Jian Ghomeshi Fired from Q

February 17, 2016

Going the other way, you may change your mind if a daughter or niece or sister was sexually assaulted.....

Yeah, again, personal experience can colour one's judgement greatly.

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

cyber - If you want to complain about the system, fair enough, but don't sit there and complain that we just do understand, while refusing to give other ideas.

Why do I have to solve the problem? I've identified a huge problem that many people were ignoring and I'm satisfied that most of them have admitted it exists. Why don't you offer up some solutions if you also recognize the problem?

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Anyone can rape anyone. In the case you mention, a defence lawyer would certainly have the right to ask why she stayed with him. It would be up to the Jury and/or Judge to decide on her claims.

BS. A wife was legally NOT allowed to charge her husband with rape until 1983! They still carry the stigma that they weren't raped if they stay with their assailant. In Ireland it wasn't until 1990. France was 1994. Germany 1997. It wasn't until 1993 that it was illegal in every US state.

What's the point? The point is that people blame the victims. Women were legally not allowed to withdraw consent from sex with their husbands. And if eh remained wth him, that somehow meant he didn't rape her.

The simple truth is that a person, any person, must consent to sex EVERY time. Bodily autonomy rights guarantees this. Regardless of whether the person stays with their attacker or not a rape could still occur when someone forces or coerces someone into sex against their will. What the victim was wearing, what the victim was drinking, and whether the victim stayed with the person or not is completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is consent and whether the perpetrator had it or not.

And that's why the victims are left proving a negative. They have to prove that consent was not given, as opposed to the attacker having to prove that they received consent. And that's because we see presumption of innocence as an inalienable right with no regard to how it creates an environment where sexual assault is rarely reported and when it is rarely convicted.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

I think Gomeshi probably did it too.... it just seems it can't be proven in court...

And this is he bigger issue that we should be discussing as a society. Why does someone who "probably did it" get to walk away when several people have been victimized? Why do people not report these crimes? Studies are saying it's because they don't trust the system to bring justice. Why not? How do we fix that?

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

...so this only applies to females ? Ghomeshi would get more of a pass for assaulting males ?

This literally has nothing to do with what you're replying to. MSJ points out that someone would change their minds if the case was personal and you bring up the victims' sex. Why not respond to msj's actual point?

February 17, 2016

BS. A wife was legally NOT allowed to charge her husband with rape until 1983! They still carry the stigma that they weren't raped if they stay with their assailant. In Ireland it wasn't until 1990. France was 1994. Germany 1997. It wasn't until 1993 that it was illegal in every US state.

What's the point? The point is that people blame the victims. Women were legally not allowed to withdraw consent from sex with their husbands. And if eh remained wth him, that somehow meant he didn't rape her.

The simple truth is that a person, any person, must consent to sex EVERY time. Bodily autonomy rights guarantees this. Regardless of whether the person stays with their attacker or not a rape could still occur when someone forces or coerces someone into sex against their will. What the victim was wearing, what the victim was drinking, and whether the victim stayed with the person or not is completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is consent and whether the perpetrator had it or not.

And that's why the victims are left proving a negative. They have to prove that consent was not given, as opposed to the attacker having to prove that they received consent. And that's because we see presumption of innocence as an inalienable right with no regard to how it creates an environment where sexual assault is rarely reported and when it is rarely convicted.

Yeah, I was just talking practically, not legally. I think there are probably some cultures and religions where marital rape is allowed. Probably even some legal systems.

I agree with your second paragraph, (although, practically speaking again, it does present problems) but would ask, with regards to your third, what you would have done about it. If you are going to convict a criminal, you have to prove he or she committed the crime.

Edited February 17, 2016 by bcsapper

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

I've said, I don't know how to fix the problem. But I'm happy that people recognize that it's there.

Here's an idea though. Why not force the accused to take the stand in these cases? Why must they get protected from interrogation? The victims don't get that protection for obvious reasons (they have to make a case).

Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma

Boges · February 17, 2016

I've said, I don't know how to fix the problem. But I'm happy that people recognize that it's there.

Here's an idea though. Why not force the accused to take the stand in these cases? Why must they get protected from interrogation? The victims don't get that protection for obvious reasons (they have to make a case).

Would that only work for sexual crimes and not more serious capital crimes like murder?

Would the accused by prosecuted for contempt if they refused to answer any questions as to not potentially incriminate themselves?

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

I don't know should they? I'm just throwing out ideas and asking why they must be shielded from this. Why do they get to hide information that would incriminate them?

Boges · February 17, 2016

I don't know should they? I'm just throwing out ideas and asking why they must be shielded from this. Why do they get to hide information that would incriminate them?

