. You are so adamant about this that you clearly have a conversation in your head with a constructed statement that you're evaluating as positively untrue, not just some vague incompleteness.
-
Actually, I'd settle for the positive statement rather than the 'lie'. Probably something like Tess's offering, isn't it?
"She asked for it 'cos she talked dirty."
-
@Tess and Sacha:
it seems to me that Angus has no interest whatsoever in the issue of consent. the only issue to be considered, it seems, is prosecution witness credibility. kind of a funny position to take seeing that no trial took place (funny ha ha! i think not). anyway, in his un-humble opinion, the main prosecution witness (the alleged victim) in this case destroyed her own credibility to an irreparable degree by not disclosing the information regarding what she wrote in chatroom comments re fantasies/Irishmen, etc. this "lying by omission" is the beginning and end of it, you see. no fair trial could possibly take place after such behaviour. he has restated his argument so many times now, i think we get the drift. here is the classic example:
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.lots of straw men doing press ups, and blather about presenting credible evidence, but no, he never actually says anything to convince anyone that this case doesn't warrant a trial. anyway, this is just a long-winded way of saying that Angus is "argumentally challenged" and the input on your side is not going to change the output on his side. no can do. and every time i read another one of his non-arguments, my dental bill is growing so please, don't feed the...whoops, i think i ignored my own advice. grrrr.
-
It seems a bit remiss to me that this has got to page six and no one, that I can see, has linked to the support services in case a reader needs some genuine help, instead of this indiscriminant blather.
You can find Rape Crisis online here, and the legislation which outlines the actual definition of consent from the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 is here. It is quite explicit on a number of areas covered above, including unconsciousness. There was also, although no doubt everyone just ignored it, quite a lot of discussion on consent in the report I posted earlier.
Emma, I trust you've got your rage on now. I'm not sure how any of you think this is going to help, or constitutes 'doing your bit', but carry on.
-
Since we are doing hypotheticals suppose a young lady lived in rural 1940s Alabama and she confided to her best friend that she had a fantasy of a fling with a black man. (We all know the narrative don't we, but lets continue anyway.) One day the local drunk stumbles upon the same young lady and a black man who she screams is raping her.
Angus. First of all we don't live in 1940's rural Alabama. We're lucky enough to live in 2010, where women have rights, and you know, feelings and things.
Me, though I'd identify other outcomes as being more important. And I'd dare to suggest if the young lady lies about the fantasy, she might be lying about other aspects to the case.
Exactly what outcomes? Throughout your story, you refer to him as the rapist. You say 'he saves her from rape'. So I can only assume in your hypothetical, that a rape did actually take place? Then what other outcomes could you possibly want to see than a trial and a guilty verdict?
I don't know if you realise it, but you sound like an apologist for rapists. And not for the first time on PAS.
And I'd dare to suggest if the young lady lies about the fantasy, she might be lying about other aspects to the case.
Of course. Because she's a dirty lying whore.
I don't know how many times we have to say it, or how loudly, but talking about something you might, hypothetically, want to do doesn't give people license to do whatever the hell they like to you.
I discussed with a friend last night (on the internet, too) that I have too much stuff (and far too many shoes) and I would like to get rid of some of it. So if someone breaks into my house today, and steals all my stuff, does that mean that I'm responsible? Am I required to inform the police that I fantasised about 'downsizing'?
And if I don't, am I a liar?
-
And Angus, before you reply to Megan (oh why has this gone on so long?) please know that you are embarrassing a whole gender, if not the entire species.
1940 Alabama, with a Black man and a drunk as a case for your argument? What horse did you ride in on again?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.