Innocent Victims of "MeToo"
- Thread starter Tecumsehsbones
- Start date
There must have been enough evidence to charge the perp. but he still has the right to be heard by a court of his peers and the assumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I know of a friend's wife's case (an immigration and not a criminal case mind you) in which sometimes similar happened. He showed me the police and CBSA reports and hearing transcripts and I found them quite shocking in the degree of broken English among other things. That even raised questions about the functional literacy of the officers involved.
The person was accused of working in Canada without a visa and insisted that she could prove the falsity of the officers' claims and that other witnesses could vouch for her if only her lawyer could get the names of the officers and of the witnesses mentioned in the police report.
The Minister's counsel refused to present the names of the officers or of any witness even though the police report made reference to those witnesses (with names blacked out mind you). The Minister's counsel said that if the accused's counsel wanted those names, she'd have to go through the Access to Information Act. Due to times constraints, the accused decided to proceed without witnesses in a he-said-it-said case (referring to reports written by anonymous police officers). Luckily for her, the first judge concluded that even though in the British adversarial system, the Minister's counsel did have a right to refuse to present requested information, he had to take that refusal into consideration in his decision and, given the broken English in which the report was written with some parts being difficult to understand and some making little sense, he ruled in her favour on a balance of probabilities.
To her surprise, the Minister appealed the decision and the second judge ruled that the first judge was wrong in not taking the anonymous police report at face value and requiring the accused to prove the falsity of the report. This in spite of the fact that she claimed that she could do so only if she could get a statement from the witnesses (whom she didn't personally know but believed would vouch in her favour by simply narrating what they'd actually seen even if they didn't know her personally) and by getting a more precise statement from the officers involved (since the report was written in somewhat vague terms when referring to key points of evidence, not to mention written in very broken English that was difficult to decipher in some parts).
The above shows just how severely flawed the British adversarial system is in such cases. If I ever were arrested for something, I'd absolutely want a constitutional right to an inquisitorial trial (which unfortunately our constitution does not presently guarantee) as a kind of nuclear option. While it might give the judge more search, seizure, and interrogation powers against me and while it might forfeit my right to remain silent, it would on the other hand give the judge full power to access all original unedited police files against me and to interview any witness he needs to to get to the truth of the matter.
From what I've seen at least from what I'd read of my friend's wife's case, the British adversarial system leads to nothing more than a kangaroo court where the Minister's counsel or prosecutor may hold the only key to the proof of the accused's innocence but has the express task of presenting only that proof that demonstrates her guilt (and is even paid by the taxpayer to do just that). How does that not constitute a kangaroo court?
Okay, so who do you know is telling the truth?
"Crying Rape" is only the first thing that happens. The problem is that the moment that "Rape" is cried, a woman is likely to be disbelieved rather than believed, is likelier to be mocked or threatened than not and that's before the investigation starts. And not only women. I'd be scared to know what men go through if they reported a rape.
I'm not saying that there aren't cases of people claiming Rape when there was none, I'm not that stupid. The point is, just how do you prove Rape happens when most of the time people work against you, not for you?
Don't blame Me Too for it, put the blame where it goes, onto the people who don't believe something happened to begin with.
I agree it's a complicated situation. I'm sure nine claims out of ten are true. The problem for the judge is telling them apart from the one out of ten. Because rape is so difficult to prove, unless we want to put innocent people in jail, we end up with a situation in which a judge will acquit nine defendants out of ten even though he know that nine out of ten are probably guilty. If a person (man or woman) is accused of rape, I'd say from the start nine out of ten chance he or she is guilty; yet because he or she may be innocent, I can't take the law into my own hands.
As for the complainant, nine times out of ten she (or he) survived sexual assault. In the end, all we can really do in the absence of proof in most cases is to believe both sides and to acquit. Very rarely will there be sufficient proof for a conviction.
The above presents a new problem though. Since we know that nine out of ten accused are guilty but that maybe only one out of ten are convicted because we can't always tell the guilty apart from the innocent, our better sentiments lead us to want to do something about it. That's where rape-shield laws come in. While they may increase the conviction rate, they also increase the risk of a wrongful conviction. Another proposal I've read was to reduce the burden of proof to proof of rape on a balance of probabilities and of a sexual act beyond reasonable doubt. While that too would increase the conviction rate, it too would lead to a higher risk of a wrongful conviction.
My preferred solution would be the right to an inquisitorial trial with protection from rape-shield laws (so as to reduce the risk of a wrongful conviction) and make fornication a heavily fineable offence. That would have the benefit of deterring sexual assaults (since fornication would be easier to prove than sexual assault) while still maintaining adequate protection against a wrongful finding of guilt (since the person would still be fined for something that he would have been proved guilty of beyond reasonable doubt after due process with all of the protections the state could afford to give such as the right to an inquisitorial trial and protection from rape-shield laws.
