Rugby Rape Trial - Defendants Acquited

[Ifreann]

Why would they be able to sue her? The fact that they weren't acquitted doesn't mean that she lied or did anything wrong.

Libel/slander.

If it was defamatory to make criminal complaints then I would think that people would have stopped doing it quite a while ago.

[Ors Might]

Libel/slander.

If it was defamatory to make criminal complaints then I would think that people would have stopped doing it quite a while ago.

Would it be different for people who knowingly make false criminal accusations?

[Gravlen]

I have several questions to discuss in this thread, firstly, with regards to the people who are saying that they believe her what more do you think that the system could have done?

You can believe her and at the same time think there wasn’t more the system could have done. Going by news articles about this story, there’s nothing fatally flawed I can see about the trial itself.

Should the innocent until proven guilty principle be suspended in cases of alleged rape?

No.

Because I'm not sure how else this could have changed? The jury must have had a reasonable doubt as to whether these men raped this woman, hence they had to acquit.

We’ll never know for sure, since juries aren’t required to explain how they reached their conclusion.

Secondly, is the storm on social media related to the trial a problem for a functioning justice system? It seems to me that this could bias the jury and lead to a trial by media.

If you had asked me before I probably would have said no, but considering that the defence attorney for the accused says it was a problem and requests more protection for claimants, I’m no longer so sure.

Thirdly are issues of anonymity. Firstly, in this case the woman in question has retained her anonymity while those who are accused have not. Is it right that those who come forward to report a crime remain anonymous? Couldn't this prevent those with evidence from coming forward as they do not know who the victim is and hence don't realise that they have evidence of importance? Also on this issue, should those accused of rape remain anonymous? Afterall their reputation to some extent will be ruined whether or not they are acquited. Would it not make sense to have either both parties or neither parties remaining anonymous?

I have serious issues with anonymity for both the accused and witnesses. In this case, however, neither were anonymous. The fact that the media didn’t mention her name doesn’t make her anonymous. The accused knew who she was, and her name was apparently mentioned frequently in court.

[Gravlen]

If it was defamatory to make criminal complaints then I would think that people would have stopped doing it quite a while ago.

Would it be different for people who knowingly make false criminal accusations?

To the police, or via a publication such as a newspaper?

English defamation law only covers publications of such accusations.

[Jebslund]

Libel/slander.

If it was defamatory to make criminal complaints then I would think that people would have stopped doing it quite a while ago.

To make claims that are wrong even if the accuser had no reasonable way of knowing it (misidentifying the perpetrator, for instance)? Yes. To *knowingly* make a false complaint? No, that wouldn't stop people from reporting crime. A person reporting what they honestly believe has nothing to fear in such a situation. That's like saying that the fact that there are criminal charges for calling 911 when there's no emergency stops people from calling 911 (it hasn't even stopped people from *prank calling* 911.), or that reporting a crime where there is none being illegal would stop SWATting (and, given that the practice has *killed* at least one person, I'd say it hasn't).

If it ain't defamatory to knowingly make a false accusation against someone (and this wasn't a case of "someone raped me!", this was a case of "They raped me!", with both parties agreeing that the sex happened, just not on the consent) that will stick with that person for life, it damned well should be.

[Ifreann]

If it was defamatory to make criminal complaints then I would think that people would have stopped doing it quite a while ago.

To make claims that are wrong even if the accuser had no reasonable way of knowing it (misidentifying the perpetrator, for instance)? Yes. To *knowingly* make a false complaint? No, that wouldn't stop people from reporting crime. A person reporting what they honestly believe has nothing to fear in such a situation. That's like saying that the fact that there are criminal charges for calling 911 when there's no emergency stops people from calling 911 (it hasn't even stopped people from *prank calling* 911.), or that reporting a crime where there is none being illegal would stop SWATting (and, given that the practice has *killed* at least one person, I'd say it hasn't).

If it ain't defamatory to knowingly make a false accusation against someone (and this wasn't a case of "someone raped me!", this was a case of "They raped me!", with both parties agreeing that the sex happened, just not on the consent) that will stick with that person for life, it damned well should be.

There is no evidence that the alleged victim made a false accusation. That there was no conviction does not mean she lied.

[Costa Fierro]

I'm not entirely sure I prefer the alternative of trials exclusively by judge, but I do think there is an argument to be made that trials by jury are kind of inherently flawed.

I don't believe this, having been on a jury myself. It's not an easy decision to make given that you could potentially sending an innocent person to prison or letting a criminal go free. But for the most part it's the job of the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime was committed. The judge themselves say that if there's any doubt you have, don't find them guilty.

