Jack de Belin court case

[Snake]

Snake, really. By the way have you ever been to Goulburn supermax if you are going to throw words like that around. I've visited almost every gaol in NSW as well as Boggo Road in Queensland and Goulburn. So I think I know a little about those places. Again you distort the meaning behind the comment. It was never saying murder shouldn't be punished, it was saying what is the difference when shooting people in war.

I don't think the difference is what we were discussing though? What does that have to do with it?

You were saying that we shouldn't impose morals on others and I'm saying that I think that very act (of imposing morals on others) is what helps society to function at a level that is superior to how it would function without moral imposition. I haven't heard you say anything that addresses that aspect of the argument as yet...just that some criminals are good people in spite of their crimes and that the government goes to war...what of it?

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Hmmm, I probably wouldn't go down the path of victim blaming especially for these types of cases. Not sure if that is what you intended....

I guess I have a different perspective on what has been reported. The alleged victim says that she got in the tuktuk (or whatever) to go to another nightclub and that they ended up at the apartment after JDB paid 50 clams to driver to take them to his cousin's apartment as he needed to "charge his phone". So sure, the evidence reported would support the contentions of suggestive moves on the dance floor but in my mind that only tells a small part of the story and I wouldn't necessarily be able to draw the conclusion from suggestive dance moves that she voluntarily went to that apartment and consented to what took place in that apartment. Particularly when she says she got in the tuktuk to go to another club.

I imagine there is plenty more evidence to come out here, which the jury will of course have the full benefit of in making their decision. I will be interested to see if a psychologist gives expert evidence that might explain the alleged victim's behaviour after the incident. I will also be interested to see if one or both of de Belin or Sinclair take the stand. Their defence is centred on a reasonable belief of consent and so I would have thought the best chance of succeeding in this defence would be for the jury to hear it from their perspective. Did the accused take the stand in the case you were part of the jury?

Yes and that ended up the “ she said he said” part.

Remarkably the cases are very similar ( on what I’ve read ), but only one man involved.

In the one I was involved with there was no DNA ( don’t think that existed ) but the accused didn’t deny he’d had sex at all , just that it was consensual.

There was no sign of force ( no bruises etc).

So despite a raft of witnesses ( mental trauma etc ) the prosecution wasn’t able to prove by reasonable doubt that it was rape.

I remember being very torn at the time , the guy wasn’t decent ( the prosecution certainly proved that ) and it could very well have been rape BUT she did go back to his house ,in the early morning so we ( the jury ) argued about it for 2 days and in the end acquitted him based on the reasonable doubt reasoning.

I hope I never have to do that again , an absolute **** job.

 

[Bearfax]

It’s perfectly fine for a person to withdraw consent.

or perhaps give consent to have sex with one person, but then say no once a second person is encouraged to join in by the first bloke. And it is perfectly fine to give consent for one type of sex but say no if another type of sex starts to take place.

So arguing that the girl willingly went with jdb doesn’t have any bearing on things. The question is whether at some point consensual sex turned into a rape.

Agreed and your points are fundamental to sexual interaction. Difficulty comes when being able to prove consent was withdrawn. A dilemma I'm glad I'm not on a jury to decide. Because either way we may get it wrong.

 

[Snake]

It’s perfectly fine for a person to withdraw consent.

or perhaps give consent to have sex with one person, but then say no once a second person is encouraged to join in by the first bloke. And it is perfectly fine to give consent for one type of sex but say no if another type of sex starts to take place.

So arguing that the girl willingly went with jdb doesn’t have any bearing on things. The question is whether at some point consensual sex turned into a rape.

I whole heatedly agree. Difficult circumstances to prosecute though unfortunately.

 

[Bearfax]

I don't think the difference is what we were discussing though? What does that have to do with it?

You were saying that we shouldn't impose morals on others and I'm saying that I think that very act (of imposing morals on others) is what helps society to function at a level that is superior to how it would function without moral imposition. I haven't heard you say anything that addresses that aspect of the argument as yet...just that some criminals are good people in spite of their crimes and that the government goes to war...what of it?

What I'm saying Snake is that there are laws and morals and though laws are born out of morals, all morals are not bound by laws and often what is a law one day may not be a law the next.

A law is imposed because it is legally enacted through parliament and must therefore be complied with. A moral, without the strictures of law, is a value held by individuals that may be quite different. There is no legal means to impose a moral judgement without it being enacted in law.

Therefore, for example adultery is not illegal in Australia. It is in some US states, but it cant be imposed here in Australia. I recall supervising some people for homosexual acts many decades ago, because it was against the law. It is no longer against the law but many would consider it immoral. Same with abortion. It was formerly illegal but its now legal as long as performed within first 22 months of gestation. But many would call it immoral and in some countries it is banned through law. If its not a law it cant be imposed.

