Big Guy Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Each result of a court case could be precedent setting. If this is an activist judge who believes that the standard for sexual assaults should be more supportive of the professed victim then he may rule accordingly by finding him guilty. No doubt it would be appealed to the Supreme Court but may indeed set a new "special" baseline for sexual assault cases. There are many in Canada who believe that sexual assaults should have their own courts and their own standards for conviction. I do not share that view and hope the judge uses existing standards for conviction. Edited February 16, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) A system where a conviction can be reached without a single shred of physical evidence and where it can be proven that the accusers lied to authorities Should be terrifying to every man who enjoys having sex. Edited February 16, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 As it should be. The less responsibility we put on the Crown to actually prove their cases, the more danger we're in as a society. I'd like to believe complainants and help them ease whatever they're going through, but we just can't do that if it means putting potential innocents in prison or labelling them offenders. Is that true though? The vast majority of sexual assault victims don't come forward because they don't believe they will get justice. It sounds to me like the process fails the victims in these cases, making society more dangerous for them. Predators know this. Several of you are ignoring the issue with the process I addressed in my initial comments: the victims are stuck proving a negative. These cases hinge on consent and the Crown is stuck proving that there was no consent given. It's impossible to prove a negative beyond all doubt, unless consent was withdrawn in writing or there's some other witness to corroborate. When a victim is alone with a perpetrator it all comes down to one party saying no consent was given and the other saying it was. Right away it's literally impossible to remove all doubt. It leaves provable sexual assault literally only for the most extreme and violent cases where the victim is also disfigured with bruising and other physical trauma from the attack, when sexual assault can be far less than that. It leaves perpetrators off the hook when a victim gives in so they don't "get it worse" so to speak. It leaves perpetrators off the hook when a victim has to struggle with the emotional effects of their assault and doesn't immediately go to the police.So there's a pretty clear argument to be made that the process as it is actually does more harm to society. And I'm not making the stats up. Everyone here has seen them. We all know that the vast majority of survivors in sexual assault crimes stay away from the judicial system because they don't feel like it will help them. This is even more true when it comes to men who've been assaulted and risk facin the stigma of that. Our justice system is adversarial to the complainants and this is simply not adequate for handling these kinds of crimes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 A system where a conviction can be reached without a single shred of physical evidence where it can be proven that the accusers lied to authorities 13 years after the fact should be terrifying to every man who enjoys having sex.Do you recognize that the vast majority of perpetrators go unpunished because victims don't believe the justice system can help them? If you do, then what is the problem with the system that so many go unpunished and unaccountable for their crimes? Do you see a problem here at all with the process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Do you recognize that the vast majority of perpetrators go unpunished because victims don't believe the justice system can help them? If you do, then what is the problem with the system that so many go unpunished and unaccountable for their crimes? Do you see a problem here at all with the process? Sure it's a problem. But as we've discussed, there's no solution without going in the other direction and completely undermining the justice system. You can't convict someone solely on a "He Said, She Said" scenario. Edited February 16, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I don't believe there's no solution. It's a serious problem and if we recognize that, we should be thinking of ways to solve it, IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I don't believe there's no solution. It's a serious problem and if we recognize that, we should be thinking of ways to solve it, IMO. Any theories that don't involve using a "He said, She said" scenario as the only thing needed for a conviction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) Post deleted Edited February 16, 2016 by Queenmandy85 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I already said I have no good solution, but a start would be to consistently apply rape shield laws which are inconsistent at best now. We can also look to other countries with different legal processes, but that we also consider just and democratic, to see how they handle these trials. I'm not versed enough in those things, but France, Germany, and Japan have very different ways of handling trials that are not English Common Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 A system where a conviction can be reached without a single shred of physical evidence and where it can be proven that the accusers lied to authorities Should be terrifying to every man who enjoys having sex. There is a very slim chance of conviction in this case due to the consistencies in the complainants testimony. And just where would you expect to find physical evidence in many of such cases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I don't believe there's no solution. It's a serious problem and if we recognize that, we should be thinking of ways to solve it, IMO. The alternative would be to assume that the accuser is telling the truth - or give the accuser's words more power. We criticize societies like Islam that makes a woman's word half value of a man's, so why would we reverse the theory and give a woman's word more power than the man? There may be flaws in the system, but putting a man behind bars who is potentially innocent doesn't sit well with me. How many men have been released from prison because DNA showed them to be falsely convicted? Remember David Milgard? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Don't confuse the only alternative that you can imagine as the only possible alternative. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) There is a very slim chance of conviction in this case due to the consistencies in the complainants testimony. And just where would you expect to find physical evidence in many of such cases? Well if assault had been committed there may have been a bruise where he strangled one of them, or if he pulled a woman's hair there might be evidence of that. If a rape had been committed there certainly would be physical evidence of that. But when you wait 13 years and lie to authorities, the chances for a conviction should be slim to none. That shouldn't be an indictment on the justice system. What I'm concerned about is that women may retroactively revoke consent if they're unhappy with the treatment by the man and if the burden of proof is lowered then what defence can a man provide if he's innocent? Edited February 16, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Well if assault had been committed there may have been a bruise where he strangled one of them, or if he pulled a woman's hair there might be evidence of that. If a rape had been committed there certainly would be physical evidence of that. But when you wait 13 years and lie to authorities, the chances for a conviction should be slim to none. That shouldn't be an indictment on the justice system. What I'm concerned about is that women may retroactively revoke consent if they're unhappy with the treatment by the man and if the burden of proof is lowered then what defence can a man provide if he's innocent? There doesn't have to be bruises for assault to have occurred, even if it happened last night. and has been pointed out women tend to be afraid to come forward due to how the courts have allowed them to be treated, even after the Rape Shield law was put in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 There doesn't have to be bruises for assault to have occurred, even if it happened last night. and has been pointed out women tend to be afraid to come forward due to how the courts have allowed them to be treated, even after the Rape Shield law was put in place. Alright so no physical evidence? I'm sorry, I know it's a problem that women will get abused and receive no justice, but our justice system fails a lot of people. But should the burden of proof be lowered because it's difficult to prove a sexual assault? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Guy Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) The trouble with the "he said, she said" scenario is the assumption that one person is lying. A situation of consent assumes that one person has sent a message and the other has correctly understood the message. It is possible that both people are telling the truth as they see it. There is also the problem of memory and psychological damage that may be caused on the victim because of the act. Remember those many cases of sexual assault on children where a number of adults (often parents) were convicted because of the "repressed memory syndrome". People under psychiatric care would suddenly "remember" that they were assaulted as children. Later, the theory was discounted and a number of people convicted were released on appeal. Edited February 16, 2016 by Big Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Alright so no physical evidence? I'm sorry, I know it's a problem that women will get abused and receive no justice, but our justice system fails a lot of people. But should the burden of proof be lowered because it's difficult to prove a sexual assault? The burden doesn't ned to be lowered, just the playing field leveled a bit better. Rape Shield was an attempt to do that but it may need to be revisited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 (edited) The burden doesn't ned to be lowered, just the playing field leveled a bit better. Rape Shield was an attempt to do that but it may need to be revisited. In the Ghomeshi case, bringing the accusers actions into question was not a violation of Rape Shield laws as they only were used to determine the women's credibility by the lawyer. Edited February 16, 2016 by Boges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 In the Ghomeshi case, bringing the accusers actions into question was not a violation of Rape Shield laws as they only were used to determine the women's credibility by the lawyer. I'm aware of that. I was speaking in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think some posters are using this case/thread to bring up issues with how the justice system deals with violence against women in general. The miscarriage of justice in the Ghomeshi case would be a guilty verdict IMHO. Any handwringing about broader issues is thread drift and has no bearing on the Ghomeshi case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 How a woman acts after an assault doesn't prove the assaults didn't happen. Ghomeshi's lawyer knew these assaults took place which is why she didn't question them on those specific details. From the feedback I am reading, it sounds like women are becoming fed up with the lack of justice in these cases and most likely preventing women from coming forward in future assaults. This judge has to examine this evidence regardless of the post actions. Considering there is consistency in all of the attacks there well could be a guilty verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 Don't confuse the only alternative that you can imagine as the only possible alternative. Well, throw out some ideas and we'll discuss their merits or shortcomings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 How a woman acts after an assault doesn't prove the assaults didn't happen. Ghomeshi's lawyer knew these assaults took place which is why she didn't question them on those specific details. From the feedback I am reading, it sounds like women are becoming fed up with the lack of justice in these cases and most likely preventing women from coming forward in future assaults. This judge has to examine this evidence regardless of the post actions. Considering there is consistency in all of the attacks there well could be a guilty verdict. Based on what evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hal 9000 Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 How a woman acts after an assault doesn't prove the assaults didn't happen. Ghomeshi's lawyer knew these assaults took place which is why she didn't question them on those specific details. From the feedback I am reading, it sounds like women are becoming fed up with the lack of justice in these cases and most likely preventing women from coming forward in future assaults. This judge has to examine this evidence regardless of the post actions. Considering there is consistency in all of the attacks there well could be a guilty verdict. There is no evidence - zilch! And, as far as consistency, that went out window when the women were found to exchange 5000 emails...some of which, directly involve details of the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted February 16, 2016 Report Share Posted February 16, 2016 I think some posters are using this case/thread to bring up issues with how the justice system deals with violence against women in general. The miscarriage of justice in the Ghomeshi case would be a guilty verdict IMHO. Any handwringing about broader issues is thread drift and has no bearing on the Ghomeshi case. In less you happened to have been sitting in the courtroom throughout the testimony, I think it's pretty hard to focus on a specific case such as this, without considering the broader issues of how the system may be biased against complainants. All things being equal, I suspect having this case being heard by a judge only may help to balance the field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.