The death of Ashling Murphy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
There is a strong and undeniable link between social deprivation and crime...
Exactly. So the question is what set them on that road and how do we minimise future traffic flows down it.
Click to expand...
It is an important question but it is not the only one.
We have whole generations on the road already here and elsewhere.

That is a police\justice system problem. It's not going to be rectified by long term improvements in society or education, although as you have noted on other threads addiction support etc is very poor here. In the short to medium term those kinds of improvements are more likely to deliver immediate results.

That said, the nature and timing of the crime in this case is highly unusual and may be beyond any of the above.
 
Many people who smoke don't get lung cancer. Yet smoking indisputably causes lung cancer.
 
Baby boomer said:
Are you seriously suggesting the correlation is as strong? It's not a like for like situation!
Click to expand...
Would you like to share some numbers? Why do you think crime is far more prevalent in poorer areas, in Ireland and all over the world?

I was really just setting out the principle that causation does not necessarily have to mean 100% causation.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Would you like to share some numbers? Why do you think crime is far more prevalent in poorer areas, in Ireland and all over the world?

I was really just setting out the principle that causation does not necessarily have to mean 100% causation.
Click to expand...
This report from 2012 states that "This can be seen very clearly in O’Mahony’s 1997 study of the social background of prisoners in Mountjoy Prison which found that 56% of prisoners came from just 6 districts in Dublin characterised by high levels of economic deprivation.3 Almost 80% of those in the study had left school before the age of 16 and overall there were high levels of exposure to adversity including low parental employment and personal employment, and high levels of personal heroin use"


This is worth scanning through as well.
There's a reason it's called the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
 
Purple said:
There's a reason it's called the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.
Click to expand...
I think you're about four Governments out of date with that title, which goes back to Mickey McDowell's time.
It is Dept Justice now.
[broken link removed]
 
RetirementPlan said:
I think you're about four Governments out of date with that title, which goes back to Mickey McDowell's time.
It is Dept Justice now.
[broken link removed]
Click to expand...
Fair cop guvnor!

I wish they'd change the name of the Orwellian sounding Department of Social Protection back to it's old unthreatening name!
 
Baby boomer said:
Just today, the Irish Times is reporting that over one third of female third level students report experiencing non-consensual sexual intercourse
Click to expand...
No, that's media spin disseminated by journalists not familiar with basic scientific methodology. The one-third figure is based on a self-selecting cohort of respondents which is likely to be extremely unrepresentative of the overall student cohort. There is no evidence that sexual behaviour is different among students than among similar age cohorts elsewhere. Also, since many reported cases involve both parties being drunk or high on various substances it's often quite hard to distinguish between victim and perpetrator without invoking reactionary gender stereotypes - many "victims" are also "perpetrators" and vice versa and those terms are often not very helpful. Sexual abuse is a problem but it's not addressed by panic-inducing, ideologically driven "research" of this kind.
 
Last edited:
RetirementPlan said:
Really? What's this based on?
Click to expand...
The people who say there can't be a mutually abusive relationship point to a requirement for a power imbalance for abuse to take place. I'd say that there are plenty of relationships where both parties are destructive and damage each other. Does that mean they are both abusive? I don't know.
Sexual violence, violence generally, abuse, control, coercion and sexual assault are all lumped in together in these conversations and I don't think that's helpful.
I also strongly object to what's happening at the moment in the media, led by RTE, which is talking about domestic violence, domestic abuse and coercive control against women but framing it in such a way that it only happens to women.
As someone who left an abusive relationship I find that deeply offensive.
 

Not sure what they covered on Prime Time but they did cover male victims on their website. There was a good article on the subject and the lack of available supports. Sounds like you know than me on the subject but the worst part is that there doesn't seem to any desire to discuss the issue in a open way despite evidence that the number of male victims is much larger than what one would expect. There seem to be this narrative that domestic abuse and the severity of it is measured in the amount of physical harm caused. So unless the man is getting kettles of boiling water poured over him, then people don't seem willing to discuss it.

The other unhelpful narrative I have heard is the idea that discussing domestic abuse perpetrated by females is in someway trying to distract from the very serious issue of domestic abuse suffered by females. There is seem to be this real desire to make it a gender based crime which doesn't help anyone.
 
There is a very good ERSI report on domestic abuse of women and men in Ireland. It notes that there has never been a funded study of abuse of men in this country be estimates that 30% of violent abuse is perpetrated on men by women.
Sunny said:
There seem to be this narrative that domestic abuse and the severity of it is measured in the amount of physical harm caused. So unless the man is getting kettles of boiling water poured over him, then people don't seem willing to discuss it.
Click to expand...
A friend of mine (really, it wasn't me) went to the Gardaí in Blackrock, Dublin, after being attacked by his partner. She had gouged his neck and face and he was covered in blood. Literally covered; from his neck to his knees. They said sure you're a big lad, you can take care of yourself, sure just leave.

Yes, there's an assumption that men who talk about the abuse of men are misogynists. This Youtube video where a Feminist talks about making a documentary on the Men's Rights Movement is very interesting though I always think that's a stupid name for the "movement" as is conflates the issues that men face with the historic issues women faced and there's no scenario in which men will face the sort of oppression women used to face, and still face in many parts of the world.
 
Purple said:
I also strongly object to what's happening at the moment in the media, led by RTE, which is talking about domestic violence, domestic abuse and coercive control against women but framing it in such a way that it only happens to women.
Click to expand...
In fairness to RTE (much as it pains me to say that) the programme last night did point out that about 25% of domestic violence is against men. It also mentioned the lack of refuge provision for men.
I think we have to see domestic violence as a blight on society that both sexes could agree needs to be tackled. I don't like to see it as a political football in the culture wars.

Purple said:
As someone who left an abusive relationship I find that deeply offensive.
Click to expand...
My sincerest sympathy goes to you. Abuse is an abhorrent way to treat a human being of any gender.
 
RetirementPlan said:
Really? What's this based on?
Click to expand...
It's based on the fact that where both parties get drunk or high and end up having sex they are both "victims" (in the sense that neither could meaningfully consent) just as they are both "perpetrators" (in the sense that both "took advantage" of the other's inability meaningfully to consent). Drugs and alcohol are the problem here, but saying this publicly is often misconstrued as victim blaming.
 
Er, there's a slight difference between being drunk and being senseless to the point of incapacitation. Mere drunken sex is perfectly ok, and if it were to be criminalised and treated as non-consensual, ie rape, most of the adult population would be behind bars!

On the other hand, if someone is really incapacitated, perhaps even unaware of what's going on, then you have a genuinely non-consensual situation.

There's also a somewhat intermediate situation where someone might want to indicate non-consent, but is too drunk to do it effectively or to assess the situation in which they find themselves. That's also non-consensual, although harder to prove, and easier for the unscrupulous to exploit.

And, let's be honest here, that unscrupulous perpetrator is usually a man.
 
The problem is the narrative that when both parties are drunk and unable to give consent it is the man who is committing the crime. Not only is that unfair it muddies the water for cases where the man is sober and is acting in a predatory fashion.
 
Baby boomer said:
On the other hand, if someone is really incapacitated, perhaps even unaware of what's going on, then you have a genuinely non-consensual situation
Click to expand...
Yes OK but what if BOTH are incapacitated? That's the point I was trying to make.
 
tomdublin said:
You'd be surprised ....
Click to expand...
I would be surprised.

How can you have sex if neither party consent?

I'm really not getting 'many victims are also perpetrators' thing? Yes, there are cases where both parties will abuse each other, but that would seem like a fairly unusual and rare situation, rather than a 'many victims' thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register