Dress code?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

I knew a lot more about the evidence in the OJ trial than I do about the evidence in this trial.

@wolfgang59 said
The defence should be allowed to try anything.
But surely the judge can decide on irrelevancies"?

While of course I agree that clothing is not dispositive of a person's intent and no level of provocative dress in any way justifies unwelcome physical advances, I hardly think dress is completely irrelevant to a person's state of mind, when that state of mind is an important factor on which the credibility of the allegation turns.

I don't know the precise facts of that case, but say we had a "he-said-she-said" trial. Putting aside for a moment the question of whether anyone should be convicted based solely on the victim's testimony, the entirety of the issue turns on the credibility and state of mind of the alleged victim.

In such case, I'd be loathe to deny almost any line of questioning that's relevant to the state of mind of the alleged victim.

@sh76 said
I hardly think dress is completely irrelevant to a person's state of mind, when that state of mind is an important factor on which the credibility of the allegation turns.

, the entirety of the issue turns on the credibility and state of mind of the alleged victim.

When that girl got dressed for a night out I'm sure her state of
mind was "I want to feel good about myself" not "I'll save any
stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".

If you disagree - ask your wife why she is wearing
sexy knickers next time she goes out with the girls.

@wolfgang59 said
When that girl got dressed for a night out I'm sure her state of
mind was "I want to feel good about myself" not "I'll save any
stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".

If you disagree - ask your wife why she is wearing
sexy knickers next time she goes out with the girls.

=== "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".===

And you really don't see that you're assuming the conclusion you're setting out to prove?

@sh76 said
=== "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes".===

And you really don't see that you're assuming the conclusion you're setting out to prove?

You'll have to talk me through that.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

@wolfgang59 said
You'll have to talk me through that.
I'm not trying to prove anything.

You're assuming there was no consent.

Otherwise, what does "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes" mean?

I think I have to agree with sh76 here.

An argument may be terrible, sexist and outdated, but that doesn't mean it should be banned from court. If a jury can't figure out that this is an invalid argument and the prosecutor can't convince them of this, the real problem is the culture at large, where such an argument can possibly be taken seriously.

I don't want to be unfair to Irish citizens though, since there's quite a large backlash from the public regarding the use of this tactic. Clearly, quite a number of them think this is bullocks.

@vivify said
I think I have to agree with sh76 here.

An argument may be terrible, sexist and outdated, but that doesn't mean it should be banned from court. If a jury can't figure out that this is an invalid argument and the prosecutor can't convince them of this, the real problem is the culture at large, where such an argument can possibly be taken seriously.

I don't want to be u ...[text shortened]... he public regarding the use of this tactic. Clearly, quite a number of them think this is bullocks.

Maybe this should be considered as evidence why juries (made up of common people) are a horrible idea. Lawyers know that people have personal biases, and exploiting them is fair game in court. A system of more educated people who don't fall for foolish arguments that can sway the less educated.

@sh76 said
You're assuming there was no consent.

Otherwise, what does "I'll save any stranger the trouble of asking my consent for sex in the bushes" mean?

No I'm not.
I'm not interested in the case, the verdict or what actually happened.

I'm interested in the ridiculous notion that a woman's knickers can
indicate her "state of mind" several hours after she has chosen them.

@js357 said
So are we all.

oof!

@wolfgang59 said
No I'm not.
I'm not interested in the case, the verdict or what actually happened.

I'm interested in the ridiculous notion that a woman's knickers can
indicate her "state of mind" several hours after she has chosen them.

"Indicate" is a strong word, and so I'd technically agree with your statement.

Still, since the only issue is consent and determining consent depends, to some degree, on state of mind, do you not think it's at least relevant enough to state of mind to be within the purview of what is allowed to be brought up?

Evidence should be relevant, but it doesn't have to be dispositive to be relevant. Don't you think criminal defendants ought to have latitude in bringing up facts that might even have a very slight tendency towards exoneration before being sent to prison and tarred with the title "convicted felon" forever?

@sh76 said
Still, since the only issue is consent and determining consent depends, to some degree, on state of mind, do you not think it's at least relevant enough to state of mind to be within the purview of what is allowed to be brought up?

Certainly.
State of mind when the act happened.

But I do not think there is any correlation between choice of knickers and state of mind pertaining to the event.

I say again ... ask your wife..