4 ms·

Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?

by analog 13y ago

Pwnguinz 13y ago
I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury. But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up." Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.
- analog 13y ago
  Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.
  - fakeer 13y ago
    Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women. PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.
  - cperciva 13y ago
    In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.
    - analog 13y ago
      She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence. [1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons_we_couldnt_turn_away_a_request_for_justice/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...
      - cperciva 13y ago
        Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent is a different question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know what witness statements may have indicated. I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.

Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?

by analog 13y ago

Not to be unnecessarily argumentative but do you think a jury would be convinced by that 'she was throwing up due to strenuous exercise' excuse?

Pwnguinz 13y ago

I don't know. Honestly, I don't. I think it seriously would come down to what context that issue was brought up, how good the prosecution is vs. the defense attorneys (both supplied by the Crown, presumably. Unless one or more of the accused male youths are wealthy enough to obtain his own legal counsel), and how the issue is presented to the judge and jury. But I can certainly seeing it played to the accused favour by the counsel saying something along the lines of: "She was drunk enough that during consensual intercourse, she threw up." Thereby sidelining that issue for pretty much the rest of the trial. Even if it's ever brought up again, in the Jury's minds, it wouldn't necessarily have the negative connotation that you're envisioning.

analog 13y ago
Maybe it's different in Canada but in the UK being that drunk would be very strong evidence that you were in no state to give consent. If you have sex with someone who's so drunk they don't know what they're doing that's rape.
- fakeer 13y ago
  Well, what if both were drunk? Then who raped whom? Keeping aside the widely accepted stereotype that only men can rape women. PS. A generic question. Not related to the crime mentioned in OP.
- cperciva 13y ago
  In Canada, there is certainly a point where intoxication makes people unable to legally consent. Presumably the police and/or prosecutors felt there was not sufficient evidence of that level of intoxication.
  - analog 13y ago
    She was vomiting in the photo, that's pretty good evidence of that level of intoxication. The accused was also clearly recognisable[1] in the photo so it beggars belief that they could think there wasn't sufficient evidence. [1] “because he is easily recognizable in a photograph showing him raping the victim while she is visibly ill… why the RCMP decided these photographs aren’t evidence of rape is beyond us.” http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons_we_couldnt_turn_away_a_request_for_justice/ http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/anonymous_on_rehtaeh_parsons...
    - cperciva 13y ago
      Vomiting certainly does increase the Bayesian likelihood that she was intoxicated; whether it is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent is a different question. I have not, of course, seen the photo in question, nor do I know what witness statements may have indicated. I'm not saying that Rehtaeh Parsons was not raped; only that when the police and prosecutors say that they do not think they could secure a conviction, I'm inclined to trust their expertise and knowledge of the case.