Therefore, a society cant impose a moral unless it is through enactment of a law. Now there are previous societies that imposed rigid standards regarding morality, but if you look closely at those you will find generally they are imposed through a Religious Law. If there had been no law, the moral judgement could not have been imposed in those systems.

So laws can be enforced, but morals without legal enactments cant.

 

[Bearfax]

I don't think the difference is what we were discussing though? What does that have to do with it?

You were saying that we shouldn't impose morals on others and I'm saying that I think that very act (of imposing morals on others) is what helps society to function at a level that is superior to how it would function without moral imposition. I haven't heard you say anything that addresses that aspect of the argument as yet...just that some criminals are good people in spite of their crimes and that the government goes to war...what of it?

I've answered that question in another response to you. However to answer the issue about killing someone. Our laws give us permission to kill based on the enactments of law to fight a war. It denies us personal reasons for killing through law. So what that is saying is it is the state that determines when killing is right and when it is wrong. The morality here is somewhat in conflict especially in Judaic-Christian beliefs given the fundament law in the Ten Commandments, 'Thou Shalt not Kill'. That was never a discretionary precept. It was plainly stated that way. Yet Joshua only years later sacked and reportedly killed thousands in the name of God. Sound familiar with so many wars fought since then.

Killing someone is therefore permitted if the state sanctions it. But as an individual I cant kill unless you are given that sanction. Step back and look at it dispassionately. Its a contraction. I'm not making a judgement either way. All I am trying to show is how morals are not set in stone. They are social developments to meet a need. We don't want people killed in our community because it may create chaos. We do want killing outside of the community for defence or meeting our community self interest. Morals suit the standards and needs of the time.

 

[The Who]

Can you imagine how mentally strong a women needs to be to proceed with an accusation such as the one we are discussing? It must be so daunting, particularly knowing that the case would attract widespread media attention. The stats suggesting that very few women go through with an accusation to trial does not surprise me.
There will be no winners from this case. All involved will have deep mental scars to bear, probably for the rest of their lives.

 

[manlyfan76]

Let's open the gates at Golbourn super max...these poor criminals are just the victim of a social construct. The government went to war so two wrongs make a right and Ivan Milat should never have had society impose a moral standard on him because it is nothing more than a silly construct. If only we didn't lock him up for so long, he could have done more damage because that was his will and understanding of moral values...the poor diddums

Snake I'm very against violent crime, sex crime etc, in my opinion the education and instilling morals upon young children is lacking. Prison is just a reaction, and yes it has a role but it's not the be all and end all.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Can you imagine how mentally strong a women needs to be to proceed with an accusation such as the one we are discussing? It must be so daunting, particularly knowing that the case would attract widespread media attention. The stats suggesting that very few women go through with an accusation to trial does not surprise me.

Fair point.
On a separate point, you can sit through an entire trial seeing all the evidence first hand and watching all the witnesses, seeing their facial expressions, hesitations, and demeanour, and still have no idea which way the jury is going to vote. So good luck trying to figure out what happened based on a few selective media reports. The speculation is interesting though and possibly revealing of some people's idea of consent!

 

[Bearfax]

Can you imagine how mentally strong a women needs to be to proceed with an accusation such as the one we are discussing? It must be so daunting, particularly knowing that the case would attract widespread media attention. The stats suggesting that very few women go through with an accusation to trial does not surprise me.
There will be no winners from this case. All involved will have deep mental scars to bear, probably for the rest of their lives.

Of that I agree fully. But there are gold diggers. But you are right. For any woman abused in such a manner and have the courage to go through what can be quite nasty cross examinations, usually means they have good cause for their proceeding with such action. If De Bellin did behave in the manner she describes, I would hope he cops a long period in gaol, despite the impact it may have on him in future.

 

[Snake]

What I'm saying Snake is that there are laws and morals and though laws are born out of morals, all morals are not bound by laws and often what is a law one day may not be a law the next.

A law is imposed because it is legally enacted through parliament and must therefore be complied with. A moral, without the strictures of law, is a value held by individuals that may be quite different. There is no legal means to impose a moral judgement without it being enacted in law.

Therefore, for example adultery is not illegal in Australia. It is in some US states, but it cant be imposed here in Australia. I recall supervising some people for homosexual acts many decades ago, because it was against the law. It is no longer against the law but many would consider it immoral. Same with abortion. It was formerly illegal but its now legal as long as performed within first 22 months of gestation. But many would call it immoral and in some countries it is banned through law. If its not a law it cant be imposed.

