|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | Interesting the age comment. Can you try an adult for an alleged offence they committed as a "child"? (under 18 is a child) |
Age of criminal responsibility in Australia is generally 10, a controversial policy that’s been defended by ... none other than Christian Porter:
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/advocates-disappointed-by-refusal-to-lift-age-of-criminal-responsibility
Quote: | "But in my personal observation, historically there have been instances where it has been appropriate to prosecute people who have been under the age of 14 for very serious offences."
Mr Porter said such prosecutions would depend on it being established the offender had the necessary mental capacity to understand the crime committed was both morally wrong and contrary to the law. |
So I guess the short answer is "yes", albeit in a juvenile court – but it’s academic as he won’t be charged. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, but 17 year olds aren't given the same sentances as adults.
If a 14 year old rapes or murders someone their name is kept private and their juvenile record is sealed once they turn 18.
Just an academic argument, not overly relevant.
As I understand it, The SA Coroners court could now call an investigation into the womans death if they choose, they weren't able to do it earlier because the NSW Police case was still open. If they don't, it's pretty much case over.
Actually this case has made me reflect back.
I remember going out in Sydney in 1986 with a mate, his girlfriend and her 16 year old sister who was an utter stunner. She just waltzed into the Penrith Panthers leagues club with not a question of asking for ID. If my girlfriend at the time hadn't been there as well......
I can also relate to retaining long term trauma on past events. I got married in 1988, I think I'm still suffering PTSD from that. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Location: Lexus Centre
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | David wrote: | The minister is, as widely rumoured, attorney-general Christian Porter. He says that he did know the victim when he was 17 and she was 16, and claims that the allegation is false (upon being questioned, he says that he never slept with the alleged victim). He also refuses to stand down from his position, but will take mental-health leave.
He also claims that nobody has "put the details" of the allegation to him and that all he knows about them he's read in the media. |
he did have a point that if he stood down, anyone could be made to leave their job based on shit written on social media.
but i gotta tell you, i did not see that comin! man oh man |
Exactly, the former opposition leader didn't stand down over rape allegations.
It's just ridiculous people calling for people to stand down/be sacked over something they haven't been and never will be charged for.
But it's probably the same people who wanted JDG sacked as well. |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
It happened so long ago, no charges. Seems very odd, I don’t know what kind of person he is, but that wasn’t scripted, he’s a man on the edge. Horrible. _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
A lot of people are saying Porter’s comparisons of himself to Shorten were opportunistic, but he had a point – the difference in reaction does seem stark, despite the essential similarities between the cases in question (a decades-old allegation dating back to a politician’s teenage years, the alleged victim only coming forward many years later, a dropped police investigation due to insufficient evidence, questions over the reliability of the victim’s testimony, an emotional press conference). That’s just from memory – basically, my recollection is that hardly anyone on either side of the political spectrum even wanted to talk about it – but that seems borne out by how it was discussed here.
https://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/viewtopic.php?t=74905
Weirdly, the only one here who seemed to have their finger on the pulse, in the sense that her sentiments then fit with the dominant reaction to Porter’s allegation on Twitter and in much of the media, was 1061:
David wrote: | 1061 wrote: | There are thousands of people around our great country this police inaction will affect. The Police are not saying the incident didn't happen they are saying they don't think there is a good chance of winning the case. Many people's thinking has been reinforced by this lack of heart by the investigating police. This happens over and over again and the perpetrators get away with it this is why the Milne charge is a good thing.
How many either took their own life or are thinking about it this week, how many people has this PR act by Bill indirectly encouraged to self harm?
It's just sad and he should step down NOW. |
Are you taking the piss? We have no idea whether this happened or not. For all we know it could be politically motivated slander. Are you seriously saying that a politician (or other public figure) should lose their job because of a mere accusation?
As for people self-harming because of Bill Shorten, I can just imagine it now: "I just can't handle the fact that a politician has been the subject of unsubstantiated rape allegations, so I'm going to go and slash my wrists." Do such people actually exist? |
At the time, it seemed like 1061 was being the unreasonable one (and I wasn’t the only one who took issue). But I would probably be pilloried if I posted that today in response to people saying the same thing about Porter. So what’s changed?
Some will say it’s partisan double standards and hypocrisy, but I feel like that’s only part of the story. I think that a lot of the people commenting about Porter online feel so sure that he did it that they can’t even entertain the possibility he might be innocent. That’s because he’s a Liberal politician and a particularly nasty one, yes, but I don’t think this is cynical or tactical – I think that, because he’s a Liberal politician and they dislike him, they really do truly believe that he must be guilty. And deep down, a lot of them, if they are being honest with themselves, want him to be. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace
Last edited by David on Wed Mar 03, 2021 10:55 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
|
|
|
eddiesmith
Lets get ready to Rumble
Joined: 23 Nov 2004 Location: Lexus Centre
|
Post subject: | |
|
Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape... |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
This is a link to the Four Corners Programme about how toxic it is for women staffers in the Liberal Party:
It also reveals the character of the not too Christian Porter.
