Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on December 30, 2019, 07:57:18 PM
-
Obviously difficult to judge but there certainly seem to be questions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-50952312
-
There do indeed, and if she's telling the truth, I hope the rapists eventually get locked up, but it is at least possible in theory that she is indeed lying - it does happen.
-
There do indeed, and if she's telling the truth, I hope the rapists eventually get locked up, but it is at least possible in theory that she is indeed lying - it does happen.
In comparison to the number of rapes vs women lying what would you estimate the probability?
-
I suspect the woman is telling the truth, but one doesn't know for sure.
-
I suspect the woman is telling the truth, but one doesn't know for sure.
But there do seem to be definite questions about the process and investigation that need to be asked without assuming that she is telling the truth or lying. If the investigation and process is overall flawed, then her being guilty of lying cannot be found.
-
In comparison to the number of rapes vs women lying what would you estimate the probability?
You can’t judge individual cases by overall statistics.
-
We don't have the facts so can't come to any conclusion with certainty, however I am making a donation to her legal appeal fund.
-
You can’t judge individual cases by overall statistics.
That's the point.
-
In comparison to the number of rapes vs women lying what would you estimate the probability?
Probably quite small, and I think she is probably telling the truth, but the presumption of innocence is an importsant principle, and is in danger of getting lost.
-
Probably quite small, and I think she is probably telling the truth, but the presumption of innocence is an importsant principle, and is in danger of getting lost.
She's the one that has been found guilty.
-
Probably quite small, and I think she is probably telling the truth, but the presumption of innocence is an importsant principle, and is in danger of getting lost.
I assume you mean the presumption of innocence of the alleged rapists, in this case, As NS says, she has been convicted and so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to her.
In any case, presumption of innocence is a legal thing. It does not mean we can't form an opinion of guilt if we choose and if you think she is probably telling the truth, then, by definition, you think the Israelis are probably guilty of raping her.
My personal opinion is that technically, she was lying when she made the accusation. That doesn't mean that the police did not force a retraction under duress or that the other injustices alleged by her lawyer aren't true.
Unfortunately, there is video on some of the Israelis' phones that seems to show the sex was consensual i.e. they were filming it, so my opinion is that while the Israelis aren't strictly guilty of rape, they are utter shits and really do deserve to go to prison and the woman deserves to be treated leniently and sympathetically.
-
I assume you mean the presumption of innocence of the alleged rapists, in this case, As NS says, she has been convicted and so the presumption of innocence doesn't apply to her.
In any case, presumption of innocence is a legal thing. It does not mean we can't form an opinion of guilt if we choose and if you think she is probably telling the truth, then, by definition, you think the Israelis are probably guilty of raping her.
My personal opinion is that technically, she was lying when she made the accusation. That doesn't mean that the police did not force a retraction under duress or that the other injustices alleged by her lawyer aren't true.
Unfortunately, there is video on some of the Israelis' phones that seems to show the sex was consensual i.e. they were filming it, so my opinion is that while the Israelis aren't strictly guilty of rape, they are utter shits and really do deserve to go to prison and the woman deserves to be treated leniently and sympathetically.
Nope, you can think she was telling the truth, or not lying, without taking an opinion on whether the Israelis were probably likely of raping here. These things are in legal terms separate.
-
Unfortunately, there is video on some of the Israelis' phones that seems to show the sex was consensual i.e. they were filming it, so my opinion is that while the Israelis aren't strictly guilty of rape, they are utter shits and really do deserve to go to prison and the woman deserves to be treated leniently and sympathetically.
Are you saying that if sexual activity is filmed it is therefore consensual? Do you know whether or not the filmed material includes her giving consent?
Is consent genuinely given if it is the consequence of intimidation?
-
Nope, you can think she was telling the truth, or not lying,
She said the Israelis raped her. If she is telling the truth, by definition, they raped her.
These things are in legal terms separate.
In what way? She alleged rape. If she was telling the truth, rape occurred.
-
She said the Israelis raped her. If she is telling the truth, by definition, they raped her.
In what way? She alleged rape. If she was telling the truth, rape occurred.
Law isn't a binary here. That's why people are found not guilty rather than innocent.
-
Are you saying that if sexual activity is filmed it is therefore consensual?
Why on earth would you come to that conclusion?
It's what is in the video that matters.
Do you know whether or not the filmed material includes her giving consent?
I haven't seen it but the police say it appears to show consensual sex.
Is consent genuinely given if it is the consequence of intimidation?
What do you think?
Do you have any evidence that intimidation occurred in this instance?
-
Law isn't a binary here. That's why people are found not guilty rather than innocent.
Do you agree that, if she said she was raped and she was telling the truth then rape occurred?
-
Do you agree that, if she said she was raped and she was telling the truth then rape occurred?
i'm talking about how the law works. Someone can believe something to be true without sufficient evidence for others to decide beyond reasonable doubt that it happened in that way. Your post portrayed the law as if it was binary. It isn't.
-
Someone can believe something to be true ...
If you make a statement that you believe to be true, but which isn't, you are neither telling the truth nor lying. You are mistaken, which is the third possibility.
-
If you make a statement that you believe to be true, but which isn't, you are neither telling the truth nor lying. You are mistaken, which is the third possibility.