If there were holes in the prosecution's recount of events, or if there wasn't enough evidence provided then there's no reason to convict someone based on what is essentially a hunch.

[Telconi]

Would it be different for people who knowingly make false criminal accusations?

To the police, or via a publication such as a newspaper?

English defamation law only covers publications of such accusations.

Are criminal indictments not published?

[Infected Mushroom]

Well if we reverse the trial, then we will be called out for not respecting "Innocent Until Proven Guilty."

But if we support the verdict, then we will be called out for being anti-feminist etc...

So the only compromise I see is to call for a retrial at least times one (if not three). This way, we can put this whole controversy behind us.

Why just three times? Why not five or seven or whatever odd number it takes to get the verdict the people are looking for? Do you see the issue, Kefka? Turning the legal system into a "best of" system doesn't improve a damn thing, it just let's you try people over and over until you get the result you want. In most cases, an innocent person would be absolutely fucked in such a system. Winning a trial as the defendant is difficult, let alone doing it three times.

They don't need to win it three times, just two out of three times.

It ensures that we don't get controversy except in situations where people REALLY distrust the justice system. It should please both sides of this debate (those who think it should have been guilty, and those who say it shouldn't have been). Best of threes approach, its a compromise.

[Bombadil]

Why just three times? Why not five or seven or whatever odd number it takes to get the verdict the people are looking for? Do you see the issue, Kefka? Turning the legal system into a "best of" system doesn't improve a damn thing, it just let's you try people over and over until you get the result you want. In most cases, an innocent person would be absolutely fucked in such a system. Winning a trial as the defendant is difficult, let alone doing it three times.

They don't need to win it three times, just two out of three times.

It ensures that we don't get controversy except in situations where people REALLY distrust the justice system. It should please both sides of this debate (those who think it should have been guilty, and those who say it shouldn't have been). Best of threes approach, its a compromise.

It's called appeals.. it's not like no one's thought of this..

[Gravlen]

To the police, or via a publication such as a newspaper?

English defamation law only covers publications of such accusations.

Are criminal indictments not published?

Not by the person making a criminal complaint.

[Infected Mushroom]

They don't need to win it three times, just two out of three times.

It ensures that we don't get controversy except in situations where people REALLY distrust the justice system. It should please both sides of this debate (those who think it should have been guilty, and those who say it shouldn't have been). Best of threes approach, its a compromise.

It's called appeals.. it's not like no one's thought of this..

appeals are only for errors of law though, not fact-finding issues

here, it all hangs on the fact finding and not the law, so an appeal would be largely ceremonial

what we need is a couple of re-tries for all of the facts with different triers of facts

[Des-Bal]

They don't need to win it three times, just two out of three times.

It ensures that we don't get controversy except in situations where people REALLY distrust the justice system. It should please both sides of this debate (those who think it should have been guilty, and those who say it shouldn't have been). Best of threes approach, its a compromise.

It's a compromise in absolutely no way that matters. A second trial with the same issues of the first doesn't reinforce the verdict it only provides the judgement of a different sample of jurors. If people say that you can't expect someone to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt then you haven't fixed anything by making them do it multiple times. If they say the accused in these cases are always prejudiced by the media then having a second trial won't fix that.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

[Infected Mushroom]

They don't need to win it three times, just two out of three times.

It ensures that we don't get controversy except in situations where people REALLY distrust the justice system. It should please both sides of this debate (those who think it should have been guilty, and those who say it shouldn't have been). Best of threes approach, its a compromise.

It's a compromise in absolutely no way that matters. A second trial with the same issues of the first doesn't reinforce the verdict it only provides the judgement of a different sample of jurors. If people say that you can't expect someone to prove rape beyond a reasonable doubt then you haven't fixed anything by making them do it multiple times. If they say the accused in these cases are always prejudiced by the media then having a second trial won't fix that.

It's absolutely ridiculous.

if two triers of facts consisting of two random juries all found the person guilty, then I would say its better (more convincing) than just one jury finding so. In the alternative, if another jury were to find them innocent then that would dissipate allegations that the trial was somehow factually incorrect. It provides credibility either way.

I think both sides could run with it.

[Des-Bal]

if two triers of facts consisting of two random juries all found the person guilty, then I would say its better (more convincing) than just one jury finding so. In the alternative, if another jury were to find them innocent then that would dissipate allegations that the trial was somehow factually incorrect. It provides credibility either way.

I think both sides could run with it.

No, no it doesn't. If someone's saying trials are fundamentally flawed then the second trial will logically have the same flaws. Having two indicators that are flawed in the exact same way produce the same result doesn't provide new information.

