Guilty verdict in "he said she said" case changes the landscape of Criminal Justice

[Slant]

But that does not
1. invalidate the equality progress still needed.

In moderate amounts...

[Wildtree]

In moderate amounts...

Depends what country we're talking about.
In the US, it's still in significant larger amounts.
But no matter what, in moderate speed.

If you ask too much in too short a time, you will be facing a push back.
You achieve more, you get from A to B faster if you go about it in increments.
That's not exclusive to that problem.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That's not really a solution.

To turn a blind eye to a situation
is actually never the solution.
If it was, you'd still be in balls and chains chipping away stones or whatever in some remote mine shaft, for your overlord and master.

There is some truth in what advanta said.
Is there something like extreme feminism? Most definitely there is.
But that does not
1. invalidate the equality progress still needed.
2. reflect the reality in these forums, and likely every other forum too. There's thread after thread after thread, which causes a wrong picture. It's almost as if militant feminism is ever present every second of our daily lives. When in fact, it's nowhere to be seen other than sporadically in a spot here, and a spot there.

So yeah, conclusive, if we really have a need to chatter about every little or not so little case, lets at least be fair and honest. Let's not discriminate on the pro's and con's.
Let's allow all people to express their opinions. As long as they aren't violating any rules of decency and discussion, there shouldn't be a problem.
Or am I wrong here?

You are wrong though. Because what advanta is doing is the opposite of what you're asking for. How is popping in and shit posting following the rules of decency and discussion?

Their first post amounted to "I can;t be bothered to even read anything" and their second post is " blah blah blah, mocks everyone commenting..."

None of that is useful at all. While sure, there are plenty of anti-fem bullshit posts... LOOK WHO THE OP IS THOUGH. There are just as many pro-fem bullshit posts here.

And seemingly, here comes a REAL ISSUE. This is the issue that all those falsely accused "conspiracy theorists" have been complaining about. Here is a real issue and advanta just pops in to derail and whine. Thats the opposite of what we should all want.

If advanta is just tired of any threads relating to feminism... then indead, advanta should just avoid them if shitposting is all they can resort to doing.

[Rend Blackhand]

This is a disgrace. A true scandal.

You cannot convict somebody without evidence.

It makes no difference if it's rape, murder, illegal porn, fraud or burglary.

Convicting somebody for a crime without irrefutable proof defeats the purpose of having a justice system.

[Jotaux]

He should press charges and say he was raped then use this case as precedent.

[Dadwen]

So what you're saying is that if a women gets raped that's just her fault then? For not having a camera and witnesses?

So you're saying it's ok to throw people in Jail with no proof or evidence, hell if I don't like you I can just say you assaulted me and who ever bring up the charges first win's, seem like a great way to run a legal system.

[ItachiZaku]

Yeah, but 4 days later "wait, he has a girlfriend?" or "That WASN'T his Lamborghini?" can easily turn into a rape charge and this fuck of a judge would just be like "lol sorz bro, you raper now" so fuck that and him. Sure, my stupid scenario isn't highly likely, but that's hot bitches be in the 1-6.

[TheMediator]

Does Canada not have "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because without evidence, there's reasonable doubt.

Whatever, #cucked and such.

[Dadwen]

Does Canada not have "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because without evidence, there's reasonable doubt.

Whatever, #cucked and such.

I'm starting to think the OP posts these threads to secretively bash Canadian....

[unbound]

Probably nothing being that its a Canadian issue and for all its natural beauty its apparently filled with idiots. Nothing makes me laugh more than seeing all the drug addicts on the streets of Vancouver and hearing Canadians call themselves the best social system in the world.

You forgot to add: 'Murica!!

[GennGreymane]

@Tennisace

how could you let this happen in Canada ;-;

[vindicatorx]

I guess we need to carry forms that need to be signed and witnessed before having sex now and have an audio recording of the act to ensure we didn't rape a woman now. So, the chick was drunk and horny texted the guy who then did something to piss him off where on the way home he dumped her and as she got home she blew him and then he raped her? Seems legit to me. I'm guessing after the sex he was like yeah I wasn't kidding about dumping you and she got revenge.

[May90]

If all the evidence the court has is "he said she said", then the verdict is pretty clear: for the lack of evidence, the accused is not to be found guilty. Not exactly sure why it warrants a thread...

