Parliament House sexual assault and harassment allegations

[David]

[stui magpie]

Yeah, but 17 year olds aren't given the same sentances as adults.

If a 14 year old rapes or murders someone their name is kept private and their juvenile record is sealed once they turn 18.

Just an academic argument, not overly relevant.

As I understand it, The SA Coroners court could now call an investigation into the womans death if they choose, they weren't able to do it earlier because the NSW Police case was still open. If they don't, it's pretty much case over.

Actually this case has made me reflect back.

I remember going out in Sydney in 1986 with a mate, his girlfriend and her 16 year old sister who was an utter stunner. She just waltzed into the Penrith Panthers leagues club with not a question of asking for ID. If my girlfriend at the time hadn't been there as well......

I can also relate to retaining long term trauma on past events. I got married in 1988, I think I'm still suffering PTSD from that.

[stui magpie]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-03/ ... t/13212054

[eddiesmith]

The minister is, as widely rumoured, attorney-general Christian Porter. He says that he did know the victim when he was 17 and she was 16, and claims that the allegation is false (upon being questioned, he says that he never slept with the alleged victim). He also refuses to stand down from his position, but will take mental-health leave.

He also claims that nobody has "put the details" of the allegation to him and that all he knows about them he's read in the media.

he did have a point that if he stood down, anyone could be made to leave their job based on shit written on social media.

but i gotta tell you, i did not see that comin! man oh man

Exactly, the former opposition leader didn't stand down over rape allegations.

It's just ridiculous people calling for people to stand down/be sacked over something they haven't been and never will be charged for.

But it's probably the same people who wanted JDG sacked as well.

[think positive]

It happened so long ago, no charges. Seems very odd, I don’t know what kind of person he is, but that wasn’t scripted, he’s a man on the edge. Horrible.

[David]

[eddiesmith]

Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape...

[watt price tully]

This is a link to the Four Corners Programme about how toxic it is for women staffers in the Liberal Party:

It also reveals the character of the not too Christian Porter.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc ... e/12862910

Despite his denials that the media never spoke with him, he was specifically asked by the Media as far back as that programme (November 2020), and more recently by Neil Mitchell on 3AW and others; he’s playing with words here.

As painful as it is to watch (Porters discomfort) a woman is dead. She has written very detailed descriptions of what transpired with Porter in her view.

There is a high correlation of women with mental health issues, deliberate self harm and suicide / suicide attempts who have been raped / sexually abused. An alarmingly positive correlation.

[5 from the wing on debut]

That's right, but couldn't you also say that there is high correlation of women with mental health issues who deliberately self harm and suicide, when those woman have not been sexually assaulted or raped?

[Pies4shaw]

Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape...

What, particularly, were you wanting to say "in support of him"?

There are certainly some important principles of process and fairness for which we might want to express generalized support. But I am struggling to see what might sensibly be said in support of him, following that press conference. Given the admissions he did make about a series of independently verifiable matters (which had been used by the usual run of internet "sleuths" before his announcement to identify, amongst other things, him, her, the circumstances in which they met and when the alleged incident must have happened), the allegations all seem more plausible after he spoke than they did beforehand.

The point about those principles of process and fairness is that they are systemic ones that we accept about the way we want our justice system to operate (in all cases, not just in connection with sex crimes) and the restricted basis upon which we want the state to impose punitive sanctions. Plenty of people do things for which they are not convicted because of the high standard of proof - predicated, as it is, on the notion that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” (per William Blackstone).

Statistically speaking, there is plenty of research that shows that "false" allegations of rape are inherently unlikely. Thus, common knowledge tells us that, prospects of conviction notwithstanding, the chances are that allegations of this kind are much more likely to be true than untrue. Even so, the practical operation of the applicable evidentiary principles entails a presumption that the complainant in a rape case is lying, so that guilt will only be found when the trier of fact is positively persuaded that the complainant is telling the truth.

One must, of course, do everything in one's power to avoid reasoning from the general likelihood that a woman will be telling the truth in any given case to the conclusion that a particular putative defendant is "guilty" of particular allegations in any relevant legal sense. But that inherent tension between the way the legal system operates and what we otherwise know to be true is the very reason why this started as - and remains - a very nasty political problem.

[stui magpie]

^

So in essence you're saying Bill Shorten is a rapist who got away with it.

[5 from the wing on debut]

Yep and anyone who dares says anything in support of him is condoning rape...

What, particularly, were you wanting to say "in support of him"?

There are certainly some important principles of process and fairness for which we might want to express generalized support. But I am struggling to see what might sensibly be said in support of him, following that press conference. Given the admissions he did make about a series of independently verifiable matters (which had been used by the usual run of internet "sleuths" before his announcement to identify, amongst other things, him, her, the circumstances in which they met and when the alleged incident must have happened), the allegations all seem more plausible after he spoke than they did beforehand.

The point about those principles of process and fairness is that they are systemic ones that we accept about the way we want our justice system to operate (in all cases, not just in connection with sex crimes) and the restricted basis upon which we want the state to impose punitive sanctions. Plenty of people do things for which they are not convicted because of the high standard of proof - predicated, as it is, on the notion that "the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer” (per William Blackstone).

Statistically speaking, there is plenty of research that shows that "false" allegations of rape are inherently unlikely. Thus, common knowledge tells us that, prospects of conviction notwithstanding, the chances are that allegations of this kind are much more likely to be true than untrue. Even so, the practical operation of the applicable evidentiary principles entails a presumption that the complainant in a rape case is lying, so that guilt will only be found when the trier of fact is positively persuaded that the complainant is telling the truth.

One must, of course, do everything in one's power to avoid reasoning from the general likelihood that a woman will be telling the truth in any given case to the conclusion that a particular putative defendant is "guilty" of particular allegations in any relevant legal sense. But that inherent tension between the way the legal system operates and what we otherwise know to be true is the very reason why this started as - and remains - a very nasty political problem.

There have been quite a few documented cases of false rape allegations though.

This one came to mind straight away.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-17/ ... m/10723908

[Pies4shaw]

^ That there are exceptions that prove the rule is not an answer to the political issue. The fact that it happens from very occasional time to very occasional time is neither here nor there for the political, as distinct from legal, process. The research suggests that, at worst, 10% of accusations are false (which means, of course, that, at worst, 90% are likely to be true) but the more sophisticated analysis is that the incidence of false reporting is under 1%.

[Pies4shaw]

^

So in essence you're saying Bill Shorten is a rapist who got away with it.

I don't understand your point. I have no interest in Shorten. I think you mistake me for an ALP voter.

[watt price tully]

That's right, but couldn't you also say that there is high correlation of women with mental health issues who deliberately self harm and suicide, when those woman have not been sexually assaulted or raped?

No.