[Infected Mushroom]

if two triers of facts consisting of two random juries all found the person guilty, then I would say its better (more convincing) than just one jury finding so. In the alternative, if another jury were to find them innocent then that would dissipate allegations that the trial was somehow factually incorrect. It provides credibility either way.

I think both sides could run with it.

No, no it doesn't. If someone's saying trials are fundamentally flawed then the second trial will logically have the same flaws. Having two indicators that are flawed in the exact same way produce the same result doesn't provide new information.

two trials are less likely to be flawed than a single trial

its like a scientific study; two studies are usually better than one; two trials with two juries

[Des-Bal]

two trials are less likely to be flawed than a single trial

its like a scientific study; two studies are usually better than one; two trials with two juries

In a scientific study if someone says there's a problem with your methodology you don't address their concerns by using the same methodology twice. What you're billing as a compromise does absolutely nothing for either side.

[Ifreann]

With all this talk of suing the alleged victim it may interest the thread to know that Paddy Jackson, one of the acquitted defendants, is going to sue Labour Senator Aodhán Ó Riordáin over an allegedly defamatory tweet which has since been deleted.

[Chestaan]

With all this talk of suing the alleged victim it may interest the thread to know that Paddy Jackson, one of the acquitted defendants, is going to sue Labour Senator Aodhán Ó Riordáin over an allegedly defamatory tweet which has since been deleted.

Yeah just saw this. I guess he called Jackson a rapist in the tweet?

[Ifreann]

With all this talk of suing the alleged victim it may interest the thread to know that Paddy Jackson, one of the acquitted defendants, is going to sue Labour Senator Aodhán Ó Riordáin over an allegedly defamatory tweet which has since been deleted.

Yeah just saw this. I guess he called Jackson a rapist in the tweet?

One imagines he must have said something along those lines.

[Jebslund]

To make claims that are wrong even if the accuser had no reasonable way of knowing it (misidentifying the perpetrator, for instance)? Yes. To *knowingly* make a false complaint? No, that wouldn't stop people from reporting crime. A person reporting what they honestly believe has nothing to fear in such a situation. That's like saying that the fact that there are criminal charges for calling 911 when there's no emergency stops people from calling 911 (it hasn't even stopped people from *prank calling* 911.), or that reporting a crime where there is none being illegal would stop SWATting (and, given that the practice has *killed* at least one person, I'd say it hasn't).

If it ain't defamatory to knowingly make a false accusation against someone (and this wasn't a case of "someone raped me!", this was a case of "They raped me!", with both parties agreeing that the sex happened, just not on the consent) that will stick with that person for life, it damned well should be.

There is no evidence that the alleged victim made a false accusation. That there was no conviction does not mean she lied.

Were they convicted, despite both sides admitting sex happened? No. Ergo, they are innocent. It is on the accuser, not the accused, to provide proof of the claim that a crime was committed. Ergo, she has made a false claim. To claim otherwise is to try to have and eat the "They're innocent but she was still raped" cake. Were it a case of, "Someone raped me!", and they were found and falsely accused? They ought to be able to sue the police in that case, but that would be a case where the fact that the people brought to trial were not guilty of the crime would not necessarily mean she lied. But she accused THEM. Not some half-seen creep in an alleyway. Not some half-remembered date rapist. She specifically accused *them* of raping her.

[Infected Mushroom]

two trials are less likely to be flawed than a single trial

its like a scientific study; two studies are usually better than one; two trials with two juries

In a scientific study if someone says there's a problem with your methodology you don't address their concerns by using the same methodology twice. What you're billing as a compromise does absolutely nothing for either side.

its more like running two studies still using the scientific method but with different methodology (in this case, two different juries/triers of fact)

[Big Jim P]

If there is not enough evidence...

If there’s too little evidence to convict...

If the cour didn’t have the evidence to convict...

Acquittal doesn't mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict. It just means that the jury voted to acquit.

Indeed. Here in the States we have jury nullification. I don't know if other nations legal system(s) feature it though.

[Greed and Death]

"Guilty until proven innocent" has become de facto the way the game is played in the USA in cases involving any allegations of sex abuse or domestic violence.
My client was not allowed to examine adverse witnesses nor to examine any evidence used against him. "How dare you!" was the response to my requests to the judge. I can give you the judge's name, and tell you more about him if you send me a message.

Hopefully there was an acquittal or an appeal to rectify the situation.

[Des-Bal]

its more like running two studies still using the scientific method but with different methodology (in this case, two different juries/triers of fact)

No it isn't. People are saying the trials aren't working, doing two doesn't fix that.