Another case of Australia's affirmative sexual consent law - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Crime and prevention thereof. Loopholes, grey areas and the letter of the law.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15171408
ThirdTerm wrote:The victim admitted she had been open to having sex with Hayne but was hoping for a future with the former Parramatta Eels star, not a fling.

That often happens. There are many cases of women wrongly accusing a man of rape after he has sex with her and then leaves. She was expecting something more, and feels used and violated when she finds out the man doesn't want to stay with her.

The woman could have let the man have sex with her, and then in retrospect claim that she never gave her consent, when she tacitly did.
Women are experts at twisting conversations to make it sound like the other person was bad or being unreasonable. I really think it often goes on on a semi-conscious level where they don't even realise they're doing it, if they're angry with the other person.
#15171434
Puffer Fish wrote:They're basically just automatically believing the woman's version of the story.

There is not really any other evidence here.

Like I explained, the woman might not be trying to lie, but is telling the story from her perspective.

She could pass a lie detector test and say the same thing under the truth serum, and it is still theoretically possible that the man could be innocent of rape.

If you watched that video, you could see how the same words could be interpreted very differently.

If the man and woman both say they remember words being said, that doesn't exactly mean it was those exact words which were said. That is what they remember the meaning of the words to have been. The words they are remembering might be very similar to what was said, but not exactly the same, and those differences could be in certain crucial ways.

What do you think the sort of evidence that comes up in a court case on sexual assault?
Is your criticism then that the standards are too lenient?
https://time.com/5413814/he-said-she-said-kavanaugh-ford-mitchell/
Although corroboration is no longer a requirement in sex-assault prosecutions, it is valuable in every type of criminal case. Corroboration comes in many forms. Today, we use DNA whenever we can, but for a variety of reasons, survivors often delay reporting sex assaults (if they ever report at all, though, most never do) and DNA is often unavailable. So we look to less technical, but equally important evidence, such as eyewitnesses at the bar or party in question. We pull video surveillance, doctors’ reports, text messages, phone calls, social media posts, memoirs, calendars and yearbooks. Such evidence can substantiate — or refute — an alleged attack, even if no eyewitnesses saw the attack itself.

There may also be evidence that doesn’t directly prove what happened that day but may support or undermine the credibility of witnesses. We examine any motive to lie, such as divorce and custody proceedings, financial interests, romantic revenge or career prospects. We listen to testimony, noting when a witness is direct and helpful versus belligerent and evasive.

And we know that many sex offenders are recidivists. For example, according to a 2002 study, 90% of assaults on college campuses are committed by 6% of the males, with each assailant committing an average of five to six assaults. If a boy did it once, he probably did it again. So we search for additional victims of the same assailant.
...
At the core of the “he said, she said” myth is the idea that “ladies lie.” But studies show that rape claims are false at exactly the same rate as claims of any other crime, about 2–6% of the time. You’re just as likely to be falsely accused of mugging someone as raping them.

Either way, there are methods of discerning the truth in a court of law. We need to understand that when two people tell different stories — whether about a sex crime or an armed robbery — we can use common sense, reasoning and investigation to figure out what happened.


Because it's not like she accused him and they went right ma'am, off to jail you go Mr. Hynes. From the summary of the case in the article alone she sounds a lot more credible than her and his own defense he even acknowledges he refusal to have sex with him but tries to say that the oral sex was consensual. This sounds less credible.
THe court necessarily hears both sides of the story.
What do you think the defense was doing in this case?

If your idea of prosecuting rape is that there must be video evidence showing the exact science like with the Chauvin trial, then you're asking for something that is basically an impossibility for many crimes, and on what pretense? That it's too great a risk to prosecute when there isn't no doubt, as opposed to a beyond a reasonable doubt.
I think what is particularly weak here is you're talking not even directly to the facts of the case, the woman's testimony, or anything but only vaguely referencing issues that you think could occur in such a case but not actually arguing that it is the case here.

