@wolfgang59 saidWhile of course I agree that clothing is not dispositive of a person's intent and no level of provocative dress in any way justifies unwelcome physical advances, I hardly think dress is completely irrelevant to a person's state of mind, when that state of mind is an important factor on which the credibility of the allegation turns.
The defence should be allowed to try anything.
But surely the judge can decide on irrelevancies"?
I don't know the precise facts of that case, but say we had a "he-said-she-said" trial. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether anyone should be convicted based solely on the victim's testimony, the entirety of the issue turns on the credibility and state of mind of the alleged victim.
In such case, I'd be loathe to deny almost any line of questioning that's relevant to the state of mind of the alleged victim.
15 Nov 18
@sh76 saidWhen that girl got dressed for a night out I'm sure her state of
I hardly think dress is completely irrelevant to a person's state of mind, when that state of mind is an important factor on which the credibility of the allegation turns.
, the entirety of the issue turns on the credibility and state of mind of the alleged victim.
mind was "I want to feel good about myself" not "I'll save any
stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".
If you disagree - ask your wife why she is wearing
sexy knickers next time she goes out with the girls.
15 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 said=== "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".===
When that girl got dressed for a night out I'm sure her state of
mind was "I want to feel good about myself" not "I'll save any
stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".
If you disagree - ask your wife why she is wearing
sexy knickers next time she goes out with the girls.
And you really don't see that you're assuming the conclusion you're setting out to prove?
15 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 saidYou're assuming there was no consent.
You'll have to talk me through that.
I'm not trying to prove anything.
Otherwise, what does "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes" mean?
16 Nov 18
I think I have to agree with sh76 here.
An argument may be terrible, sexist and outdated, but that doesn't mean it should be banned from court. If a jury can't figure out that this is an invalid argument and the prosecutor can't convince them of this, the real problem is the culture at large, where such an argument can possibly be taken seriously.
I don't want to be unfair to Irish citizens though, since there's quite a large backlash from the public regarding the use of this tactic. Clearly, quite a number of them think this is bullocks.
16 Nov 18
@vivify saidMaybe this should be considered as evidence why juries (made up of common people) are a horrible idea. Lawyers know that people have personal biases, and exploiting them is fair game in court. A system of more educated people who don't fall for foolish arguments that can sway the less educated.
I think I have to agree with sh76 here.
An argument may be terrible, sexist and outdated, but that doesn't mean it should be banned from court. If a jury can't figure out that this is an invalid argument and the prosecutor can't convince them of this, the real problem is the culture at large, where such an argument can possibly be taken seriously.
I don't want to be u ...[text shortened]... he public regarding the use of this tactic. Clearly, quite a number of them think this is bullocks.
16 Nov 18
@sh76 saidNo I'm not.
You're assuming there was no consent.
Otherwise, what does "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes" mean?
I'm not interested in the case, the verdict or what actually happened.
I'm interested in the ridiculous notion that a woman's knickers can
indicate her "state of mind" several hours after she has chosen them.
16 Nov 18
@wolfgang59 said"Indicate" is a strong word, and so I'd technically agree with your statement.
No I'm not.
I'm not interested in the case, the verdict or what actually happened.
I'm interested in the ridiculous notion that a woman's knickers can
indicate her "state of mind" several hours after she has chosen them.
Still, since the only issue is consent and determining consent depends, to some degree, on state of mind, do you not think it's at least relevant enough to state of mind to be within the purview of what is allowed to be brought up?
Evidence should be relevant, but it doesn't have to be dispositive to be relevant. Don't you think criminal defendants ought to have latitude in bringing up facts that might even have a very slight tendency towards exoneration before being sent to prison and tarred with the title "convicted felon" forever?
16 Nov 18
@sh76 saidCertainly.
Still, since the only issue is consent and determining consent depends, to some degree, on state of mind, do you not think it's at least relevant enough to state of mind to be within the purview of what is allowed to be brought up?
State of mind when the act happened.
But I do not think there is any correlation between choice of knickers and state of mind pertaining to the event.
I say again ... ask your wife..