this auld wan that's up the duff (2 Viewers)

[F. Fred Palakon]

The burden of proof is always on the victim of any crime. Is everyone, therefore, regarded by the law as a liar?

No. But in the system by which Ro was proposing, a woman would have to prove that she had been raped in order to get an abortion. If she tried and faild to prove she had been raped, this would be a criminal offence. So not only would this hypothetical woman have to carry a baby she didn't want to term against her will, she would be criminalised for saying she had been raped when the courts didn't agree with her.

Obviously, in the normal legal system the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, but what Ro is proposing isn't something that should ever, ever happen in the normal legal system.

 

[jane]

The burden of proof is always on the victim of any crime. Is everyone, therefore, regarded by the law as a liar?

One of the problems with dealing with rape cases is that of course, you cannot assume that the defendant is guilty because that goes against the whole principle of the 'innocent until proven guilty'. However, it need not necessarily follow that the victim is lying, and the way rape cases are actually handled do sometimes place undue emphasis on the potential untruth of the victim.

There isn't a single person involved in the legal system, or who would be closely related to dealing with cases of rape who would suggest that there be an automatic assumption of the defendant's guilt, but the extremely difficult question is how to balance the preservation of the accused's rights with a sensitive handling of the victim's experience.

As with all criminal cases, the state is the prosecution, and the victim is only a witness. It is not seen, in strict legal terms, as a crime against the person, but one against the state. Unlike in murder trials, where the victim is dead, the rape victim can be cross-examined. This, again, is just part of how the legal system works, but these cross-examinations are one of the reasons that many rape victims do not wish for their case to go to trial, as these can be extremely aggressive and damaging. Often, these also take the form, not necessarily of proving that sexual contact occurred, but for the defense to try to prove that the victim somehow 'asked for it'.

When it comes to rape cases, the legal system that we have fails badly. However, this legal system is very much underpinned by notions, regardless of the 'innocent until proven guilty' stuff, that most people are liars, not just women. Even when the commission of a crime has been established, the defence may frame its argument around whether the victim 'deserved' what he or she got.

It's just that this becomes really prominent in a case of rape. I imagine that very similar situations might also occur with murder. While the victim is dead, the people close to him or her may not be, and the defense -- as in the recent case of the Anabels 4 -- may take very technical lines that, while they admit the person(s) did 'the deed' would downplay the terrible fact that someone was killed because of it. The fact that those lads went free must have been incredibly traumatic for the family. The technicalities being constantly discussed in the media, while never really acknowledging the family's pain, and the fact that if many of us were sitting there going, "But they kicked him to death!" imagine what Brian Murphy's family was thinking.

The legal system does not handle crimes against the person well, period. It's just that here, we were only talking about rape, which is a special case for a number of reasons. In public perceptions of rape, there is still a very strong sense that women -- who are the bulk of rape victims, but by no means all -- have a tendency to lie. According to the 2002 SAVI survey (which I have sitting in front of me), almost 15% of people surveyed believed that rape victims were not necessarily 'innocent', and may have done something to ask for it. 40% believed that 'accusations of rape are often false'. This is in contrast with the number of rape cases that do make it to trial -- and given the trauma that may be associated with taking a case to trial, it is extremely rare for a false accusation to go that far. And false accusations are, in general, quite rare in their own right.

So yes, while the legal system doesn't necessarily treat any victim of a violent crime with any real sensitivity, rape cases are particularly bad, as they are very much underlined by a prevalent belief in society that women are whores and liars.

And I agree with Mazzyianne that emotion is a form of knowledge, and just because someone gets emotive about something doesn't mean what they say should be dismissed. If I were making a documentary, by the way, egg, I would probably employ somewhat more reserve, but then, I would not have to worry quite as much about deflecting accusations of manhating and hysteria (which, no, did not come from you). I have not accused anyone of anything, except of being shortsighted, narrowminded and overly simplistic, or of refusing to acknowledge that I and others have tried to bring some complexity to the table. But simply bringing up the legal system, or the underlying causes for these ideas in the present -- which are indeed very relevant -- has resulted in dismissively simple, glib responses, rather than asking real questions that respect the fact that while we might not include everything we know about everything in the answer, we may well have something to back it up.

I think your point, egg, is interesting. How much of what is the modern perception of abortion law rooted in these ancient understandings of women as 'unruly'? While I do think there are seriously underacknowledged perceptions that are cultural inheritances, these things don't come down to us undistilled. I don't think there's a point where we can really divide things up into neat categories, where we have one heading for 'stuff from the past' and another for 'totally modern ideas'. I do think, actually, that all of us has prejudices and internalised sexism, racism and other isms -- including everyone who is on the side of understanding and social justice -- that we leave unexplored to our peril.

 

[jane]

No. But in the system by which Ro was proposing, a woman would have to prove that she had been raped in order to get an abortion. If she tried and faild to prove she had been raped, this would be a criminal offence. So not only would this hypothetical woman have to carry a baby she didn't want to term against her will, she would be criminalised for saying she had been raped when the courts didn't agree with her.

Obviously, in the normal legal system the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, but what Ro is proposing isn't something that should ever, ever happen in the normal legal system.

But Ro also never explained how this 'crime' would be prosecuted, and under what heading it would fall.

 

[egg_]

in the system by which Ro was proposing, a woman would have to prove that she had been raped in order to get an abortion. If she tried and faild to prove she had been raped, this would be a criminal offence.

Ah damn internet threads with their multiple conversations ... I haven't made any comments on Ro's ideas, nor do I intend to. I got the impression that the "whores and liars" thing referred to the legal system and society as they exist, not as they might be if Ro was king - is that not the case?