[Breccia]

Sigh...

"According to the Criminal Code of Canada section 273.1 an individual under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not have the ability to consent"

It is also specifically noted in the same section (273) that being drunk yourself is not a legal excuse to believing you have consent.

The man in question admitted, under oath, that the two of them closed down a bar. At that point, by black-and-white law, the judge's hands were tied. A guilty verdict was required.

Perhaps when this goes to appeal (this was just some judge, not the highest court in the land) perhaps it will set some kind of legal prescendent. But as it stands, by existing Canadian law and the man's admission under oath, I don't see how any other verdict was possible.

[Dadwen]

Sigh...

"According to the Criminal Code of Canada section 273.1 an individual under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not have the ability to consent"

It is also specifically noted in the same section (273) that being drunk yourself is not a legal excuse to believing you have consent.

The man in question admitted, under oath, that the two of them closed down a bar. At that point, by black-and-white law, the judge's hands were tied. A guilty verdict was required.

Perhaps when this goes to appeal (this was just some judge, not the highest court in the land) perhaps it will set some kind of legal prescendent. But as it stands, by existing Canadian law and the man's admission under oath, I don't see how any other verdict was possible.

so if both were drunk both should be arrested for rape?

*seems if he was too drunk to understand consent he was too Drunk to give consent too. Judges hand should have been tied both ways and charged her with rape also.

[May90]

so if both were drunk both should be arrested for rape?

*seems if he was too drunk to understand consent he was too Drunk to give consent too. Judges hand should have been tied both ways and charged her with rape also.

Agreed, but for that he probably should have sued her too.

[Revi]

It sounds like his general discontent with low guilty verdict rate of rape cases caused him to sentence someone without the proper evidence to do so.

As a stance or ideology, it's perfectly reasonable to be very upset with how hard it is to prove rape. As a judge, that should not cause you to ignore burden of proof and the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty.

[Zcion999]

Thank god my province has its own criminal system and court lol. Yeah i know Quebec are bigots, etc. Whatever.

I never understand why the rest of Canada thinks of Quebec as bigots. I have seen nothing to indicate that Quebecers are more bigoted than the rest of Canada. Especially since Quebecers are always voting way left on Federal elections. The Orange wave was mostly Quebec. Do you consider the NDP to be a bigoted party ?

In anycase, at least we don't (yet) convict people of crimes with the evidence of "He totally did it! I tell you! Trust me"

- - - Updated - - -

Feminism - with its hateful narrative, rape culture paranoia and its bigoted demonisation of men - eroding the presumption of innocence, one of the pillars of human civilisation, and causing judges to act unethically?

Entirely unsurprising

The cries of "ONLY ON THE INTERNET! THESE PEOPLE DON'T EXIST IN REAL LIFE! THE IDEOLOGY IS HARMLESS!" are resounding in my head...

[Theodarzna]

Plus side to this I guess is by shaming men we slowly bring back the moral character of waiting till marriage for sex.

Who knows long game maybe this will be a real blow to degeneracy.

It has been my opinion that a lot of the 3rd Wave Feminist Agenda has been a response culturally to all those salacious articles about "Hook Up Culture," and our collective social angst that young woman were banging three or more guys a night and we just don't want to imagine our daughters, sisters ect getting fucked like that.

Feminists hate it for obvious reasons but they can get the old fogies on board as well since we collectively would prefer our daughters be raped than accept they might enjoy having that much casual sex.

[Zcion999]

Does Canada not have "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Because without evidence, there's reasonable doubt.

Whatever, #cucked and such.

I thought we did

- - - Updated - - -

Sigh...

"According to the Criminal Code of Canada section 273.1 an individual under the influence of drugs or alcohol does not have the ability to consent"

It is also specifically noted in the same section (273) that being drunk yourself is not a legal excuse to believing you have consent.

The man in question admitted, under oath, that the two of them closed down a bar. At that point, by black-and-white law, the judge's hands were tied. A guilty verdict was required.

Perhaps when this goes to appeal (this was just some judge, not the highest court in the land) perhaps it will set some kind of legal prescendent. But as it stands, by existing Canadian law and the man's admission under oath, I don't see how any other verdict was possible.

So that only applies to women ? He was also drunk so she also CLEARLY raped him ? Or is that again something that only women can benefit from ?