(Opinion) Teenager's underwear used in rape trial causes Irish outcry, protests.
A series of protests have been taking place in Ireland following the acquittal of a man in a rape case involving a 17 year old girl. During the trial, the defense lawyer stated, "You have to look at the way she was dressed. She was wearing a thong with a lace front." After the man was acquitted, Ruth Coppinger, an Irish MP, produced the blue lacy underwear worn by the victim. "It might seem embarrassing to show a pair of thongs here... how do you think a rape victim or a woman feels at the incongruous setting of her underwear being shown in a court," Coppinger said.
The accused maintained that the sexual contact between him and the girl, which took place in a laneway in Cork, had been consensual. Details of the closing argument presented by his senior counsel Elizabeth O'Connell, however, attracted widespread attention and prompted a series of online protest movements.
The day after publication of that court report, the head of Dublin's Rape Crisis Centre criticized the barrister's remarks. Although she did not question the verdict, she called for reform of a legal system in which she said such suggestions were frequently made. Amid increasing media attention, Irish social media users expressed outrage at the remarks in court.
Counsel for man acquitted of rape suggested jurors should reflect on underwear worn by the 17yo complainant. Following this wholly unacceptable comment, we are calling on our followers to post a picture of their thongs/knickers to support her with the hashtag #ThisIsNotConsent pic.twitter.com/ZkVU0GVAIN— I Believe Her - Ireland (@ibelieveher_ire) November 10, 2018
I hear cameras cut away from me when I displayed this underwear in #Dáil. In courts victims can have their underwear passed around as evidence and it's within the rules, hence need to display in Dáil. Join protests tomorrow. In Dublin it's at Spire, 1pm.#dubw #ThisIsNotConsent pic.twitter.com/DvtaJL61qR— Ruth Coppinger TD (@RuthCoppingerTD) November 13, 2018
In my opinion, this type of counter argument reflects that the defense believed the victim was "asking for it." This statement has been used for years, claiming that the way that women dressed persisted that they were consenting. Obviously, this is far from the truth.
The judicial system, as a broad spectrum around the world, defines the laws. Laws cannot define intent. Intent is somewhat defined, mainly relating to illegal possessions such as a deadly weapon or drugs wherein an 'intent to harm' or 'intent to distribute' may be appended to the original charge.
Though consent was claimed, the prosecution obviously felt other that it was not. So can one say that since the girl was wearing lacy underwear, she intended on having sex? By wearing pajama pants, am I intending to go to sleep, or can I not simply be comfortable while I work? It's not evidence of anything other than a girl wearing undergarments.
I suppose by wearing a jacket, I consent to being cold in the winter. That's not how it works.
Thongs are being hung up outside the Spire in Dublin as part of the protest calling for an overhaul in the way rape trials are conducted #rape #consent #rosa pic.twitter.com/zGfl7HFNrW— Stephanie Rohan (@StephGrogan3) November 14, 2018
Original story via BBC News
No comments:
Post a Comment