And we see in your next post is that really the hang up you have here is the belief that woman lie, not that it's just possible that she is lying but again, you don't even attack the woman's credibility here. Just because you think something is possible, doesn't make it plausible and one has to use evidence which corroborates your claim.
The idea of it being simply he said she said, seems to be based in your own impression that the court simply heard her accusation and accepted it which is far from the truth of how any court case goes.
On the other hand, besides attacking her credibility, you are not even making a defense of Hyne based on the facts.
However it seems there is another layer, you aren't simply implying that women make false accusations but also seemingly buffering this claim with the sense that women simply rationalize to themselves that they were raped when they weren't, such that they experience it as true but it isn't because they conflate regret and other emotions with the experience of being raped.
Which in itself is pretty absurd, women definitely experience the difference between a shit root or someone acting shitty and being forced into sexual acts. So yet again we have a claim that is asserted and no real defense of why it is somehow more plausible than women being able to have a proper sense of their own emotional state and experience of things.
Somehow sex with the prick of a person is conflated with sexual assault.
It sounds like you just got a hang up about women and accusations of sexual assault more so than a credible point.
ALl of which has made the thread lose sight of the very ramifications and limitations of affirmative consent legislation as inadequate and problematic in undermining women's agency as it doesn't properly track to what consent is.

Even when it comes to the issue of false allegations, generally they are proved on the basis of some ulterior motive.
The suitable one here instead of an alibi/cover story, would be the effort to show some sort of malicious intent. That she was so pissed off about the taxi thing, that they consensual oral sex and then she reported that she was raped.
This is pretty much what you're suggesting in your last post, and once again not specifically to this case, but just a vague assertion that women are prone to such emotional and malicious false allegations. Which tends to hint at the sense that you simply have a distrust of women and trust of men in the issue of men being accused. So when people go yeah the facts of this case do support the conviction, you're shocked.
#15171437
Puffer Fish wrote:For those of you who may not be aware, due to the feminist element having taken over, Australia has what are called "affirmative consent" laws concerning sex and sexual assault. Meaning the man can still be guilty of sexual assault even if the woman did not clearly say no.
The typical such case involves a reluctant woman who regretted it afterwards. The men are not entirely without blame but it is the farthest thing away from what most people typically imagine as a rape.

It looks like it has happened again, this time to rugby star Jarred Hayne.

He met a woman through the internet and met her for the first time at her house. While he was in the middle of playing her a song off his laptop, the taxi outside which had dropped him off beeped its horn, and the man had to go out to convince the taxi to keep waiting. Before that the woman had not realized there was a taxi waiting outside. That seemed to ruin the mood.

He went back inside and watched grand final football coverage on the TV in the lounge room for several minutes with the woman's mother. He then went into the woman's bedroom where he began to touch and kiss her.

The woman was not interested in sexual contact after finding out about the taxi.

The woman said "What do you think you're doing? There's no way I'm going to touch you."
The man removed her jeans, while the woman claims she said "no".
But apparently the man didn't get the message that she was saying absolutely no.

It's like the difference between a "little no" and a "big no".

Many people believe this sounds more like a case where the woman was just being reluctant.

The man was not completely without fault here, but it wasn't exactly the classic case of date rape.

In many other countries this might be somewhere in the spectrum between a just a reluctant woman and being date rape. But not in Australia.

The man does not believe he committed rape, he seems genuine about this belief.

One additional factor here, the man was a muscular built rugby player and did weigh twice as much as the woman.

During intercourse the woman began to bleed, and when that happened the man stopped and did not finish.

The woman later explained "My vagina was stinging in a throb-like sensation and I couldn't understand or fully comprehend that he had just done that to me. I sat on my bed hugging my knees and staring into nothingness."

There are many people very skeptical about the claims that what happened constituted a rape, due to the situation and facts of the case, although nobody besides those two people can know for sure exactly how much the woman did or didn't protest in that bedroom.


The man was sentenced to 5 years and 9 months, but will be eligible for release on parole in a little less than 4 years.

Apparently the man could not believe he had been found guilty and would be going to prison.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/jar ... 57phs.html


Now, it should be pointed out that the woman did technically say "no" here, but due to the background context of the situation, it may not have been interpreted, and there is good reason to believe it was not, as a serious no.