Therefore, a society cant impose a moral unless it is through enactment of a law. Now there are previous societies that imposed rigid standards regarding morality, but if you look closely at those you will find generally they are imposed through a Religious Law. If there had been no law, the moral judgement could not have been imposed in those systems.

So laws can be enforced, but morals without legal enactments cant.

I take your point but I am not talking about prosecuting based on morals, I'm talking about a right to make a moral judgement on another person that is something you have advised against and I disagree. I think many laws have been made based on a collective morality. The laws themselves must be founded in something?! If we never make moral judgements on others, we wouldn't need laws because we'd all agree that people can do whatever they like?!

 

[Bearfax]

I take your point but I am not talking about prosecuting based on morals, I'm talking about a right to make a moral judgement on another person that is something you have advised against and I disagree. I think many laws have been made based on a collective morality. The laws themselves must be founded in something?! If we never make moral judgements on others, we wouldn't need laws because we'd all agree that people can do whatever they like?!

Sorry Snake, perhaps we are on cross purposes here. What you feel personally is your business. Of course you can have a moral judgement about something and that's fine because we all have our our perspectives. What I thought I was reading was trying to impose your values on someone else, that is forcing that person to comply with your moral judgement. That I would suggest would be witch hunting. Your own values are borne out of your life experiences and you've come to conclusions because of who you are. We all have, and we all see things differently. Vive la difference.

 

[Bearfax]

Snake I'm very against violent crime, sex crime etc, in my opinion the education and instilling morals upon young children is lacking. Prison is just a reaction, and yes it has a role but it's not the be all and end all.

Prison is there for punishment and as a deterrent to the offender and others considering such behaviour. I call it a necessary evil, basically because at this stage there are no effective alternatives for serious offending. Until there is some means of effective behaviour modification (maybe we should ask the Chinese with their re-education camps of the Uyghers...not seriously though please), we're stuck with it. Its not a generally effective solution, but its the best we can do for now. I recall having a couple of clients who had been lobotomised at Chelmsford Hospital back in the late 80s, mainly to control violent behaviour. Sorry didn't work. Left them mentally impaired. We've got a long way to find an alternative means of penalty

 

[OneEyedEagle]

Poor Mrs de Belin. Watching this trial to decide if her husband is a rapist with his mate, or is he just cheats on her with his mate while she is at home, pregnant.
One could imagine that she knows which it is too.

That's what I don't get is why people cheat on their partners, if your not happy break up or work it out.

 

[OneEyedEagle]

**** me this is getting “ deep”.

@Dan can we please get a LOL emoji 🙂

 

[Dan]

@Dan can we please get a LOL emoji 🙂

We have one

 

[40 years an eagle]

Hmmm, I probably wouldn't go down the path of victim blaming especially for these types of cases. Not sure if that is what you intended....

I didn't see Mark's comment as blaming the victim in any way for what happened mate... just stating she showed VERY poor judgement.

As to "more evidence to come out"...I highly doubt that as the only evidence presented so far are security cam clips...the rest has been purely he says, she says, not real evidence.

Yeah, De Bell-end is a knob of the highest order and the girl showed very poor judgement but I can't see a "reasonable doubt" conclusion being reached without any evidence.

What a horrid thing to go through for the girl and De Bell-end's wife but De Bell-end deserves the trauma...at the very, very least.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

I didn't see Mark's comment as blaming the victim in any way for what happened mate... just stating she showed VERY poor judgement.

As to "more evidence to come out"...I highly doubt that as the only evidence presented so far are security cam clips...the rest has been purely he says, she says, not real evidence.

Yeah, De Bell-end is a knob of the highest order and the girl showed very poor judgement but I can't see a "reasonable doubt" conclusion being reached without any evidence.

What a horrid thing to go through for the girl and De Bell-end's wife but De Bell-end deserves the trauma...at the very, very least.

And I can assure you my comments weren’t made to support the accused in any way , just saying that people ( and single girls out on the town in particular) should be making smarter choices in the first instance.

I had two daughters and boy didn’t I drum into them , NEVER go home , alone with a boy on your first date!!

 

[Shoe1]

And I can assure you my comments weren’t made to support the accused in any way , just saying that people ( and single girls out on the town in particular) should be making smarter choices in the first instance.

I had two daughters and boy didn’t I drum into them , NEVER go home , alone with a boy on your first date!!

The advice for my daughters is never trust a man in a bow tie, never trust a man in a fedora. And never date a man whose arse is bigger than yours.

 

[eaglebuzz]

We have already lost two threads to armchair philosophy and it's only November. This is going to be a looooong offseason.