There may exist other options too; but at the end of the day, radical feminists need to understand that even when a rape does occur, it usually can't be proved beyond reasonable doubt and so the judge can't usually tell the rapist apart from an innocent accused. Radical feminists need to address this reality head on rather than spew a hate-on for men.
By the way, women too can sexually coerce boys and even men into sex. I know. And that further adds to the complexity of the case since a judge can't even rightfully just assume that the perpetrator is necessarily the male and the victim the female. Sometimes when there is sexual harassment and counter sexual harassment (and yes that can happen when one party tries to pressure the other into a sex act and other then responds by forcing the first into another sex act that that person didn't want), we can't assume even when there is proof of one party coercing the other that the coercion or other abuse was not reciprocal.
So many complexities abound in these kinds of cases that even when the party or parties is or are guilty, seldom can the state prove it conclusively. Though I do not deny that most accusations are probably true and that most perpetrators are probably acquitted, I still think that feminism fails to address the complexities of the matter. Even though probably nine out of ten perpetrators are acquitted, some innocents still end up convicted. The question then becomes how we as a society are to address these imperfections in the system. Feminism needs to stop skirting around these complexities and address them head on if it's to remain relevant.
I'm going to stick with water-boarding the Lawyers just for the fuk of it. The ones that smile can only defend people.
Neither side has access to any Lawyers, the 3 Judges go over the 'proof' and the two people tell their version and accept questions from the jury and the next morning the verdict is read out. About 10PM the stupid questions will have gone home.
There is little I take on blind faith anymore. Both sides of the story are essential. Investigations into the allegations must thorough and detailed. Once all the facts of the case are known, judgement can be rendered.
I think I have a way to deal with intentionally false accusations. If it gets to court and it's found the accuser's story is 100% bullshit, then THEY should be sentenced to the same sentence the accused would have received if they were actually guilty. On top of that, make the accuser cover the accused's legal costs. This wouldn't apply to cases of mistaken identity where a crime did take place but the victim unintentionally fingered the wrong person.
I actually don't agree with statutes of limitations. What if fear, confusion, or other factors prevented her from speaking out before hand, such as when it was a family member for example?
That said, I do believe that the accused should have the right to an inquisitorial trial, be protected from rape-shield laws, and enjoy the presumption of innocence until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. In practical terms, if a person waits 36 years, I don't see how any proof would remain of the person's guilt, plus memories fade over time. But in the off chance that a person can somehow prove it beyond reasonable doubt (such as video that was saved for all those years, etc., then I'd say no matter how long she waits, she should be allowed to make a complaint and the prosecutor should be able to prosecute. Again in practical terms though, seldom would a person be able to prove guilt after waiting 35 years.
The problem with that is that a false sexual assault accusation can be just as difficult to prove than a real sexual assault is. Just as most rapists will get away with it, we just need to accept that most false accusers will too. It's either that or we lower the burden of proof. Take your pick.
You investigate it just like any other assault. I don't deny proving it would be harder, but it's obviously possible to still proe that something did take place (Bill Cosby anyone?)
Why there is such an issue with looking into claims of assault or even rape is insane and makes no sense.
Good luck getting anyone to make a statement admitting their sexual abuse as Cosby did and why he was finally convicted ............with his own words to back up the woman's.
I will never agree with charging someone decades after a sexual abuse incident such as groping. People do change and if they haven't chances are their behavior has escalated and they may very well have been charged with other sexual crimes. Rape is hard enough to prove when reported immediately after the assault. Trying to prove it many years after would be all but impossible especially if there were no witnesses.
I agree that the longer one waits, the harder it is to prove. But on the rare chance that the person has video or other means to prove it, you would still support a a statute of limitations?
Also, you'd be surprised at how often a person will confess. Look at Russell Williams. I remember reading a police report where a person confessed to the police officer, though he never went to court due to lack of proof that he said it beyond the officer's statement and the office had no camera on him.
The point is that when a person is found in a compromising situation, if he's innocent, he just has to tap his memory, open his mouth, and explain how he found himself in the situation. His speech would be quicker, his story would be consistent however strange it may seem, and that is that.
When a person is lying, he has to guess at what the police may or may not already know. He has to some up with an explanation for what he was doing there. He has to ensure consistency in his story. While a simple person could tell the truth with ease, even a highly mentally sophisticated one would still struggle in making up a consistent lie under such circumstances. Because of that, even if he has a right to remain silent, human psychology kicks in. If he feels like an explanation is expected of him and can't come up with one, he may buckle under his own psychological pressure and confess.
In fact, innocents have been known to confess to serious crimes in the Japanese system due to police interrogation tactics. Such has happened in Canada too under Mr. Big tactics. When we consider how even an innocent under the right conditions will confess to a serious crime under duress, it's easy to understand how a guilty party can confess. That said, some guilty parties have nerves of steel and can still remain silent even when they can't explain their compromising situation away.
