trigger324
Full Member
- Reaction score
- 52
- Points
- 460
So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?It means that the evidence is insufficient, weak or inadmissible, or that the witnesses are not credible and proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the criminal standard) would not be possible.
I'm sure others can comment more here, but when I read it on the CAF subreddit, the takeaway was that the civilian system does it as well. So, it's not something unique to the CAF. Then, if cases are going to be shifted to the civilian system, then the same result will happen.
Those are a couple of reasons why a victim (or witness) wouldn't be credible. It could also be that the complainant was found to be generally "loose with the truth" in other circumstances or had a history of making frivolous or vexatious allegations.So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?
I don’t get the point of the article. When the only evidence is the testimony of the victim I don’t see how anyone can be convicted; reasonable doubt and such, the rule of law comes to mind. Innocent until proven guilty.
Sad, isn’t it?Which is why it's hard to get a conviction in a "he said/she said" sexual assault case. If there's a smidgeon of anything that doesn't line up, the defence will run it down and try to convince the jury they can't rely on the victim's version of the story, or at least enough to insert a "reasonable doubt."
Yes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...Sad, isn’t it?
Some would call that “due process”, similar to what Adm McDonald thought, I’d dare say. In that particular case, Lt(N) MacDonald appears to be more correct in what she said in the aftermath. I sailed with her years ago. Wasn’t all that fond of her at the time, but I believe her today.
Sad, isn’t it?
Some would call that “due process”, similar to what Adm McDonald thought, I’d dare say. In that particular case, Lt(N) MacDonald appears to be more correct in what she said in the aftermath. I sailed with her years ago. Wasn’t all that fond of her at the time, but I believe her today.
I didn’t say thatYes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...
Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.
You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than notYes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...
Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.
But that is not “due process”.You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than not
No- due process is for everyone.Definitely not, for a victim
Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.No- due process is for everyone.
Just because somebody might be a victim of crime today, does not mean tomorrow that they cannot be an accused and afforded not only the presumption of innocence, but also the right to a vigorous defence.
Our entire system of justice for the past 400 years has been built on this premise.
And women, too.Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.
For sure!And women, too.
Not necessarily a good thingBy the way, that is feature, not a bug.
What is the alternative?Not necessarily a good thing
You missed my point. It’s sad that a victim just can’t be believed and an alleged perpetrator can walk on a technicality more often than not
Definitely not, for a victim