So, just make a sob story and you can get people charged with whatever? Gotta remember that if I happen to visit that judges jurisdiction anytime soon.
(I refuse to call this a canadian problem, there are shite judges and courts in all countries).
So, just make a sob story and you can get people charged with whatever? Gotta remember that if I happen to visit that judges jurisdiction anytime soon.
(I refuse to call this a canadian problem, there are shite judges and courts in all countries).
"It's just like I always said! You can do battle with strength, you can do battle with wits, but no weapon can beat a great pair of tits!"
Again, some people can be drunk as fuck and not appear impaired at all. I've been clubbing and haven't taken home a single random woman to fuck, but it seems like a really bad idea to say "hey, you were both drinking and she initiated contact and she seemed fairly sober, but she claims she was blackout drunk and so it was rape!"
And also again, I'm not defending assholes that intentionally get women drunk in order to make them more amenable to saying yes to sex, I'm talking about mutual hookup culture.
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
And in this case, the judge didn't find the defendant's testimony credible. IE, he admits to "berating" her at the bar (because it was witnessed by other people there), and then he decided to walk her home, during which he 1) magically settled this argument, 2) reached her apartment only to break up with her, and 3) then had goodbye sex with her. Unfortunately for him, that's not how a reasonable person acts.
The State is aware of it, because the victim is alleging it. Lack of physical evidence doesn't mean the lack of a crime. If all my clients got off if there was no physical evidence, I'd be a wildly successful attorney. Take a simple mugging (without a weapon) - these are almost *always* convicted on solely the eyewitness account of theWhile that is sad, the state cannot prosecute crimes it is not aware of.
victim. The stolen goods are gotten rid of or passed off, and all the police do is show picture arrays to victims who point to people they think did it.
Is this a good way to prosecute those crimes? I don't think so. And I've spent lots of time in court talking about the unreliability of photo arrays. Rape by a known associate is an even harder sell, because it's not a matter of figuring out who did it.
Testimony is evidence. It is governed by FRE 701 in the U.S. For that reason, there are many raisable objections to testimony - in this case, you'd probably suggest the objection should be raised that the witness is incompetent to answer (because she was drunk) or it requires her to speculate on the defendant's state of mind, or his knowledge of her state of mind, or any numerous things. I don't specifically know the rules of evidence in Canada, but I feel fairly reassured that testimony is a form of evidence in Canada.Or maybe one is just in favor of proper trial where a crime has to be proven. Accusation isn't proof. Testimony isn't proof. "It's painful to admit to being raped" also ins't proof and lends nothing to anything. It's merely a very weak attempt at an appeal to emotions. There exists a middle ground (or at least an alternative to) between "believe accusations by default" and "misogynist shitlord".
I'm sure the defendant's character was raised. I'm also sure the nature of their relationship was raised. All this is determinative in a "finding of fact" which is what a trial court does.You mean like being a rapist (in case the accused has no prior convictions or even accusations) is also something that doesn't hold much water on accusation alone in one singular event and as such should have been proven since it is also a characteristic/behavior that is provable?
The believability of a rape victim is general, much like most victims are believable unless they have a clear ulterior motive. In a specific case, things can reinforce or undermine that belief. It is not automatic that they are always believed, but that is generally where the perception is. And, btw, this perception is even more strongly held by juries - the defendant probably chose a judge trial specifically because juries are very prejudiced against accused rapists.Not automatic? You just said in your first post here how accusers are to believed by default because testifying that you've been raped is traumatic and as such the act of accusation itself automatically lends . Welp, in 8% cases, which isn't exactly that small of a small number contrary to the narrative you're trying to paint here, the only thing the accusers can be traumatized by is getting caught lying. So maybe the justice system could try to work properly and try to actually prove something instead of going "she says she's been raped and it's so traumatic that she can't be lying, case solved".
I don't think testimony evidence is solid evidence at all. Most prosecutors I know don't like using it either. But it's there because it's still important, and our restrictions on it are the objections standard to any offered evidence, and the threat of punishment for perjury.And it shouldn't be. Yet you, a former defense attorney felt the need to explain in detail why this obvious deviation from the actual criminal legal system that we have is fine and dandy.
