2 more liberal MP's gone.

[Hal 9000]

What I've said, repeatedly is that we need to start believing victims when they come forward. We are not the courts. The vast majority of people don't make these claims lightly and in fact most people never make the claims and would rather forget the crimes had ever happened. Instead, as you can see from a lot of the posts here, people are ready to just on the victims and bash them, dragging them through the mud while dismissing or shrugging their shoulders at the accused.

What we see from the posts here is that many of us believe in "innocent until proven guilty" and thank god for that.

[Smallc]

If you don't understand why by now, then I give up. Continue giving predators the benefit of the doubt because that's what the courts would do. If you have no compassion for victims, until they prove undeserving of it, then there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do for you. I hope you treat the people in your life better than you treat strangers.

Why would I have any faith in strangers? Generally, people lie, cheat, and steal. I know, because I do business with them every single day. Give me proof.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Smallc

[Bonam]

If you don't understand why by now, then I give up. Continue giving predators the benefit of the doubt because that's what the courts would do. If you have no compassion for victims, until they prove undeserving of it, then there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do for you. I hope you treat the people in your life better than you treat strangers.

What I've said, repeatedly is that we need to start believing victims when they come forward. We are not the courts.

Why should a reasonable, objective, unbiased person consider a situation any differently than a court of law, which has been specifically designed over thousands of years of experience to approach these things in a way that makes sense so as to protect the rights of the people involved? Just because the situation is related to sexual harassment or rape, you want people to throw away all our society's collective experience about how to think about crimes and accusations, and instead exhibit a purely emotional response? The courts are designed the way they are for a reason, a very good reason, and reasonable people are perfectly justified in regarding allegations with the same level of skepticism until proven that the courts do, rather than jumping to conclusions. In this thread, you repeatedly implore people to believe unsubstantiated accusations, to jump to conclusions... why?

Instead, as you can see from a lot of the posts here, people are ready to just on the victims and bash them, dragging them through the mud while dismissing or shrugging their shoulders at the accused.

Useless strawman. No one in this thread proposes dragging victims through the mud or bashing them. What people do expect, apparently much to your consternation, is for the rule of law to be upheld, and our system of justice to be utilized as designed. Look at any other thread, like the Ferguson shooting for example, or the ghomeshi thread. Do the people jumping to conclusions on page 1 before any facts are available look reasonable to you? No. Reasonable people withhold judgement until sufficient information is available. You do this as well, on most subjects. And yet because this is a "women's issue" you throw all that away and want everyone to respond with emotion, with unquestioning belief of any allegation. Your position makes no logical sense; it is absurd.

Sorry, but some of us prefer to think with our heads, even on sensitive issues.

[Hal 9000]

Why should a reasonable, objective, unbiased person consider a situation any differently than a court of law, which has been specifically designed over thousands of years of experience to approach these things in a way that makes sense so as to protect the rights of the people involved? Just because the situation is related to sexual harassment or rape, you want people to throw away all our society's collective experience about how to think about crimes and accusations, and instead exhibit a purely emotional response? The courts are designed the way they are for a reason, a very good reason, and reasonable people are perfectly justified in regarding allegations with the same level of skepticism until proven that the courts do, rather than jumping to conclusions. In this thread, you repeatedly implore people to believe unsubstantiated accusations, to jump to conclusions... why?

Useless strawman. No one in this thread proposes dragging victims through the mud or bashing them. What people do expect, apparently much to your consternation, is for the rule of law to be upheld, and our system of justice to be utilized as designed. Look at any other thread, like the Ferguson shooting for example, or the ghomeshi thread. Do the people jumping to conclusions on page 1 before any facts are available look reasonable to you? No. Reasonable people withhold judgement until sufficient information is available. You do this as well, on most subjects. And yet because this is a "women's issue" you throw all that away and want everyone to respond with emotion, with unquestioning belief of any allegation. Your position makes no logical sense; it is absurd.

Sorry, but some of us prefer to think with our heads, even on sensitive issues.

Well said!

[On Guard for Thee]

And at the end of the day, that's a their choice. There's little we can do about it other than attempting to reduce the incidence of assaults.

Ya know, one way or reducing assaults would be to fair up the court system so assaulter's are aware they may actually be busted.

[Smallc]

And so how would you do that? You haven't offered anything. If it involves anything about guilt without proper proof, I'm not interested.

[On Guard for Thee]

And so how would you do that? You haven't offered anything. If it involves anything about guilt without proper proof, I'm not interested.

First of all let me give you a little insight: I have suffered through my share of rednecks in my day who reckon if a girl is wearing a miniskirt or a low cut blouse, well then she is asking for it. As to the courts I would strengthen the Rape Shield so a defense lawyer would have to choose a realistic way of defending the accusations without simply resorting to character assassination by employing those same redneck ideas that could very well exist within the jury.

[Smallc]

Ah so you'd do exactly what I said I wasn't interested in.

Bye the way, nice touch resorting to insults again.

[On Guard for Thee]

Ah so you'd do exactly what I said I wasn't interested in.

Bye the way, nice touch resorting to insults again.

Why would you take that as an insult?