There are some intricacies with consent. A no isn't exactly always a no. A woman can subtly communicate she's going to have sex with man, and then seem to suddenly change her mind, but not be very decided about it.
In countries with affirmative consent laws, this is very dangerous territory for the man.

This might have been more like "I don't really feel like it right now, maybe some time later" and then the woman doesn't put up much psychological resistance to the man's advances and is implicitly communicating "Oh, okay, I'll let you have your way" somewhat reluctantly.

Of course, if a woman doesn't feel like she specifically said yes, wasn't the most enthusiastic about it to begin with, and there was something unanticipated that went bad during the experience that caused her to feel unpleasant (especially if it was bleeding and soreness, which is not extremely uncommon), then the woman is more likely to feel violated in a serious way. That's when the sexual assault claims begin.


After reading your post I would class this as rape 100%. Also, when you read these things, you have to question why anyone would have sex with anyone after meeting them for the first time. Firstly there isn't many women who want sex after meeting a guy once, and even if there were, rapists always seem to claim they have been led on so why not protect yourself by getting to know the stranger first. If you don't know the person you are having a sexual relationship or feel they may use that against you, then perhaps you need to think again. No sympathy here. Just a guy who is thick or a guy who is a rapist. I would say the latter.
#15171461
Puffer Fish wrote:They're basically just automatically believing the woman's version of the story.

There is not really any other evidence here.

Like I explained, the woman might not be trying to lie, but is telling the story from her perspective.

She could pass a lie detector test and say the same thing under the truth serum, and it is still theoretically possible that the man could be innocent of rape.

If you watched that video, you could see how the same words could be interpreted very differently.

If the man and woman both say they remember words being said, that doesn't exactly mean it was those exact words which were said. That is what they remember the meaning of the words to have been. The words they are remembering might be very similar to what was said, but not exactly the same, and those differences could be in certain crucial ways.


Do you have any evidence at all that he did not rape this woman?
#15171492
Julian658 wrote:There is no need to prove innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty by the state.


No. This is not a court of law. This is a debate forum. In debate forums, we discuss what actually happened. And in reality, he either raped someone or he did not.

My mom once stole a teapot lid from the Bay. She was never found guilty of theft. Does that mean she never did it?

Your automatic defence of rapists is noted, though.
#15171513
Pants-of-dog wrote:No. This is not a court of law. This is a debate forum. In debate forums, we discuss what actually happened. And in reality, he either raped someone or he did not.

My mom once stole a teapot lid from the Bay. She was never found guilty of theft. Does that mean she never did it?

Your automatic defence of rapists is noted, though.

I don’t know the details of the case. However, one would think the man should be proven guilty first.
#15171538
Jarryd Hayne guilty of ‘bad sex’, not rape, lawyer tells court
Woman only complained because she was 'upset about her injuries', defence barrister says

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... ells-court


Former NRL star Harry's Hayne has told a jury he knew a woman didn’t want to have sex with him in her bedroom but he wanted to “please her”.

(by "sex", he is referring to normal sexual intercourse)

Giving evidence in his defence during his rape trial in Newcastle district court on Friday, Hayne said he had been kissing the woman before she removed her pants and he performed oral sex on her.

“She was breathing heavily, she was fine,” Hayne said. “I knew she didn’t want to have sex. I thought I would just please her.”

He said he was suddenly in shock and jumped up when he “first felt the sense of a different liquid hit my lip”.

Hayne didn’t have a clue what it was and looked at his hands before realising it was blood.​

https://theguardian.com/australia-news/ ... please-her


very good article about affirmative sexual consent in Australia:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.smh.co ... 52e1p.html

It looks like this wasn't even the law in the Australian state of Victoria until the 2016 Crimes Amendment Sexual Offences Act, which clarified and drastically altered the definition of consent.
http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/ ... 49/s1.html
#15171549
@Puffer Fish now we have something interesting in hearing the defense!

