You think foreign nationals are the only people the cops go after?
Yeah, the ol' requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That's why there are no innocent people in prison.
Judge acts very ignorant
- Thread starter JLM
- Start date
No, presumption of innocence isn't perfect, but it sure beats balance of probabilities by a long shot!
I don't know about in the US, but in Canada immigration violations require the mere balance of probabilities.
I can't think of a better thing than to give police another tool to harass, arrest, handcuff, beat, jail, charge, and fine those least able to defend themselves.
"When I approached the door of the apartment, Your Honor, I heard sounds from within that gave me probably cause to believe sex was occurring within. With probable cause that a crime was underway at the time, I did not need a warrant to kick the door, pepper-spray and Tase Mr. Smith, and haul him out naked in handcuffs."
Yeah, that's the kind of country I want to live in.
Another possibility would be to require proof of fornication beyond a reasonable doubt combined with proof of sexual assault or prostitution on a balance of probabilities before a person could be found guilty of fineable fornication.
In the case of a foreign national, it would protect the person from police corruption while still keeping the bar low enough to discourage foreign nationals from working in Canada illegally. That would actually raise the standard of proof compared to now for immigration violations at least. Right now, the police need to prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt for an immigration violation.
In the case of a foreign national, it would protect the person from police corruption while still keeping the bar low enough to discourage foreign nationals from working in Canada illegally. That would actually raise the standard of proof compared to now for immigration violations at least. Right now, the police need to prove nothing beyond a reasonable doubt for an immigration violation.
It"s your responsibility to not hop into bed with someone you don't know.
Way to take the fun out of life.
Way to take the fun out of life.
Apparently, Machjo doesn't believe that there is any sphere of privacy, and place that the government cannot go.
Sexual assault and paying for sex are already criminal acts in Canada, and selling sex without the authorization to work in Canada is already an immigrant violation.
As for making fornication a fineable offence under the presumption if innocence for all and extending the presumption of innocence to foreign nationals would actually RAISE the burden of proof for foreign nationals.
As for Canadians, if we should make fineable fornication conditional on proof on a balance of probabilities that sexual assault or paying for sex occurred, then it's not like the police could charge anyone randomly.
Again, even if he is innocent of sexual assault or prostitution, then he shouldn't have been sleeping with someone he didn't know anyway.
The Canada of your dreams is one giant kindergarten where people are imprisoned for doing what you think they shouldn't.
Confuscious say 'rape impossible, woman can run faster with skirt up than man can with pants down' 
Then let me ask you some questions.
1. Should prostitution be legalized?
2. What should be the burden of proof for an immigration violation?
3. Given that sexual assault can be extremely difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, how else do you propose we make laws to discourage it somewhat more effective?
4. If you support making selling sex an immigration violation, do you think the accused should be protected by the presumption of innocence to protect against police corruption? And if so, given how difficult selling sex is to prove (sex, exchange of money, and a direct link between the sex and the exchange of money), how else would you propose that the government ensure the police can reasonably do their job?
And again, at least as far as foreign nationsls are concerned, my proposal would actually RAISE the burden of proof.
The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act. I'll find the exact paragraph in a minute.
The site is slow, but it's in that Act.
Not stupid. Prostitution is often linked to human trafficking, money laundering, and tax evasion.
I tend to agree but isn't that superseded by the right of a woman to do as she pleases with her own anatomy?
Human trafficking can be very difficult to prove, but clients if prostituted persons are the one's who make it lucrative. Cut down on the demand side, and less incentive to trafficking.
It's a public safety concern.
Plus, statistics showmany clients want unprotected sex and many providers have their price for it. So that makes it a public health concern.
Fornication is easier to prove, and even it can be difficult to prove under the presumption of innocence, but at least easier to prove than other acts.
It's a public safety concern.
Plus, statistics showmany clients want unprotected sex and many providers have their price for it. So that makes it a public health concern.
Fornication is easier to prove, and even it can be difficult to prove under the presumption of innocence, but at least easier to prove than other acts.
Where it's illegal, yes.
Irrelevant to the fact that you want to write your personal opinions into the criminal law.
Some way other than writing your personal opinions into the criminal law.
Maybe you should quit trying to write your opinion of sexual morality into the criminal law.
And as a side benefit, would make it a crime to do what Machjo thinks you shouldn't.
Yay.
One possibility would be to make fineable fornication a fineable offence only if one of the participants makes a sexual assault complaint. However, we could make an exception if we're dealing with a foreign national who the police have reason to believe was working in Canada without a visa. But even then, she should still be protected by the presumption of innocence.
So Okay bones. So given how difficult rape is to prove, what do you propose as a way to discourage it in a reasonably effective manner? Lowering the burden of proof is obviously not a wise option. It would open the door to all kinds of police abuse?
It do we just accept that that's just how it is and live with the fact that most assailants will get away with their crime?
Yes, absolutely!
Being in the country or working without the correct visa
Nothing, there is a reason it is how it is. You are talking of a police state to impose your personal morals on others. Not the first time you have made such ludicrous suggestions.
Prostitution should be legal. Makes the rest moot.
Not really if they can arrest you for just having sex. You're an idiot!
Except where it's legal and regulated...boom!!