Google is your friend

https://roselawtx.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/5-reasons-not-to-testify-in-your-own-defense/

2. There is no “right way” to behave when you’re testifying.

Obviously you should be yourself when if you are testifying, but you have to consider the audience. In act 3, scene 2 of Hamlet, Queen Gertrude says about someone professing their innocence, “…The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” This just means that if you assert your innocence very aggressively — people think you’re lying. And here’s more bad news… if your voice shakes when you testify — people also could think you’re lying. People an also think you’re lying if you make too much eye contact, make too little eye contact, look at the floor, look at the judge, look at someone in the audience, look at your lawyer, look at the alleged victim (if any) and on and on and on. The bottom line is that professing your innocence can work — but it’s usually a lose-lose situation. Psychologists teach us that not even the best law enforcement personnel around can detect lies by looking at someone’s facial expressions. Jurors are even worse! What one person was raised to believe is a truthful expression is a lie to someone else — and vice versa.

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Yet the same is true of the victims is it not? Despite your incredibly condescending "Google is your friend," I know why we don't do it. I'm looking to explore the problem with the system by questioni the any we do things. These are questions people are generally avoiding here and elsewhere.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma

Hal 9000 · February 17, 2016

Why do I have to solve the problem? I've identified a huge problem that many people were ignoring and I'm satisfied that most of them have admitted it exists. Why don't you offer up some solutions if you also recognize the problem?

Well, thanks for that professor, but we all know the system isn't perfect.

I won't offer up any solutions because 1) I don't believe that there are any solutions that both hep the victims seek justice and yet allow us to maintain the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy and...2) I'm not the one wringing my hands in angst about the situation - sometimes, good has to be good enough.

If I have issues with the law, it would be cases where drunk drivers get away with killing somebody or that a woman can't legally carry certain type of protection or that men get screwed in family court....

Hal 9000 · February 17, 2016

Google is your friend

https://roselawtx.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/5-reasons-not-to-testify-in-your-own-defense/

That's right, I remember watching the OJ trial and a lawyer once said "if I think my client is guilty, I keep them off the stand, If I think they're innocent I definitely keep them off the stand".

overthere · February 17, 2016

BS. A wife was legally NOT allowed to charge her husband with rape until 1983! They still carry the stigma that they weren't raped if they stay with their assailant. In Ireland it wasn't until 1990. France was 1994. Germany 1997. It wasn't until 1993 that it was illegal in every US state.

What's the point? The point is that people blame the victims. Women were legally not allowed to withdraw consent from sex with their husbands. And if eh remained wth him, that somehow meant he didn't rape her.

The simple truth is that a person, any person, must consent to sex EVERY time. Bodily autonomy rights guarantees this. Regardless of whether the person stays with their attacker or not a rape could still occur when someone forces or coerces someone into sex against their will. What the victim was wearing, what the victim was drinking, and whether the victim stayed with the person or not is completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is consent and whether the perpetrator had it or not.

And that's why the victims are left proving a negative. They have to prove that consent was not given, as opposed to the attacker having to prove that they received consent. And that's because we see presumption of innocence as an inalienable right with no regard to how it creates an environment where sexual assault is rarely reported and when it is rarely convicted.

Gross and inaccurate generalization to presume that "People blame the victims".. "All men are rapists " too?

It is also grossly wrong to state that 'victims are left proving a negative'. The victims do not have to prove anything. They have to provide evidence. A dispassionate court of law decides if that and other evidence is sufficient to convict a person.

What is your alternative to that? Hearsay? Automatic presumption of guilt?

overthere · February 17, 2016

I've said, I don't know how to fix the problem. But I'm happy that people recognize that it's there.

Here's an idea though. Why not force the accused to take the stand in these cases? Why must they get protected from interrogation? The victims don't get that protection for obvious reasons (they have to make a case).

Here is why: because it is not necessary for any person in any crime to prove that they are not guilty.

I see. You'd prefer that all accused persons be obliged to somehow hire high quality legal counsel to fight the nearly limitless resources of the police and Crown. To prove their innocence. Would that apply to everybody, or just people like Ghomeshi that you do not like?

"You have the right to remain silent"

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2016

Here is why: because it is not necessary for any person in any crime to prove that they are not guilty.

I see. You'd prefer that all accused persons be obliged to somehow hire high quality legal counsel to fight the nearly limitless resources of the police and Crown. To prove their innocence. Would that apply to everybody, or just people like Ghomeshi that you do not like?

"You have the right to remain silent"

Well you can either hire a lawyer, or have one provided if you're broke, or, you can defend yourself. In which case it's pretty tough to do and remain silent.

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2016

I don't know should they? I'm just throwing out ideas and asking why they must be shielded from this. Why do they get to hide information that would incriminate them?

One idea just off the top of my head would be to compel the defense to disclose it's evidence to the crown, as the crown has to do to the defense, per-trial. The burden of proof would still rest with the crown.

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Gross and inaccurate generalization to presume that "People blame the victims".. "All men are rapists " too?

It is also grossly wrong to state that 'victims are left proving a negative'. The victims do not have to prove anything. They have to provide evidence. A dispassionate court of law decides if that and other evidence is sufficient to convict a person.

What is your alternative to that? Hearsay? Automatic presumption of guilt?