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc.net.au/article/12862910
Despite his denials that the media never spoke with him, he was specifically asked by the Media as far back as that programme (November 2020), and more recently by Neil Mitchell on 3AW and others; he’s playing with words here.
As painful as it is to watch (Porters discomfort) a woman is dead. She has written very detailed descriptions of what transpired with Porter in her view.
There is a high correlation of women with mental health issues, deliberate self harm and suicide / suicide attempts who have been raped / sexually abused. An alarmingly positive correlation. _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
Post subject: | |
|
That's right, but couldn't you also say that there is high correlation of women with mental health issues who deliberately self harm and suicide, when those woman have not been sexually assaulted or raped? |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
eddiesmith wrote: | Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape... |
What, particularly, were you wanting to say "in support of him"?
There are certainly some important principles of process and fairness for which we might want to express generalized support. But I am struggling to see what might sensibly be said in support of him, following that press conference. Given the admissions he did make about a series of independently verifiable matters (which had been used by the usual run of internet "sleuths" before his announcement to identify, amongst other things, him, her, the circumstances in which they met and when the alleged incident must have happened), the allegations all seem more plausible after he spoke than they did beforehand.
The point about those principles of process and fairness is that they are systemic ones that we accept about the way we want our justice system to operate (in all cases, not just in connection with sex crimes) and the restricted basis upon which we want the state to impose punitive sanctions. Plenty of people do things for which they are not convicted because of the high standard of proof - predicated, as it is, on the notion that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” (per William Blackstone).
Statistically speaking, there is plenty of research that shows that "false" allegations of rape are inherently unlikely. Thus, common knowledge tells us that, prospects of conviction notwithstanding, the chances are that allegations of this kind are much more likely to be true than untrue. Even so, the practical operation of the applicable evidentiary principles entails a presumption that the complainant in a rape case is lying, so that guilt will only be found when the trier of fact is positively persuaded that the complainant is telling the truth.
One must, of course, do everything in one's power to avoid reasoning from the general likelihood that a woman will be telling the truth in any given case to the conclusion that a particular putative defendant is "guilty" of particular allegations in any relevant legal sense. But that inherent tension between the way the legal system operates and what we otherwise know to be true is the very reason why this started as - and remains - a very nasty political problem. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
^
So in essence you're saying Bill Shorten is a rapist who got away with it. _________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
5 from the wing on debut
Joined: 27 May 2016
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | eddiesmith wrote: | Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape... |
What, particularly, were you wanting to say "in support of him"?
There are certainly some important principles of process and fairness for which we might want to express generalized support. But I am struggling to see what might sensibly be said in support of him, following that press conference. Given the admissions he did make about a series of independently verifiable matters (which had been used by the usual run of internet "sleuths" before his announcement to identify, amongst other things, him, her, the circumstances in which they met and when the alleged incident must have happened), the allegations all seem more plausible after he spoke than they did beforehand.
The point about those principles of process and fairness is that they are systemic ones that we accept about the way we want our justice system to operate (in all cases, not just in connection with sex crimes) and the restricted basis upon which we want the state to impose punitive sanctions. Plenty of people do things for which they are not convicted because of the high standard of proof - predicated, as it is, on the notion that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” (per William Blackstone).
Statistically speaking, there is plenty of research that shows that "false" allegations of rape are inherently unlikely. Thus, common knowledge tells us that, prospects of conviction notwithstanding, the chances are that allegations of this kind are much more likely to be true than untrue. Even so, the practical operation of the applicable evidentiary principles entails a presumption that the complainant in a rape case is lying, so that guilt will only be found when the trier of fact is positively persuaded that the complainant is telling the truth.
One must, of course, do everything in one's power to avoid reasoning from the general likelihood that a woman will be telling the truth in any given case to the conclusion that a particular putative defendant is "guilty" of particular allegations in any relevant legal sense. But that inherent tension between the way the legal system operates and what we otherwise know to be true is the very reason why this started as - and remains - a very nasty political problem. |
There have been quite a few documented cases of false rape allegations though.
This one came to mind straight away.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/canberra-woman-jailed-for-false-rape-claim/10723908 |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ That there are exceptions that prove the rule is not an answer to the political issue. The fact that it happens from very occasional time to very occasional time is neither here nor there for the political, as distinct from legal, process. The research suggests that, at worst, 10% of accusations are false (which means, of course, that, at worst, 90% are likely to be true) but the more sophisticated analysis is that the incidence of false reporting is under 1%. |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
stui magpie wrote: | ^
So in essence you're saying Bill Shorten is a rapist who got away with it. |
I don't understand your point. I have no interest in Shorten. I think you mistake me for an ALP voter. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
5 from the wing on debut wrote: | That's right, but couldn't you also say that there is high correlation of women with mental health issues who deliberately self harm and suicide, when those woman have not been sexually assaulted or raped? |
No. _________________ “I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|