a lot of them are rich and powerful and have made sure they never got anywhere near a court.
cause raping woman isn't really a crime its more of a lifestyle choice.
innocent until proven guilty
- Thread starter JamesBondo
- Start date
a lot of them are rich and powerful and have made sure they never got anywhere near a court.
cause raping woman isn't really a crime its more of a lifestyle choice.
Wrong. They have lost their jobs because their employers fired them. which, I stress again for the dimmer lights among us, employers in the U.S. may do any time they feel like it.
Loss of one's license to practice law is a government action. An accurate analogy would be being fired by one's law firm for no good reason, which happens all the time.
But nice try at the false analogy. For an imbecile who can't grasp the difference between an employment decision and a criminal conviction, you defend your bros with great tenacity, if little understanding.
In the criminal context, he is not guilty. Civilly, he was found to be responsible.
Still haven't figured out the concept of employment at will, enit?
That's OK, taxslave is struggling with it as well. I know your sympathy and fellowship with sexual harassers and assailants makes you desperate to grab at any straw, however ill-placed or feeble, to protect your bros, but you shouldn't use terms you don't understand.
Could be because it doesn't work like that in the more civilized countries.
Not sure what labour law is like in the USA, but in Canada an employer does have responsibilities and commitments to their employees. Especially if the employee has been with you for many years. But frankly, this aspect of this thread bores me. It wasn't part of the original discussion until Tbones flew off the handle about it
I'm more interested in public opinion.
I can understand that the press will report the most sensationalized version of the facts even when there has been no verdict. If they get it wrong, they face a libel suit.
But we see the public pass judgement on someone when in most case we don't know all the facts and we don't use principles of justice to analyse the situation the same way a judge or jury would be required to do. If we get it wrong, we help set a new public culture that contradicts our bill of rights and freedoms.
I'm more interested in public opinion.
I can understand that the press will report the most sensationalized version of the facts even when there has been no verdict. If they get it wrong, they face a libel suit.
But we see the public pass judgement on someone when in most case we don't know all the facts and we don't use principles of justice to analyse the situation the same way a judge or jury would be required to do. If we get it wrong, we help set a new public culture that contradicts our bill of rights and freedoms.
Couple things.
First, I apologize for my crack about "your sexual harassment and assault buddies." I was out of line, and I withdraw the statement. Sorry.
Second, the law in the U.S. is that, unless otherwise specified in a contract, all employment is at will, terminable by either party at any time for any reason.
Third, if you are interested in public opinion, you should not misuse legal terms of art.
Fourth,also under U.S. law, sexual harassment is not a criminal letter, it is a civil matter, and therefore the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" does not apply at all.
He was found guilty of robbery.
In Canada, an employer can still get rid of you for any of a wide range of reasons. Severance pay will probably be expected, but you're not guaranteed a job for life.
This should make the Tight White Right feel a little better.
This guy won't be getting due process either.
Prosecutors decline to bring charges in alleged rape at 2016 Georgetown Halloween party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e-635pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.c9e237afef9b
This guy won't be getting due process either.
Prosecutors decline to bring charges in alleged rape at 2016 Georgetown Halloween party
https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...e-635pm:homepage/story&utm_term=.c9e237afef9b
thank you
Here if you terminate someone for no reason, you better be prepared to pay severence.
i was speaking in laymans term, expect to hear misused legal terms when this is happening
when you sue someone, dont you have the onus of proving your allegations?
You have what they call "the burden of production," that is to say in numerical terms (it isn't judged numerically, this is just an analogy), you have to get to 50.0000001% likelihood that you're right. Then the defendant gets to fight it back to below 50%. That is the "preponderance of the evidence" rule. Another standard, in a limited number of case classes, is "clear and convincing evidence," which, to continue the analogy, is 75% certainty. Lawyers usually call "beyond a reasonable doubt" 95% certainty.
That is why OJ was found not guilty (not, by the way, "innocent"), but also found responsible for Nicole Brown and Ron Goldberg's deaths in a wrongful death suit. The former was "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the latter was "preponderance of the evidence."
As to employment, I'll concern myself with Canadian employment rights when there are a significant number of Canadian sexual harassment/assault cases. For now the focus is on the U.S., so the U.S. law is relevant. There are three possible outcomes. If you are an employee at will, you can be fired for any reason or no reason at any time. If you have a contract, they can still fire you, they merely must continue to pay you for the duration of the contract (think athletes and coaches). Or, you may have a contract with clauses having to do with various forms of misconduct, which may or may not allow them to fire you without paying off on the contract. The decision to fire lies completely with the employer, and the employer need not conduct an investigation of any kind. Most do, however, but they need reach no legal standard of evidence. The only purpose of the investigation is to satisfy the employer, by whatever standard the employer chooses or makes up, that it's doing the right thing.
With these high-profile media types, it doesn't matter if the employer thinks the guy did it or not. If he becomes unpopular, he goes. That will be true whether his unpopularity is due to harassment allegations, or if he just loses ratings because the audience is tired of him.