When trying to see if any court documents were available for the case, stumbled upon a prior accusation when Haynes played in US football.
https://www.scribd.com/document/367569012/Jarryd-Hayne-documents



There has been lengthy discussion in Australian law whether to permit facts that a prior accusation of a similar nature occured and whether this biases a case or is relevant in characterizing the accused.
Seems while the delay in reporting rape is raises in the account with the lawyer, it seems she contacted Haynes about what happened.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9388145/amp/Listen-Jarryd-Haynes-disturbing-call-Mitchell-Pearce-sexual-assault-victim.html

Hayne left soon after and she sent him a text message saying that 'I'm hurting so much'.

'I know I've talked about sex and stuff so much but I didn't want to do that after knowing the taxi was waiting for you,' she wrote in a follow-up text.

His only reply was 'Go doctor tomorrow'.

Hayne never denied the couple had been intimate but his defence told the court that he believed she was saying no to sexual intercourse and consented to other acts.


Interesting to also consider the judges assessment.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-05-06/jarryd-hayne-sentenced-for-sexual-assault/100120002
In handing down her sentence, District Court Judge Helen Syme said she found that Hayne was fully aware that the victim was not consenting and went ahead anyway.

"The reliability and honesty of the victim's evidence was tested at length and in my view, her reliability was not in doubt. She said no several times," Judge Syme said.

"The use of force was such that the victim had no prospect of stopping him physically.

"He was at least twice her weight at 100 kilograms and an athlete at the top of his form."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9548751/amp/Read-judges-remarks-sentenced-Jarryd-Hayne-five-years-nine-months-rape.html
'The fact is she said no to the sexual activity the offender was forcing on her. The offender was fully aware the victim was not consenting and went ahead anyway.

'I do not accept that he was not aware she was trying to push him away and physically resisting him.

'I do not accept the offender did not know or did not hear the victim telling him she did not want to have sex with him.'

Judge Syme said the attack only ended when she started to bleed, and that Hayne had ignored her previous pleas for him to stop.

'He stopped not because she said to, but because he noticed the blood,' she said.

'He didn't stop because he thought what he was doing is wrong, and he's never accepted this.'

Which connects with my emphasis that the victim had credibility it seems, at least in the eyes of those who matter, the judge and jury.
Seems Haynes wasn’t considered credible.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-01/jarryd-hayne-denies-lying-as-sexual-assault-trial-continues/12937582
On Tuesday morning Crown prosecutor Brian Costello suggested to Mr Hayne that he went to the alleged victim's house that night — the night of the NRL grand final — "with the expectation of sex".

"I suggest what you wanted was sex and the quicker the better," Mr Costello said.

"Because the taxi was out the front and the meter was continually running."

"I don't agree with you," Mr Hayne said.
...
Earlier, Mr Costello asked Mr Hayne about the force he used with his hands and mouth during his encounter with the woman.

"Was it soft, rough, gentle?" Mr Costello asked.

"I don't know how to judge force, sorry," Mr Hayne said.


Looks like hes appealing it.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sportingnews.com/au/amp/league/news/jarryd-hayne-appeal-sentence-prison-sexual-assault-supreme-court/8i4eok3o8f7711r3a1dmox6uz
#15171577
Wellsy wrote:There has been lengthy discussion in Australian law whether to permit facts that a prior accusation of a similar nature occured and whether this biases a case or is relevant in characterizing the accused.

That's a very important, difficult, and complicated question.

The way I see things, if they want to bring up an entirely separate case as relevant, the only fair thing for the accused would be to put that case on trial again too, and give the accused the chance to defend themselves there, something that might be too complicated.
And yes, there is a very high chance it might prejudice the jury in an unfair way.

Maybe have the jury come to a conclusion first, then after that tell the jury the prior history and see if that causes them to change their mind. If so, then it would have to go through a judge, so the jury wouldn't be the absolute ones to determine guilt.

I think we as a society though need to come up with some way of determining how past allegations should be used in determining the probability of whether the accused is guilty this time and how much punishment they should get (when it is based on taking that past allegation into account).

Those who have been the subject of false allegations before know how easy it is to be falsely accused again if someone accuses them of the same thing. (Sometimes it's even intentional, when a false accuser knows about the man's past history)
#15171582
Wow, just wow!