Then no one can be described as telling the truth ever because all we have is intersubjectivity.
-
Then no one can be described as telling the truth ever because all we have is intersubjectivity.
What the hell has intersubjectivity got to do with anything?
-
What the hell has intersubjectivity got to do with anything?
Because we cannot establish objective truth your statement means that talking about someone 'telling the truth' means that no one can ever be described as 'telling the truth'. It sets an impossible standard.
-
Because we cannot establish objective truth your statement means that talking about someone 'telling the truth' means that no one can ever be described as 'telling the truth'. It sets an impossible standard.
What nonsense you do come out with.
-
What nonsense you do come out with.
Why is it nonsense?
-
i'm talking about how the law works. Someone can believe something to be true without sufficient evidence for others to decide beyond reasonable doubt that it happened in that way. Your post portrayed the law as if it was binary. It isn't.
Sorry, I didn't realise this forum is a court of law.
It's a simple logical argument. She said she was raped. If she was telling the truth then she was raped. No amount of mealy mouthed "it's not how the law works" is going to change that.
-
Because we cannot establish objective truth
Yes we can for all practical purposes. You can either say "actually everything is subjective, so we can't know anything" and look all smug, or you can engage in the debate in good faith. You choose.
-
Yes we can for all practical purposes. You can either say "actually everything is subjective, so we can't know anything" and look all smug, or you can engage in the debate in good faith. You choose.
Ah a false dichotomy and one that misses the point about the issue with SteveH's post is exactly that.
-
Sorry, I didn't realise this forum is a court of law.
It's a simple logical argument. She said she was raped. If she was telling the truth then she was raped. No amount of mealy mouthed "it's not how the law works" is going to change that.
Might help if you read posts referring to how the law works as meaning what it means as regards how law works.
-
We don't have the facts so can't come to any conclusion with certainty, however I am making a donation to her legal appeal fund.
Good, I want to as well but just read £80,000 has been raised so probably no need now. I believe her conviction should be overturned.
-
Good, I want to as well but just read £80,000 has been raised so probably no need now. I believe her conviction should be overturned.
After due legal process and assuming she is vindicated, yes, but you can't just assume she was telling the truth.
-
I get that Oliphant.
-
Do you agree that, if she said she was raped and she was telling the truth then rape occurred?
There are various elements of the crime of rape in English law. I do not know the details of how rape is prosecuted or defended in Cyprus - but it appears lack of consent is one element, same as in English law.
In English law - the mens rea element required for rape means she could be telling the truth that she did not consent but the prosecution would still need to show that the boys who had sex with her did not reasonably believe that she consented to the sex in order for them to have committed the crime of rape.
The 'reasonable belief' element means that it is not what the boys actually believed at the time that is important but whether a reasonable person in the same circumstances would believe that she was not consenting to sex when he was having sex with her. I think I am fairly safe in assuming that a reasonable person would not believe they had her consent if they had to hold the girl down in order to have sex with her.
However, in English law if the boys have evidence to show it was reasonable for them to believe that she consented to the sex, then they do not have the mens rea for rape.
Even if she froze, or was not forceful in fighting back, in English law the boys would still need to show they took steps to establish her consent to sex. In English law the burden is on the boys to show their belief in her consent is reasonable and it is up to the jury to decide based on the evidence, if the belief was indeed reasonable. I do not know where the burden of proof is in Cyprus law in relation to consent and what the boys believed at the time they had sex with her, and whether there is an objective element that their belief in her consent was reasonable.
-
Twelve of them - difficult to believe she would consent to twelve one after the other.
I'm not an expert but from what I've read of alleged 'gang rapes', here and in the USA, two police officers working together thoroughly question each of the accused separately trying to draw out the truth, gently. There's usually one (maybe more than one in this particular case), who was reluctant to take part but was intimidated and they crack. Maybe different police methods in Cyprus.
-
Twelve of them - difficult to believe she would consent to twelve one after the other.
I'm not an expert but from what I've read of alleged 'gang rapes', here and in the USA, two police officers working together thoroughly question each of the accused separately trying to draw out the truth, gently. There's usually one (maybe more than one in this particular case), who was reluctant to take part but was intimidated and they crack. Maybe different police methods in Cyprus.
It doesn't seem like the Cyprus police took much time investigating the rape. Maybe their methods in sexual assault cases are not very conducive to securing a conviction. I don't know what the mobile phone footage shows - i have not read any details in the media - but it would not surprise me if the Cyprus police interpreted what they saw and what the boys said in a way that was prejudiced against the complainant. It is alleged the the sex with one boy was consensual and then she says his friends barged in, and she was held down and prevented from leaving the room and raped by multiple people. The pathologist who examined the girl said her injuries were consistent with her version of events.
I have no idea how much of the sex was filmed, but it's certainly possible the police are under pressure to protect the image of Cyprus and its tourist industry, and have a low opinion of the foreigners who come to Ayia Napa to party, and coerced the girl into retracting her rape allegation.
This story has highlighted the risks for women travelling to these party resorts. The travel firm that the girl used to book her working holiday has ended its involvement with the resort in Ayia Napa, citing safety concerns for women. The British media is focusing on Cyprus but who knows how many similar stories exist for similar party resorts in other countries involving other nationals.