[Smallc]

Because you've referred to me as a redneck in the past. It's obvious what you were doing.

[On Guard for Thee]

Because you've referred to me as a redneck in the past. It's obvious what you were doing.

Re read the post, you'll find that's not true.

[Smallc]

I would hope not.

[On Guard for Thee]

But, you have completely ignored the crux of my argument which is to force lawyers to make the case for why the accuser is wrong without simply resorting to a smear campaign without any merits.

[Smallc]

But that's what you don't seem to understand. The accusers history should very well be on trial if you're going to prove the guilt of the accused. There can be no doubt, and the mindset and history of both parties is relevant.

[On Guard for Thee]

But that's what you don't seem to understand. The accusers history should very well be on trial if you're going to prove the guilt of the accused. There can be no doubt, and the mindset and history of both parties is relevant.

OK here's a little scenario for you just to test the waters. Let's say there is a hooker, and let's say she is dressed like a hooker and she has been plying her trade for the time she allots to it. Now she is on her way home walking along the street. Some guy steps up to her and says 'hey you wanna go out"? and she says no I'm on my way home, bu the doesn't want to take no for an answer and assaults her. Does the fact that she's a hooker somehow dilute the assault in your mind?

[Smallc]

And who says it actually happened that way - other than the hooker? That's why proof is important.

In any crime, the history of both parties is going to come up. There's a reason for that. The credibility of each party is important. The details of the crime are of course, paramount, but they are rarely as simple as the scenario you've laid out.

[WestCoastRunner]

But that's what you don't seem to understand. The accusers history should very well be on trial if you're going to prove the guilt of the accused. There can be no doubt, and the mindset and history of both parties is relevant.

Are there limits on attacking a complainant’s credibility in a sexual assault case?

There was a time when a person accused of sexual assault was permitted to question the complainant in a sexual assault case about their past sexual history as a way of attacking the complainant’s credibility. This is no longer permitted by the courts. If a person accused of sexual assault wishes to ask questions about an accuser’s prior sexual activity, a special application must be brought before the trial judge prior to commencing the questioning. The Court may allow an accused person to ask questions about a complainant’s prior sexual history if it is relevant to an issue in the case and has significant probative value. However, this questioning can not be used to suggest either that the complainant is more likely to have consented and/or, is less worthy of belief by reason alone of her prior sexual conduct. This type of questioning is simply not relevant at trial.

It isn't a free for all to attack the accuser's history as you are suggesting.

[On Guard for Thee]

And who says it actually happened that way - other than the hooker? That's why proof is important.

In any crime, the history of both parties is going to come up. There's a reason for that. The credibility of each party is important. The details of the crime are of course, paramount, but they are rarely as simple as the scenario you've laid out.

That's exactly the answer I expected. You just don't seem to get the idea that the lawyer for the accused would use her "history" as a hooker to destroy her "credibility" as a person, and that is just totally unfair.

[Smallc]

Are there limits on attacking a complainants credibility in a sexual assault case?

There was a time when a person accused of sexual assault was permitted to question the complainant in a sexual assault case about their past sexual history as a way of attacking the complainants credibility. This is no longer permitted by the courts. If a person accused of sexual assault wishes to ask questions about an accusers prior sexual activity, a special application must be brought before the trial judge prior to commencing the questioning. The Court may allow an accused person to ask questions about a complainants prior sexual history if it is relevant to an issue in the case and has significant probative value. However, this questioning can not be used to suggest either that the complainant is more likely to have consented and/or, is less worthy of belief by reason alone of her prior sexual conduct. This type of questioning is simply not relevant at trial.

It isn't a free for all to attack the accuser's history as you are suggesting.

Of course there are limits. Some things aren't relevant. Some things are. I never suggested a free for all.

[Smallc]

That's exactly the answer I expected. You just don't seem to get the idea that the lawyer for the accused would use her "history" as a hooker to destroy her "credibility" as a person, and that is just totally unfair.

It is fair, as that really does damage her credibility in the matter. She's accusing someone of a heinous crime. There had better be enough proof.

[WestCoastRunner]

Of course there are limits. Some things aren't relevant. Some things are. I never suggested a free for all.

Actually you did suggest a free for all.

"The accusers history should very well be on trial if you're going to prove the guilt of the accused."

[On Guard for Thee]

It is fair, as that really does damage her credibility in the matter. She's accusing someone of a heinous crime. There had better be enough proof.

It is not fair. What if she was an airline pilot? oh then all hell would break loose to support this woman against this jerk, but because she's a hooker, ah , no big deal! Good lord!

[Smallc]

That doesn't suggest a free for all. There are relevant details that must be considered, especially when the evidence isn't overwhelming. It's often the word of one person against another with very shaky evidence. Credibility then becomes the key.

[cybercoma]

It is fair, as that really does damage her credibility in the matter. She's accusing someone of a heinous crime. There had better be enough proof.

So prostitutes can't be raped then? Is that what you're getting at? What a disgusting attitude.

[Smallc]

So prostitutes can't be raped then? Is that what you're getting at? What a disgusting attitude.

Of course they can be raped. Does that not mean that a proper defence can be mounted? Or should we just assume women are raped because they say so? Your position is rediculous.