You're being naive if you think I don't believe in "Innocent until proven guilty." The sad truth is, though, that prosecutors have the ultimate say in whether to pursue a case, and in a liberal place like where I worked (NYC), prosecutors rarely went to trial without thinking the defendant was guilty. I have, for that reason, spent most of my career defending guilty people. You say "Make it work by enforcing innocent until proven guilty" yet testimonial evidence has been sufficient evidence for guilt for over 200 years, because our system is based on trusting people to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The burden on the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, but once you say a prosecution witness is lying, and you want to impeach them, the burden shifts to the defense to prove they're lying. The assumption is they're telling the truth because they fear perjuring themselves.You could improve it by making it work as intended, i.e. innocent until proven guilty. No shit that some guilty people go free in this case, the rule is build on that, because our legal system used Blackstone's formulation as one of its principles. The system we have errs on the side of the accused. Damn, the state actually needing to offer some actual proof before they can jail their citizens. Unheard of.
Furthermore, I don't know why you are bringing up Blackstone's formulation when the specific rules of evidence regarding testimony are specifically put in place to protect that presumption of innocence.
I'm canadian and I find this so fucking stupid, this whole case
But to your point, as horrible as rape is, If there isn't any evidence then it can't be proved. You can't prove rape in a lot of cases and it happens everywhere, UK US, Canada. People going to prison because of assumptions of what happened.
I think it is reasonable to assume everything someone says is a borderline lie or false memory unless they have physical evidence to back up their words in a criminal case. No one should be convicted through eye witness testimony. It's known humans are just that unreliable that eye witness testimony in reality just should not be a thing.
Drunken behavior is rarely seen as "reasonable" behavior by the court. And the standard for believing a witness is whether it's reasonable to believe it.
As for breakup sex, I'd say it's not the rule of breakups, it's the exception. It's not reasonable to assume you want to have sex with someone who just broke up with. Does it happen? Sometimes, if the breakup was mutual and non-hostile. But there was evidence, at the bar, of the hostility of the defendant towards the victim, so that takes away from that idea.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
I do know what a club is, and I went to many of them as a younger man. Believe it or not, I had an upbringing which led me to not really care for one night hookups. You can go to a club for, yanno, other reasons. They're not "there for" having sex. That's a pretty backwards ass way of thinking of things.
- - - Updated - - -
Her text was hours before the encounter, and before they even met at the bar. It is irrelevant. I can text you right now saying I want to fuck you, then meet you at the bar and you can be a piece of shit to me, and I can change my mind. Her account of the night correlates with what people saw at the bar. You're suggesting it isn't because you want to rail against some perceived bias when FBI statistics show that only a small amount of rape accusations are false.
People make up after a fight and then have sex all the time.
People have breakup sex, though yes, not as often. However, we've already established that this woman was fine with being a side woman while he was in an open relationship with his long-distance girlfriend, so we know she's not "average" when it comes to what she'll tolerate in a sexual relationship.
This makes both stories believable. I'd say hers is, statistically, more likely to be true, but I, personally, would say that without something more I wouldn't be able to say one surpassed "reasonable doubt" over the other, and thus would have to go with "not guilty."
3DS Friend Code: 0146-9205-4817. Could show as either Chris or Chrysia.
I see, so you didn't go to a club at all.
A club is a place to dance, meet people and yes, have sex. They don't let women have free drinks, or ladies night, or separate lines for women and ensure the ratio of women to men is always lopsided towards women for nothing.
A clubs entire purpose is to help people have a good time and have sex.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.
Kicking at windmills? Do you believe that this case actually changed the landscape of criminal justice? It's a headline written by a paper in Toronto. It hasn't changed shit. People have been convicted on the basis of testimonial evidence for literally centuries. And yet people want to use this case to fit their narrative about a problem that isn't extensive.
It would be an easy task to set up a similar situation in order to frame someone for rape.
None of what you said implies you have to have sex, or are owed sex. In other words, if you're unsure if a person can give consent, you can take a pass.
- - - Updated - - -
I'm saying it's been happening for a long time and the benefits of believing witnesses outweighs the miniscule harm of them potentially lying under oath, since the latter can be prosecuted, and it's hard to pull off a perfect lie. This isn't the movies, people don't just "get away with it."
Then I guess you're stilling clinging to the youthful naivety of having your V card. The club absolutely does that to bring in sex, the lure to spend all of that money, to ensure a maximized number of women to men, is all in the promise that "Come here, spend your money, you might have sex!"
Nobody spends that much money on liquor without the belief that it will lead to fucking.
On MMO-C we learn that Anti-Fascism is locking arms with corporations, the State Department and agreeing with the CIA, But opposing the CIA and corporate America, and thinking Jews have a right to buy land and can expect tenants to pay rent THAT is ultra-Fash Nazism. Bellingcat is an MI6/CIA cut out. Clyburn Truther.