Grace Millane
-
@canefan the lurid has always fascinated people. The reality is that those things physically happened. I don't think we can change that.
We can however change our social judgement of those facts., e.g. she was into some harmless kink. The appropriate judgement is, " meh, so what, she wasn't hurting anyone. She can still be a great person."
It's the puritan/Victorian era judgement by some that diminish her character on an outdated standard that fucks me off.
In other words, fuck the media and the puritans that seek to focus on the trivial. We must confront facts, not hide them for fear of judgement
-
@Bones that really is some amateur hour type shit. Don't get me wrong, this piece of shit can rot in jail for all I care. But if he is up on other charges in other cases then it will be pretty hard for there not to be any bias from prospective jurors.
-
@canefan said in Grace Millane:
I've always wondered why we need to know the gory details of how someone commits murder and how he or she goes about disposing of the body. I don't believe it's about journalism, it's blatant sensationalism. There are some things we just don't need to know. Less is more
Because when the details come out they havent committed murder, just accused of it. A defendant needs to have full rights access to bring up anything he/she wants. Otherwise our judicial system is in bad shape. When the govt starts to decide what you are allowed to say to defend yourself in coirt... we are all fucked.
The media on the other hand had no need to widely publish the defence claims.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Counter-argument is why should a defence lawyer in a rape case be able to bring up how the "alleged" victim was dressed, or their previous sexual history? Both are irrelevant. It's about consent not lifestyle choices
-
@dogmeat said in Grace Millane:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Counter-argument is why should a defence lawyer in a rape case be able to bring up how the "alleged" victim was dressed, or their previous sexual history? Both are irrelevant. It's about consent not lifestyle choices
Beacuse they should be able to bring up anything they like, otherwise you are asking the govt to create some arbitary line, and that is a disaster. Let a jury of peers decide if it is relevant, or a douche bag move form a scum lawyer.
And consent and lifestyle choices can merge, what if the victim had a rape fantasy that she shared with exes and friends, and then she gets raped? Does it make it not rape? Nope, Does it make it rape? Nope. All depends on the evidence presented and the jury of peers. However if we let the govt decide what lifestyle choices are allowed to be discussed in a trial....
Do you really trust the law makers that much? Why this continual desire form some people to give incompetent politicians more and more power?
-
@dogmeat said in Grace Millane:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Counter-argument is why should a defence lawyer in a rape case be able to bring up how the "alleged" victim was dressed, or their previous sexual history? Both are irrelevant. It's about consent not lifestyle choices
That's not a counter argument I believe.
What that comes down to is a prescribed definition of consent that will draw a line in the sand for proof of.
Anything below that line is then not a defence.
At the moment the definition is way too arguable, hence the right to bring up inferences.
I understand that consent isn't always black and white and we don't want to have contracts signed for a root but a set of initial criteria would be good eg was the complainant intoxicated/ conscious (argue that out first before anything).
There will still be grey areas (like the Kuggelin case) but you can let juries decide on that without sexual history and clothing etc being an element. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I agree it shouldn't be legislated but Judges need to be far more vigilant and unaccepting of that sort of questioning.
-
@dogmeat said in Grace Millane:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback I agree it shouldn't be legislated but Judges need to be far more vigilant and unaccepting of that sort of questioning.
You dont trust jurors to make that determination? I believe it is a fundamental right in a democratic to get a decision from a jury of your peers.
Judicial over reach is not much better than political over reach. -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Seen the make up of most jurys…..
-
@dogmeat said in Grace Millane:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Seen the make up of most jurys…..
Seen the make up of most judges and politicians?
Seems to me that fundamentally you want to trust politicians and judges and I want to trust the populace to decide cases.
-
@dogmeat said in Grace Millane:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback Seen the make up of most jurys…..
My best mate who used to be a cop said if guilty of a crime, he'd elect to have a jury trial every day of the week. Innocent, just a judge...
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback not at all - I posted months ago my belief that the trial by jury is the least flawed option, but it is still flawed
-
Killer appealing, because of course he is:
Grace Millane trial: Killer appeals murder conviction and sentence
The man who murdered British backpacker Grace Millane is appealing his conviction and sentence.
Not sure if it will help him, but the issues raised might be worth getting some appellate clarity.
-
Killer still has name suppression, but also a big legal aid bill, that I am sure he will pay back
-
Filthy animal has been named - plus info on other convictions. Pure scum.
-
@Paekakboyz said in Grace Millane:
Filthy animal has been named - plus info on other convictions. Pure scum.
Fuck that was hard reading
-
"Kempson was also found guilty of raping a young woman he met on the dating app Tinder. In circumstances eerily similar to his time with Grace, the woman was a young British tourist, and he carried out his crime in a motel room."
"Now, it can also be reported for the first time that he also subjected a former partner to months of violence, and sexually assaulted her."
WTF is wrong with our justice system if we can't track these creeps?