 

[Dr Winston Umbogo]

But Ro also never explained how this 'crime' would be prosecuted, and under what heading it would fall.

a good flogging in the bogs of supermacs in o'connell street should suffice.

 

[jane]

I find that offensive. I come from a family of eight children; I am a devoted uncle to seven nieces and nephews and have spent an awful lot of time with them, not to mention my experience of seeing my sisters pregnant or watching my close family become parents; I am a married man who would like to have a family some day. Who are you to make sexist judgements on my experience with kids or on how well informed my views about children are just because I am a man?

I've said all I'm going to say on this.

How is what she said in any way sexist? How is pointing out that being a person with a womb, in a society that is obsessed with what goes in and what comes out of that womb, influences how we live in the world?

I don't have a big load of siblings, but I do have lots of friends with kids, and I'm a godmother to a gorgeous little nipper, who makes me laugh heartily from the belly. And I also want a family someday.

No one, absolutely no one would suggest that just because you're a man, you can't love kids, or value them. No one made any judgements on your experiences with kids, we only asked you to explain your incredibly simplistic and quite scary proposition that instead of legalising abortion, the proprietorship of women's wombs be handed from the state to individual men.

The point is that your experience in the world is different from a woman's. If it weren't, there would be no differences between men and women, or no differences among men and women. No one would think it was anything but cool that any man or woman loved kids and wanted them. The whole point of pro-choice is that every child should be a wanted child -- without a love of children, there would be no viable pro-choice position. I don't know where you got the idea that anyone was suggesting you don't know anything about them. But you still don't know what it's like to have a womb.

You can stop participating if you like, but by backing out without explaining how this law you propose doesn't hurt women, and how it would actually be enforced -- well, that really weakens what little argument you had.

 

[broken arm]

can anyone summarise this thread?

what law?

What?

 

[jane]

can anyone summarise this thread?

what law?

What?

In summary: who owns women's bodies?

 

[broken arm]

In summary: who owns women's bodies?

em, dunno. baby jesus?

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

Ah damn internet threads with their multiple conversations ... I haven't made any comments on Ro's ideas, nor do I intend to. I got the impression that the "whores and liars" thing referred to the legal system and society as they exist, not as they might be if Ro was king - is that not the case?

I have also lost to where it refers. Sorry. I just keep going back to the part where Ro thinks women should have to carry children to term against their will unless they prove they have been raped, because I find it so unbelievable a proposition.

Ye can all be here arguing about this on Page 70 of this thread and I'll still be sitting here with my jaw on the keyboard boggling that someone had seriously suggested that. I can only handle one stunned outrage at a time.

 

[snakybus]

The more I read people's opinions about this, the more I think it's a power issue being discussed, and has got nothing to do with children, born or unborn.

 

[MDR]

No. But in the system by which Ro was proposing, a woman would have to prove that she had been raped in order to get an abortion. If she tried and faild to prove she had been raped, this would be a criminal offence. So not only would this hypothetical woman have to carry a baby she didn't want to term against her will, she would be criminalised for saying she had been raped when the courts didn't agree with her.

Obviously, in the normal legal system the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, but what Ro is proposing isn't something that should ever, ever happen in the normal legal system.

Read my post again. I said that it would be illegal to abort without the father's consent unless the woman could prove rape under a reduced burden of proof.

 

[snakybus]

I have also lost to where it refers. Sorry. I just keep going back to the part where Ro thinks women should have to carry children to term against their will unless they prove they have been raped, because I find it so unbelievable a proposition.

Ye can all be here arguing about this on Page 70 of this thread and I'll still be sitting here with my jaw on the keyboard boggling that someone had seriously suggested that. I can only handle one stunned outrage at a time.

I don't know what you're so agog about - it's already the law in Ireland that they have to do that - boat to England aside.

 

[jane]

Read my post again. I said that it would be illegal to abort without the father's consent unless the woman could prove rape under a reduced burden of proof.

But, again, what kind of crime would it be?

And actually, what you say you are arguing for is exactly what Helena said. She's just pointed out the reality of a law like that: it would force women to carry children to term even if they didn't want to.

 

[snakybus]

helena - well not exactly, but you know what I mean

 

[F. Fred Palakon]

I don't know what you're so agog about - it's already the law in Ireland that they have to do that - boat to England aside.

That's a very good point. I'll maintain my stunned outrage as a daily staple.

 

[jane]

That's a very good point. I'll maintain my stunned outrage as a daily staple.

Yes, this did make me titter. I mean, we are kind of talking about a pile of hypotheticals here, rather than acknowledging the simple fact that abortion remains illegal in Ireland.

I'm still agog about it. I grew up in a place where it was just normal, and it existed, and you just hoped you wouldn't end up in the position of having to make the decision yourself. Not where it was actually against the law.

 

[Buzzo]

I'm quite shocked. I really am. The notion of forcing someone to carry a pregnancy to term and give birth against their will is truly one of the most oppressive, regressive ideas I've heard from apparently educated people in a long, long time.

Imagine if that law was passed, that a man had the final say in whether or not a woman would endure pregnancy and labour, and it was only the thin end of the wedge..... genuinely scary.

It makes our abortion laws seem progressive by comparison.

 

[broken arm]

would you say there is ever an instance when the mother-to-be is not in a fit position to make the decision to abort - meaning that there is a need to intervene?

p.s. i think womens bodies are better than mens bodies

 

[Rogue]

Having followed this from the start I may as well weigh in, it can't get any more complex or loaded than it already is.

Read my post again. I said that it would be illegal to abort without the father's consent unless the woman could prove rape under a reduced burden of proof.

Ro: I think that a law of that nature is still dangerously one-sided. If two people have consensual sex and girl becomes pregnant unintentionally her only way to avoid carrying to term is to prove that she was raped in the first place.