Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

[Hal 9000]

How have I painted myself in a corner? Is this a gotcha moment?

No Txt

Edited February 15, 2016 by Hal 9000

[WestCoastRunner]

I think you know...and I think you should let it go.

Honestly I don't know.

[WestCoastRunner]

No Txt

Is this because you can't think of a reason that I would be painting myself in a corner? You can't accuse me of this without a response.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sure I do, but seeing you guys have such certitude in the silliest of ideologies, makes it very easy. You, OGFT and cyber have really painted yourselves into the corner - I've merely pointed it out.

I'll get some popcorn and wait to see your description of "the corner".

[On Guard for Thee]

Is it so hard to adding a line like: 'the system may be stacked against complainants but it is necessary evil given that we don't want to convict innocent people'?

If you did that no one would be inferring anything. The problem is you state a problem and imply you would like to see it fixed but say nothing about what you think should be done. When you do that you should expect people to presume that you want to change the system and start to guess at what change you are asking for.

It is highly unlikely we will change the "beyond a reasonable" doubt portion of criminal decisions, so these types of cases will likely continue to be a bit one sided against complainants. What assaulted women may begin to do is seek restitution through civil cases. We all know OJ was guilty, and walked. That didn't stop the affected families from taking him back to court and winning.

[WestCoastRunner]

It is highly unlikely we will change the "beyond a reasonable" doubt portion of criminal decisions, so these types of cases will likely continue to be a bit one sided against complainants. What assaulted women may begin to do is seek restitution through civil cases. We all know OJ was guilty, and walked. That didn't stop the affected families from taking him back to court and winning.

What is actually being proposed is that sexual assault cases be tried in a different format. This has come about precisely because of ghomeshi. It's a start.

Edited February 15, 2016 by WestCoastRunner

[Hal 9000]

Is this because you can't think of a reason that I would be painting myself in a corner? You can't accuse me of this without a response.

I challenged you you tell me how (based on the evidence given) you would side on this case if you could; guilty or not guilty. And you won't answer, neither will cyber. Maybe OGFT will tell us how he'd vote.

[WestCoastRunner]

I challenged you you tell me how (based on the evidence given) you would side on this case if you could; guilty or not guilty. And you won't answer, neither will cyber. Maybe OGFT will tell us how he'd vote.

I have told you I don't believe they are lying. What more do you want?

[On Guard for Thee]

What is actually being proposed is that sexual assault cases be tried in a different format. This has come about precisely because of ghomeshi. It's a start.

You can tinker with format but still must respect the rights of all parties. The rape shield law was an attempt to stop harassment of assault complainants, but it seems to not be applied all that evenly, especially in jury cases were the old style can be used but by the time an objection is ruled on, the jury may already be to some extent tainted. Civil cases are a different format that already exists, although it won't provide for punishment beyond financial, but it's something.

[Big Guy]

What is actually being proposed is that sexual assault cases be tried in a different format. This has come about precisely because of ghomeshi. It's a start.

I think that would be a mistake. When we look at cases and people as "special" in justice then the system begins to unravel.\

There is a reason why justice is depicted as being blindfolded.

How about a different format for hate crimes or senior assaults or child assaults or crimes against the disabled or ... If sexual assault cases are tried in a different format it would not be a start - it would be a finish - a finish to the impartiality of dealing with justice.

[WestCoastRunner]

You can tinker with format but still must respect the rights of all parties. The rape shield law was an attempt to stop harassment of assault complainants, but it seems to not be applied all that evenly, especially in jury cases were the old style can be used but by the time an objection is ruled on, the jury may already be to some extent tainted. Civil cases are a different format that already exists, although it won't provide for punishment beyond financial, but it's something.

I am only stating that this case has opened conversations for how sexual assault cases may be deficient and how proposals are being put forward to address them. This is a good thing no matter what happens in this case.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think that would be a mistake. When we look at cases and people as "special" in justice then the system begins to unravel.\

There is a reason why justice is depicted as being blindfolded.

How about a different format for hate crimes or senior assaults or child assaults or crimes against the disabled or ... If sexual assault cases are tried in a different format it would not be a start - it would be a finish - a finish to the impartiality of dealing with justice.

I am not surprised with your response coming from an old timer.

[Big Guy]

I am not surprised with your response coming from an old timer.

Thank you.

[WestCoastRunner]

Thank you.

You are welcome.

[TimG]

I am only stating that this case has opened conversations for how sexual assault cases may be deficient and how proposals are being put forward to address them. This is a good thing no matter what happens in this case.