So the perpetrator knew the victim didn't want sex and his argument was he wanted to please her! That is rape not just in Australia but like everywhere. You have to question the hive-mind of the right when they will just defend anything when a Liberal law policy is brought forward into this discussion forum - the Liberal law being people should be protected from being raped ffs. Sorry Julian658 you need help. And Pufferfish, NRL stars shouldn't be given a free pass to do what they like. They should be accountable for their actions like the rest of society. I am assuming you were a supporter of his club or something given the evidence you have provided should mean if you were impartial you would know this was rape anyway. If so, don't worry. I am sure your club will replace him. :roll:
#15171624
Puffer Fish wrote:That often happens. There are many cases of women wrongly accusing a man of rape after he has sex with her and then leaves. She was expecting something more, and feels used and violated when she finds out the man doesn't want to stay with her.

The woman could have let the man have sex with her, and then in retrospect claim that she never gave her consent, when she tacitly did.
Women are experts at twisting conversations to make it sound like the other person was bad or being unreasonable. I really think it often goes on on a semi-conscious level where they don't even realise they're doing it, if they're angry with the other person.


The woman never gave consent.

If you think she did, please provide evidence.
#15172100
Pants-of-dog wrote:The woman never gave consent.

If you think she did, please provide evidence.

I did not argue she gave explicit consent.

I argued that her actions sort of implicitly gave consent. That we should look at what she did not do rather than just what she did.

There is no way I am seeing this as a "rape". (If it is, it is the lowest degree/level of rape possible).

She could easily have done so much more to be firm and clear that she absolutely did not want it.
#15172101
B0ycey wrote:Wow, just wow!

So the perpetrator knew the victim didn't want sex and his argument was he wanted to please her! That is rape not just in Australia but like everywhere.

I did not argue that she did want sex, but argued that she did not really not want to have sex either.

Her not saying anything further or being more forceful was a symbol that she had acquiesced to his insistence.

I know the concept of consent can be a tricky thing to grasp, and there can be many subtleties and borderline situations. It is not always so simply black & white.
#15172102
Wellsy wrote:What do you think the sort of evidence that comes up in a court case on sexual assault?
Is your criticism then that the standards are too lenient?

The way the woman describes the situation, I get the feeling it could easily have been a situation where it was not "really" rape, and the man reasonably believed he was not committing rape.

Now, if the woman made allegations and then described a situation that clearly was rape, then it might be appropriate to punish the man, but in that case I still don't believe the punishment should be too severe, since the testimony is only based on the allegations of one witness. Unless there was severe harm to the woman, of the type that most people would not do to themselves just to falsely accuse someone else.
#15172154
Puffer Fish wrote:I did not argue she gave explicit consent.

I argued that her actions sort of implicitly gave consent. That we should look at what she did not do rather than just what she did.

There is no way I am seeing this as a "rape". (If it is, it is the lowest degree/level of rape possible).

She could easily have done so much more to be firm and clear that she absolutely did not want it.


Provide evidence that this was not a clear cut case of rape, then.
#15172172
Puffer Fish wrote:I did not argue that she did want sex, but argued that she did not really not want to have sex either.

Her not saying anything further or being more forceful was a symbol that she had acquiesced to his insistence.

I know the concept of consent can be a tricky thing to grasp, and there can be many subtleties and borderline situations. It is not always so simply black & white.


Given the perpetrator admitted that the victim didn't want sex but pursued anyway because he wanted to please her means this REALLY IS an open and shut case actually. Consent is merely a term to say that someone agrees to an action that takes place. In fact the victim doesn't need to say no for rape to take place. The victim doesn't need to say anything actually. To give consent the victim would have to say yes which she didn't so the lack of words would act AGAINST the defence case not for it FYI. Does that compute to you or do you want to maintain your argument when the case is so one sided?
CRT

I said I don't care if Cuba is racist. I did car[…]

It's not off-topic to discuss racism and the expo[…]

Don’t be daunted if you’ve only just taken the pl[…]

RIP John McAfee....

https://www.news.com.au/technology/online/antiviru[…]