Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    She knew she was being raped as she woke up in the middle:

    When cross-examined by Mr Dougal’s barrister, Stephen Rees, the woman agreed “emitting a pleasurable groaning sound” at one stage but added: “I was unconscious. I stopped groaning as soon as I knew something was happening.”
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I presume the man who had sex with her said she did consent. So if there is no other evidence you have to go on that surely?

    The judge wasn't telling them how to vote, they still had to decide whether they believe she did consent to it, however he seems to have made a disputable interpretation of the law.

    I think, unless I completely misread it, that the judge was telling the jury to find the defendant not guilty even if they disagreed with this verdict - that's what I was objecting to, not so much the legality or illegality of this particular case (which seems to be in some doubt.) What's the point of even having a jury if the judge is goign to tell them how to vote?

    And AT82, I have to say I really don't agree with your statement that 'girls have had it their own way for far too long' (or similar, I can't remmeber the exact wording, btu that was the gist.) As far as rape and the law is concerned, this is not true - until failry recently the rape laws in this country were practically mediaeval, and I think it's still far from easy to get a conviction for acquaintance rape. It was considered acceptable to grill the woman relentlessly about her sexual history, habits and behaviour to the point where it seemd more like she was the one on trial than the alleged rapist. I grant you that there are women who cry rape after a drunken one-night-stand, adn this woman may have been one of them, but it's still not a good idea to send out the message that drunk women are fair game and on their own when it comes to dealing with men who may want to take advantage. Maybe the woman shouldn't have got completely plastered, btu I agree with other people that if she's that out of it the man ought to refrain anyway, even if she is apparently consenting. If he really wants to have sex with her, he can wait till she's sober and able to make a proper decision.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tritogeneia1)
    Maybe the woman shouldn;t have got completely plastered, btu I agree with other people that if she's that out of it the man ought to refrain anyway, even if she is apparently consenting. If he really wants to have sex with her, he can wait till she's sober and able to make a proper decision.
    dude you rock.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another interesting thing in this article, the woman who brought the charges forward has been granted the right to anonymity (which is fair enough), whereas the individual who has been charged is named, and described(!), "Ryairi Dougal, a 20-year-old second-year student from Moville, Donegal, in Ireland", in spite of the fact he has not been found guilty of an offence, and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. This gives individuals such as segat1 the right to insult, and tar an innocent individual, a stigma that may follow him through his life "he's the one that raped that girl". Is this fair? All you need to do is be accused of an offence such as this for your reputation to be seriously shredded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Anyway the guy shouldn't of took advantage of her (if he did) if she was in that much of a state
    Offline

    14
    A high court judge can always be overruled anyway in future precedent. I'm suprised he wasn't bound by existing cases already though, surely this has happened before?

    It's better then a guilty man goes free than an innocent one goes to prison: there is doubt as to whether he raped her, therefore correct decision was made. She shouldn't drink so much anyway, and this rule may even discourage drinking heavily.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pugnacious)
    Another interesting thing in this article, the woman who brought the charges forward has been granted the right to anonymity (which is fair enough), whereas the individual who has been charged is named, and described(!), "Ryairi Dougal, a 20-year-old second-year student from Moville, Donegal, in Ireland", in spite of the fact he has not been found guilty of an offence, and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. This gives individuals such as segat1 the right to insult, and tar an innocent individual, a stigma that may follow him through his life "he's the one that raped that girl". Is this fair? All you need to do is be accused of an offence such as this for your reputation to be seriously shredded.
    I don't really give a toss who he was or what his name is, I'm not about to go throw stones at his house like some members of the public. He has been found innocent - so he should not be named - thats pretty wrong. All I am doing is holding this example up as a watch out - be careful and yet another reason why I will continue to be even more careful and vigilant of me and my mates when I am drinking.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    pugnacious said:
    Another interesting thing in this article, the woman who brought the charges forward has been granted the right to anonymity (which is fair enough), whereas the individual who has been charged is named, and described(!), "Ryairi Dougal, a 20-year-old second-year student from Moville, Donegal, in Ireland", in spite of the fact he has not been found guilty of an offence, and is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law. This gives individuals such as segat1 the right to insult, and tar an innocent individual, a stigma that may follow him through his life "he's the one that raped that girl". Is this fair? All you need to do is be accused of an offence such as this for your reputation to be seriously shredded.
    This is a very valid point. We have seen to often examples where women have made allegations against men just to tar the man's reputation. If the man is found not guilty the woman should not retain anonymity and if the allegation is proved false the female should face criminal charges.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe the woman shouldn't have got completely plastered,
    Not maybe - she deffo shouldn't have got completely plastered. I'm not defending rape - because its indefensible, but women themselves have take the necessary precautions to be able to protect themselves from rape. There are enough idiots out there - you don't need to give them an excuse, but you can do your best to protect yourself - and that means not getting totally wasted.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    pugnacious said:


    This is a very valid point. We have seen to often examples where women have made allegations against men just to tar the man's reputation. If the man is found not guilty the woman should not retain anonymity and if the allegation is proved false the female should face criminal charges.
    Do you mean 'proven false' as in actual evidence to prove that the woman was lying and made the whole thing up? In which case it would be perjury, and surely that is illegal anyway.
    I certainly hope that's what you meant; rather than the woman always getting prosecuted if the man is let off.
    And the same goes for releasing the names; certainly the man's name should not have been released in this case as he was not convicted, but IMO both parties shoudl remain anonymous unless there is a conviction (in which case the guy convicted would be named, presumably). Again, I'm assuming/hoping that you mean the woman's name would be released only if she were foudn to have actively committed perjury, rather than there simply not being enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape occurred.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    tritogeneia1 said:
    Do you mean 'proven false' as in actual evidence to prove that the woman was lying and made the whole thing up? In which case it would be perjury, and surely that is illegal anyway.
    I certainly hope that's what you meant; rather than the woman always getting prosecuted if the man is let off.
    And the same goes for releasing the names; certainly the man's name should not have been released in this case as he was not convicted, but IMO both parties shoudl remain anonymous unless there is a conviction (in which case the guy convicted would be named, presumably). Again, I'm assuming/hoping that you mean the woman's name would be released only if she were foudn to have actively committed perjury, rather than there simply not being enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that rape occurred
    The problem is that in rape cases the man's name is often released before the trial. There have been a number of cases in recent years where woman have made false allegations against the male and destroyed his reputation. The female often does not face perjury charges as a result of this, in many ways becasue the system is biased. That is why I am suggesting that if a man is found not guilty with certain proof the woman's name should be released. It is only fair, especially if she is someone with no credibility with a varied sexual history. Obviously in those cases where the male is not found guilty through lack of evidence alone the female's name should not be released.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    tritogeneia1 said:


    The problem is that in rape cases the man's name is often released before the trial. There have been a number of cases in recent years where woman have made false allegaations against the male and destroyed his reputation. The female often does not face perjury charges as a result of this as it cannot be proved that the allegations are false 'beyond reasonable doubt.' That is why I am suggesting that if a man is found not guilty the woman's name should be released. It is only fair, especially if she is someone with no credibility with a varied sexual history.
    I don't think her sexual history should come into it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So if a woman with a detailed history of sexual relations makes allegations against a respectable man this should not carry any weight in the procedings?
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    I think cases like these are terrible. How can we improve the chances of convicting rapists if women face something like that. Just because a woman is drunk is no excuse for taking advantage of her. No wonder women don't want to go through the process of taking their rapist to court when it feels to them like they are the one on trial. I was appalled by the results of that survey recently. There is never any excuse for raping someone!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MMA)
    So if a woman with a detailed history of sexual relations makes allegations against a respectable man this should not carry any weight in the procedings?
    no, previous sexual history shouldnt come into it. It's irrelevant. Just as is his sexual history.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The point is she couldn't "remember whether she gave consent or not or whether sex had taken place" - although she later seems to assert she remebers groaning and so on, her case has far to many holes.

    That means her case was even LESS sound that simply one persons veiw against anothers, she doesn't have a case.

    True had he had sex with her whilst she was unconcious and therefore unable to consent, that would be rape, but it has to be proved and if she can't remeber being unconscious then the evidence is thin. It is a fundamental tenant of Birtish law that you are innocent until proven guilty, she has not offered adequate proof.

    If you claim that accpeting a drunken acceptance for sex is rape then surely what in effect you are saying is all sex involving drunk people is rape! Surely that is ludicrous, what of all the drunken one night stands, should hordes of students be arrested?! Getting drunk and then trying to gain compensation for the choice you made to be drunk is as unreasonable as those wishing to seek compensation for getting themselves fat on mac donald's burgers from thier OWN free will.

    You can turn this into some silly feminist crusade if you so desire but I think the intrests of justice should be first and the accpetance of consent should be the underpinning idea behind rape laws. The fact is if you rape whilst drunk you can still be convicted of rape. Therefore it is only reaosnble if you consent whilst drunk that too is accpetable.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Golden Maverick)
    I presume the man who had sex with her said she did consent. So if there is no other evidence you have to go on that surely?

    The judge wasn't telling them how to vote, they still had to decide whether they believe she did consent to it, however he seems to have made a disputable interpretation of the law.


    I don't think some guys need a court ruling for them to do this!

    From that article alone we've not really got much information to make a judgement with.


    You 'presuming' has made you out to be an arse.

    you should read the story, She was passed out in the corridor and he had sex with her there, she said that she didnt consent otherwise surely they would of ended up in her room.

    I thought by law the onus was on the bloke to prove that a woman gave consent.


    --------------

    (Original post by MMA)
    tritogeneia1 said:


    The problem is that in rape cases the man's name is often released before the trial. There have been a number of cases in recent years where woman have made false allegations against the male and destroyed his reputation. The female often does not face perjury charges as a result of this, in many ways becasue the system is biased. That is why I am suggesting that if a man is found not guilty with certain proof the woman's name should be released. It is only fair, especially if she is someone with no credibility with a varied sexual history. Obviously in those cases where the male is not found guilty through lack of evidence alone the female's name should not be released.

    I think anyones name for ANY trial should be released....

    The legal system in this country works on the grounds that you have to prove things beyond all reasonable doubt.

    Because of those principles (I'm not saying that they're wrong) lots of guilty people have gone free.

    some people get brought up on the same kind of thing over and over and over again yet dont get charged with it at the end, its good to know who to watch, and who might end up in that sort of bother.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    oh goodie MT has sniffed out a rape thread :rolleyes:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    indeed, however im not annoying and start ranting at everyone.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I may add here whilst rape clealry is an emotive issue, justice is not best served by irrational emotionalism, but cold (and seemingly brutal to some) rationalism which is the only way a society can have a just system without it devolving into witch hunting. The same applies in regards to paedophiles and thier ilk.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: November 27, 2005
Poll
Have you ever experienced bullying?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.