The Higgins Trial - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Australia.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15252678
The judge decided to throw out the jury and pick a new jury because one of the members of the jury was found with an academic paper about the unhelpfulness of trying to quantify how often false rape accusations were made.

I knew that judges want to control what information a jury is allowed to hear in making their decision, but this seems ridiculous.
This did not involve specific information about the case, but was an academic paper with an argument looking at data relating to that type of issue.

It would be tantamount to a jury who is trying to decide a rape case being banned from reading any arguments about false rape accusations and injustice in this political forum site we are in.

What this is about is control of information, in cases that will decide a criminal suspect's fate.
By ness31
#15252753
Puffer Fish, are you American? Can staffers just waltz into the White House at all hours of the day? Particularly if they’re intoxicated ?
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15252840
ness31 wrote:Puffer Fish, Can staffers just waltz into the White House at all hours of the day? Particularly if they’re intoxicated ?

Sorry, what does that have to do with the issue I raised?

It seems you are confusing together two different things.
By ness31
#15252853
Two staffers rocked up to Parliament House intoxicated, very much out of normal business hours, the young lady has said the young man raped her in an office. That’s why I asked if you’re just able to waltz into the White House …like, after everyone’s been out for work drinks? :hmm:
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15252854
Fasces wrote:I know literally nothing about this trial, but I see @Puffer Fish is in here. Is it a rape/sexual assault trial?

Yup!
By ness31
#15252862
It really should have been a judge only trial :hmm:
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15257476
ness31 wrote:It really should have been a judge only trial :hmm:

Being that the judge was a female, I suspect the judge may have been part of the problem.

There is always some inherent gender bias when it comes to rape accusations, and the female victim is the only witness.
By ness31
#15257490
You’re such a troll Puffer Fish.
By pugsville
#15257491
Puffer Fish wrote:Being that the judge was a female, I suspect the judge may have been part of the problem.

There is always some inherent gender bias when it comes to rape accusations, and the female victim is the only witness.


Yeah Females are a problem for you.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15257513
ness31 wrote:You’re such a troll Puffer Fish.

Just because it blatantly offends "politically correct" sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.

My point merely being that a female judge is more likely to view a defendant as guilty in that situation than a male judge.

This notion about whether men should be viewed as entirely guilty of rape when a woman accuses him and there's no other evidence, is not a something that society has come to a settled agreement about.
By pugsville
#15257519
Puffer Fish wrote:Just because it blatantly offends "politically correct" sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.

My point merely being that a female judge is more likely to view a defendant as guilty in that situation than a male judge.

This notion about whether men should be viewed as entirely guilty of rape when a woman accuses him and there's no other evidence, is not a something that society has come to a settled agreement about.


There a examination of evidence by Police who pass that to the DPP who decides weather to proceed with charges, and them the matter is decided by a Jury in court.

It's the legal system. There is no special case for rape trails, Very few actually make it to trail, Historically the police have been pretty uninterested,
By ness31
#15257575
Puffer Fish wrote:Just because it blatantly offends "politically correct" sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.

My point merely being that a female judge is more likely to view a defendant as guilty in that situation than a male judge.

This notion about whether men should be viewed as entirely guilty of rape when a woman accuses him and there's no other evidence, is not a something that society has come to a settled agreement about.


What a silly thing to say.

Being a judge exposes you to content that simply overrides all that stuff. I think a female magistrate can be trusted to make an impartial decision without her ovaries clouding her judgement.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15257693
ness31 wrote:What a silly thing to say.

Let me give you an example. Years ago there was the Lorena Bobbit case where a wife cut off her husband's sexual organ because she said that her husband had repeatedly raped and abused her. Women were saying she should be acquitted of all charges, and men were saying she should get the death penalty.

Another example is a female judge who let a case proceed that involved a man who didn't pull out fast enough. The woman had agreed to sexual intercourse, but then halfway through changed her mind. Even though according to the woman's statement the man pulled out within 40 seconds of her telling him she wanted to stop, that wasn't good enough.

The judge and prosecutor were, of course, female, and the prosecutor tried to get the jury as stacked as possible to make it mostly all female, to win the conviction.
By pugsville
#15257699
Puffer Fish wrote:Just because it blatantly offends "politically correct" sensibilities doesn't mean it's not true.

My point merely being that a female judge is more likely to view a defendant as guilty in that situation than a male judge.

This notion about whether men should be viewed as entirely guilty of rape when a woman accuses him and there's no other evidence, is not a something that society has come to a settled agreement about.


Judges do not decide on guilt of innocence within the jury system.
User avatar
By Puffer Fish
#15257702
pugsville wrote:Judges do not decide on guilt of innocence within the jury system.

You seem to be very naive about how things actually work.

Yes, theoretically it is only the jury that can make the choice of guilt, but there are several ways judges can have a huge influence over what the jury will decide. (Not to mention that the judge is the one to determine how much punishment the accused will get)

I still contend that the gender and associated attitudes of the judge could have a huge influence on what direction certain type of cases will be likely to go.

If you still don't believe me, go find a defense lawyer and ask them how easy it is to win their case if they have a hostile judge.
By ness31
#15257874
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-ac ... 6e8d20316f

She is suing for 3 million and he’s going to go for some cash too.

So what do we have here?

2 young adults who shouldn’t have even been anywhere near Parliament House in their drunken states now trying to get money off the tax payer for their poor life choices.

I live in a dark age and wish I’d never been born.
AOC:Puerto Rico is a Neo Colony?

Puerto Rico and the island colonies of the U.S. ar[…]

Exit Brexit, Part Deux

For the British it's hard to see and treat even t[…]

Again, when was the first time a cop was convicte[…]

There should be military retaliation against Chin[…]