An interesting perspective, MAREELORRAINE.

>>I believe it might have been misplaced judgement for Margaret Cuneen to appear for the defence in this case. In my opinion her previous position in successful and well publicised prosecution of previous rape cases would offer a unfair advantage for the defence. I feel the Attorney General's Department must be seen to be independent.<<

As I understand it, she made it abundantly clear that she was offering her view as a private citizen, and not as a lawyer. She also accepted - how could she not? - that it is possible for someone to appear "nice" on the surface, but in fact be an abject villain underneath.

But what concerns me is the concept of an "unfair advantage to the defence". If you were to find yourself unjustly accused, would you not consider it a major disadvantage, if you could not call upon your friends to say a word or two on your behalf?

As for the Attorney General's Department, surely they, more than anyone, would be satisfied that one of their finest would not stoop to perjury, but would tell it like it is? One would hope so, at least.

But that isn't really the topic here, is it?

It is the fact that in Ms Pringle's view, a man's character is not a factor, when it comes to rape. That she perceives that all men, even those who treat you with unflagging respect and courtesy, are in fact simply rapists on the prowl. They just have found a smarter form of entrapmant, that's all.

What a terribly sad view of the world.

I can picture it now. A crowded suburban train. A gentleman rises from his seat, removing his hat as he does so, and asks the lady standing...

"May I offer you a seat?"

"Pervert!"

I am wondering how the prosecution went ahead at all where there was apparently a lack of DNA evidence, for example from the fingers of the accused to support it. The police and public prosecutors must be under tremendous pressure where sexual allegations are made against young footballers in particular to go for the throat, regardless.

This young man, his partner, family and friends have been through a meat grinder and are entitled to all of the forgiveness and support they can be given. It must be hell to be wrongly accused, interrogated by police (rough in a sex case), flung into a cell and have all of your innards spilled out in court, with fear you would be goaled, destroying your youth, relationships and career. Then there are the crippling financial costs.

It is grossly unfair but sad reality that because of the way sex crimes are regarded in this country, this young man will carry some grime from these serious allegations until he dies, notwithstanding the fact that he was acquitted by a court.

To Brett Stewart, a heartfelt sorry and I sincerely hope you can now get on with your life and athletic career and recover quickly from your ordeal. If I could will it, all of your costs for your defence would be reimbursed along with some compensation for your suffering. You were the victim.

To those who would want to make the awful misfortune that befell Brett Stewart a lesson for others, what about some honest recognition that young men are no different from young women, that the overwhelming majority are fine, upstanding human beings who wouldn't hurt a fly and don't deserve to be castigated for their gender or success in life. Of course a life history as a fine upstanding citizen is relevant to a defence if it can help prevent a wrongly accused person from going to goal.

I notice I said he was entitled to 'forgiveness', which is irrelevant because he was innocent. It just shows how prone we all can be to prejudice and leaping to wrong conclusions against the accused in sex cases. Sorry Brett, you were acquitted and deserve sympathy and support.

These cases do not get to court unless there is a very good case against the accused perpetrator. What a record for Australian justice. You can glass your girlfriend in the face, attack strangers or pack rape in hotel rooms and still in Australia in 2010 it is impossible to convict a sportsjock because the Australian psyche seems to refuse to allow that a sports hero with a good body would sexually assult a woman.

Failure to convict is not a proof of innocence. Getting off doesn't mean the accused didn't do it. Getting off just means the justice system worked in the bloke's favour this time.

Peacesong,

Your response convicts you for your obvious stereotyping and prejudice, not this young man who was acquitted and deserves sympathy for what he has been put through.

I put 'goal' instead of 'gaol' too I notice. Roll on the editing facility.

It would appear that certain feminists want all men who are accused of sexual assault to be found guilty, regardless of what the evidence indicates.

There is a certain element to allegations of sexual assault or even harrassment that seems to put the logical thinking part of the brain to sleep.

Like I said before, when my niece was allegedly raped(it didn't go to court) I wanted to do the worst things imaginable to the alleged perpetrator.

There is a certain lynch mob mentality that is extremely easy to get caught up in. Then when the hysteria settles down, the more decent people try to rationalize their own behaviour, or try to distance themselves from traversities in justice.

The use of words like rape, sexual assault and the guilty found innocent is enough for a number of people to suspend all rational and logical thinking.

There is an interesting new book out "My Lie" by Meredith Marans.

<Meredith Maran falsely accused her father of molestation. That she came to believe such a thing was possible reveals what can happen when personal turmoil meets a powerful social movement>

There is an extreme danger when public opinion and society are succesfully manipulated by activists.