- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,651
- Reaction score
- 5
that's a tough one. Hard to wash that stink after even if found innocent.Im asking if we could establish guilt better would it lessen the stigma that goes to the accused even after they have been tried and not convicted.
Look at the horrendous case of the USC student with the girl being the instigator and aggressor for sex at every point and signalling to her girlfriend she was going to fuck him.
Even after him being exonerated (or so you would think) there is/was still talk that he could still be expelled with the idea the school could right the wrong and still punish him even if he somehow escaped it in a court.
The same goes for Ghomeshi accusers mentioned up thread who the judge out right threw the case out due to the massive inconsistencies between the 3 gals testimony and the email evidence presented. The women after the fact were not called out for lying or challenged on why they ruined this guys life and instead were celebrated as brave for taking this to court even if the system somehow let them down by allowing their side of the story to be challenged with the email evidence.
Hopefully but I somehow doubt it.By Gains i mean ability to correctly assign guilt or innocence.
Ya its not an easy one.I can see both sides of my very limited understanding of those laws.
I disagree, at least to the extent we are talking about in a legal setting. I absolutely think the 3 cases cited in this thread provided they had consent by actions taken at another time (emails, texts, Video).As i mentioned earlier you can't prove consent at one point in time by actions at a previous point in time
I think part of the problem the accused have is many still harbour a lingering doubt and assume that should carry some weight even though they cannot decide how much. And the opposite is rarely true if the guy is convicted.
Agreed. Sad Canada is trying to subvert such evidence under the misguided view that the courts cannot be fair to women so a different standard needs to be set for them where using their own words and actions whether written or on video cannot be so easily used against them. That is scary.. If however video or electronic evidence is incongruous with one parties version of events that should be included. So it really comes down to what the evidence is being used to support or disprove.