In this case the police were clearly too concerned about being polite to victims (a.k.a the victim should be "believed" narrative). If they had taken a more adversarial/skeptical approach they could have uncovered the inconsistencies and dealt with them before trial.

This case is a good example of how trying to 'fix' a problem often makes things worse. No justice can be served if the authorities don't investigate the possibility that accusers are lying.

Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

I am only stating that this case has opened conversations for how sexual assault cases may be deficient and how proposals are being put forward to address them. This is a good thing no matter what happens in this case.

Oh of course, this case is all over but the cryin'. But yes, I think a worthy effort from legal experts going forward would be to figure a way to better level the playing field. As I say, rape shield was an attempt, long ago, that seems to need some serious modifications.

[TimG]

Oh of course, this case is all over but the cryin'. But yes, I think a worthy effort from legal experts going forward would be to figure a way to better level the playing field. As I say, rape shield was an attempt, long ago, that seems to need some serious modifications.

Except in this case the fact that the victims pursued Ghomeshi after the incident is relevant to the case and any change that prevented this information from coming out at trial would not serve the objective of justice.

[WestCoastRunner]

In this case the police were clearly too concerned about being polite to victims (a.k.a the victim should be "believed" narrative). If they had taken a more adversarial/skeptical approach they could have uncovered the inconsistencies and dealt with them before trial.

This case is a good example of how trying to 'fix' a problem often makes things worse. No justice can be served if the authorities don't investigate the possibility that accusers are lying.

I don't believe they are lying given the consistency of them and other accusers. But I realize how justice works.

[On Guard for Thee]

I think that would be a mistake. When we look at cases and people as "special" in justice then the system begins to unravel.\

There is a reason why justice is depicted as being blindfolded.

How about a different format for hate crimes or senior assaults or child assaults or crimes against the disabled or ... If sexual assault cases are tried in a different format it would not be a start - it would be a finish - a finish to the impartiality of dealing with justice.

This actually has nothing to do with removing the blindfold from justice, but rather keeping it in place. Assault victims have had cases go against them based on spurious questions about how short a skirt they were wearing and such nonsense. This outdated concept seems to think if you dress sexy, you must want sex and so "dang it, I was just givin' her what she wanted". I don't think clear minded people believe that is justified in any way.

[TimG]

I don't believe they are lying given the consistency of them and other accusers. But I realize how justice works.

Neither do I but the police had a duty to investigate the possibility that they are lying. If they had done that they would have found the inconsistencies and dealt with them before trial. The fact that revelations were presented by the defense is what is creating reasonable doubt.

But that is not an option if the police are told they have to 'believe the victim'. You need to understand that the 'believe the victim' narrative may have the effect of making convictions harder to get because the narrative discourages the police from asking confrontational questions.

Edited February 15, 2016 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Except in this case the fact that the victims pursued Ghomeshi after the incident is relevant to the case and any change that prevented this information from coming out at trial would not serve the objective of justice.

I think it could well be totally irrelevant. If Ghomeshi committed a crime of assault, and the victims made some later attempt to contact, possibly with the idea of rectification, it doesn't change what was previously done a whit.

[WestCoastRunner]

Neither do I but the police had a duty to investigate the possibility that they are lying. If they had done that they would have found the inconsistencies and dealt with them before trial. The fact that revelations were presented by the defense is what is creating reasonable doubt.

But that is not an option if the police are told they have to 'believe the victim'. You need to understand that the 'believe the victim' narrative may have the effect of making convictions harder to get because the narrative discourages the police from asking confrontational questions.

I get the 'need to believe the victim' which is exactly why this whole process is under revisions. These changes will hopefully address all sides.

[TimG]

I think it could well be totally irrelevant. If Ghomeshi committed a crime of assault, and the victims made some later attempt to contact, possibly with the idea of rectification, it doesn't change what was previously done a whit.

Actually it does. These women were not trapped in an abusive relationship. They were free to walk away at any time. The fact that they continued to seek the company of someone they claim violated them is evidence that their claims may not actually be true or, at a minimum, the violation was no big deal to them at the time. No system that cares about justice could suppress that information.

[WestCoastRunner]

I think it could well be totally irrelevant. If Ghomeshi committed a crime of assault, and the victims made some later attempt to contact, possibly with the idea of rectification, it doesn't change what was previously done a whit.

It's not relevant and ghomeshis lawyer stated as much.

[TimG]

It's not relevant and ghomeshis lawyer stated as much.

Cite. I doubt it.