I've addressed your argument numerous times. The evidence they need to provide is evidence that they did NOT consent. Yes, that's proving a negative. Victims are blamed in exactly the way I explained here. What they wear, where they go, how they behave, people use those things to excuse rape all the time. Funny how nobody ever blames someone assaulted in the street for not carrying s weapon or looking too wealthy. They never have it coming. Yet, we always seems to find people making excuses for rapists based on the victims.

Boges · February 17, 2016

I've addressed your argument numerous times. The evidence they need to provide is evidence that they did NOT consent. Yes, that's proving a negative. Victims are blamed in exactly the way I explained here. What they wear, where they go, how they behave, people use those things to excuse rape all the time. Funny how nobody ever blames someone assaulted in the street for not carrying s weapon or looking too wealthy. They never have it coming. Yet, we always seems to find people making excuses for rapists based on the victims.

Aren't Rape Shield laws meant to protect that?

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Here is why: because it is not necessary for any person in any crime to prove that they are not guilty.

I see. You'd prefer that all accused persons be obliged to somehow hire high quality legal counsel to fight the nearly limitless resources of the police and Crown. To prove their innocence. Would that apply to everybody, or just people like Ghomeshi that you do not like?

"You have the right to remain silent"

I see you like to take questions I ask then make up some bullshit about how I want all accused to blah blah blah. How about you stick to the discussion points I'm bringing up and not the fictitious arguments you wish I was making. You're simply presenting fake arguments and statements that I never made to try to discredit what I am saying.

If the way people answer questions can lead to inferences about their character and truthfulness, then why is protection extended to rapists so they can keep silent about situations with no witnesses but not the victim? Why do they get to sit there and say nothing while victims are harassed and grilled on the stand with irrelevant points about their sexual histories, what they were wearing, whether they consented in the past or future to sex, etc? Should we not be asking perpetrators under the penalty of perjury their take on the events? Why doesn't the crown get to discredit them like the defence gets to discredit the victims?

I'm not buying into the argument "because this is how it was always done." How it has always done has produced a justice system that fails victims of sexual assault, regardless of gender (and actually could be argued especially against male victims). HAL and others want to say there is no other way. I don't buy it because he and others like him aren't even concerned with solving the problem or finding a better way. He and they have made that clear. It takes a mediocre mind to shoot down everything. No matter what solution is proffered, there will be some way to shoot it down. If you recognize the problem, let's have some creative thinking on the ways to,address victims needs in these cases.

Edited February 17, 2016 by cybercoma

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Aren't Rape Shield laws meant to protect that?

And yet they don't. A quick cruise through this thread and you can see that. Ghomeshi didn't deny choking, slapping, and otherwise assaulting these women. Meanwhile,,the defence tried to,show that they wanted it because they stayed in contact or pursued intimate relations with him in the beginning or whatever. Rape shield is not consistently applied. An example,of that exists in this case when the defence brought up the handjob one of the victims gave Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. If rape shield were followed, she couldn't ask about that and it wouldn't be acceptable as evidence the assault did not occur. It's clearly an interpretable grey area that is not followed consistently from judge to judge.

Boges · February 17, 2016

And yet they don't. A quick cruise through this thread and you can see that. Ghomeshi didn't deny choking, slapping, and otherwise assaulting these women. Meanwhile,,the defence tried to,show that they wanted it because they stayed in contact or pursued intimate relations with him in the beginning or whatever. Rape shield is not consistently applied. An example,of that exists in this case when the defence brought up the handjob one of the victims gave Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. If rape shield were followed, she couldn't ask about that and it wouldn't be acceptable as evidence the assault did not occur. It's clearly an interpretable grey area that is not followed consistently from judge to judge.

This was addressed earlier. The actions of the accusers were used to establish credibility. The lied to authorities and didn't disclose all pertinent information to the alleged assault.

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

We're talking about Rape Shield, meaning the handjob is irrelevant and should in fact be an illegal question.

cybercoma · February 17, 2016

Also, the fact that their testimony didn't match the police statements speaks to how ill prepared the crown was. Any crown attorney worth their salt would have had the witnesses review their statements before taking the stand. That clearly didn't happen here. And when you're talking about a traumatic experience that happened years ago, witness testimony is going to be unreliable every single time.

On Guard for Thee · February 17, 2016

And yet they don't. A quick cruise through this thread and you can see that. Ghomeshi didn't deny choking, slapping, and otherwise assaulting these women. Meanwhile,,the defence tried to,show that they wanted it because they stayed in contact or pursued intimate relations with him in the beginning or whatever. Rape shield is not consistently applied. An example,of that exists in this case when the defence brought up the handjob one of the victims gave Ghomeshi after the alleged assault. If rape shield were followed, she couldn't ask about that and it wouldn't be acceptable as evidence the assault did not occur. It's clearly an interpretable grey area that is not followed consistently from judge to judge.

Which is why I think it should reviewed and rejigged where necessary. I suspect in some cases judges may believe they are contravening Rape Shield for the purpose of respecting the rights of the defendant to a robust defense. But then we still have dolts like Robin Camp who recently asked a 19 year old assault complainant why she couldn't just keep her knees together to ward off the aggressor. If that doesn't undermine the public's confidence in the legal system, I don't know what would.