Well, yes, this should be a thing.
We should do this for everyone
Good!
Don’t really see a downside. You are putting your good name up in defence of someone else.
A character reference for someone who has just been convicted of a rape or sexual assault shouldn’t be allowed, full stop. You aren’t of good character you’re a sex offender.
>Where the question of reasonable belief arises in a trial, the jury must have regard to the steps, if any, taken by the accused to ascertain whether the victim consented to the intercourse under the proposed law.
Curious how this will work differently than already is the case. How practicality would you alter your defence, or wouldn’t your defence theoretically be the same?
About fucking time.
Make them stand up in court.
McEntee is the best justice minister we’ve had in a long time.
From the article
>Under the reform of rape laws, the accused will have to convince a jury they took steps to get consent from their accuser. At present, a person can be found not guilty of rape if they honestly, but mistakenly, believed they had the consent of the victim.
Thos sounds awfully like guilty until proven innocent.
The is extremely dangerous precedent.
The cross examing of character witnesses should already have been a thing.
Mickey Hart/gaa in trouble
Could? Should.
It’s a tricky subject but how exactly can someone prove they took steps to get consent? I just don’t understand the practical ways to prove anything from a conversation as the other party can simply say it’s a lie regardless of the truth. Sadly many rape cases hinge on “he said, she said” unless there is clear evidence of physical damage. I’m not sure that amendment would have a practical benefit and may push it in the direction of “guilty until proven innocent”
Also don’t judges request character references? Like I know anyone who gives one is painted as an enabler but it’s my understanding that if you refuse to provide a character reference the judge will ask you to reconsider. Have I been fed a lie here? Or is that the case?
I must be missing something here. Shouldn’t this apply to someone *charged*, not convicted?
Not sure why this would be limited to certain offences. If it’s taken into consideration it should be challengeable in any case.
If they have no previous convictions it would be a waste of time.
Why are character references for sexual crimes even allowed? I can see the benefit for non-violent crime. But stuff like this sentencing should be based off the evidence of the crime, not what your mates say about you.
The idea of character references at trials doesn’t sit well with me.
You could be a saint your whole life and then murder or rape someone.
If you have a history of criminal activity that will be information available to the court.
@u/the_og_comrade
Brave man.
Reply to me, then block me.
Why did you delete all the comments from your alt account?
Clown.
I don’t understand how character references are a thing unless its information obtained from a witness by the defence during an examination…
18 comments
Well, yes, this should be a thing.
We should do this for everyone
Good!
Don’t really see a downside. You are putting your good name up in defence of someone else.
A character reference for someone who has just been convicted of a rape or sexual assault shouldn’t be allowed, full stop. You aren’t of good character you’re a sex offender.
>Where the question of reasonable belief arises in a trial, the jury must have regard to the steps, if any, taken by the accused to ascertain whether the victim consented to the intercourse under the proposed law.
Curious how this will work differently than already is the case. How practicality would you alter your defence, or wouldn’t your defence theoretically be the same?
About fucking time.
Make them stand up in court.
McEntee is the best justice minister we’ve had in a long time.
From the article
>Under the reform of rape laws, the accused will have to convince a jury they took steps to get consent from their accuser. At present, a person can be found not guilty of rape if they honestly, but mistakenly, believed they had the consent of the victim.
Thos sounds awfully like guilty until proven innocent.
The is extremely dangerous precedent.
The cross examing of character witnesses should already have been a thing.
Mickey Hart/gaa in trouble
Could? Should.
It’s a tricky subject but how exactly can someone prove they took steps to get consent? I just don’t understand the practical ways to prove anything from a conversation as the other party can simply say it’s a lie regardless of the truth. Sadly many rape cases hinge on “he said, she said” unless there is clear evidence of physical damage. I’m not sure that amendment would have a practical benefit and may push it in the direction of “guilty until proven innocent”
Also don’t judges request character references? Like I know anyone who gives one is painted as an enabler but it’s my understanding that if you refuse to provide a character reference the judge will ask you to reconsider. Have I been fed a lie here? Or is that the case?
I must be missing something here. Shouldn’t this apply to someone *charged*, not convicted?
Not sure why this would be limited to certain offences. If it’s taken into consideration it should be challengeable in any case.
If they have no previous convictions it would be a waste of time.
Why are character references for sexual crimes even allowed? I can see the benefit for non-violent crime. But stuff like this sentencing should be based off the evidence of the crime, not what your mates say about you.
The idea of character references at trials doesn’t sit well with me.
You could be a saint your whole life and then murder or rape someone.
If you have a history of criminal activity that will be information available to the court.
@u/the_og_comrade
Brave man.
Reply to me, then block me.
Why did you delete all the comments from your alt account?
Clown.
I don’t understand how character references are a thing unless its information obtained from a witness by the defence during an examination…