• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
825
Points
1,010
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.
So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
4,072
Points
1,260
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.

Here is the link to the Reddit thread, for those who want to read it.
 

kev994

Sr. Member
Reaction score
704
Points
1,060
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.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,688
Points
1,140
So, say a victim changes their story or refuses to testify for some reason?
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.

Documentary evidence could be questioned for authenticity and origins. I once toured my agency's fraudulent documents lab and it was a shocking eye opener.

Video evidence (e.g. surveillance or security cameras) are often of too low quality to positively identify persons or vehicles or have erroneous or missing date/time stamps. Same lab - different department.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
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.

There's really no such thing as that. Even in a one-witness (the alleged victim) scenario, there is always other evidence that can be verified. Whatever the victim alleges will then be fact-checked left right and centre to ensure everything they say is verified by the other known things / things that can be run down to verify their truthfulness.

But if everybody checks everything and everything the victim says is true and verified, and they are cross-examined and are 100% rock solid credible under examination, and and and and... then yes, it's possible to get to "beyond a reasonable doubt." Ultimately that's for the jurors to decide whether the person is 100% rock-solid credible and their version of the events can be fully relied upon.

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."
 

trigger324

Full Member
Reaction score
52
Points
460
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."
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.
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,128
Points
1,110
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.
Yes, it's sad the accused gets to defend themselves...

Perhaps we should just skip the whole "trial" process, and go straight to sentencing.
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
Sad, isn’t it?

No. I would not advocate for a lower standard of proof than "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict someone for a criminal offence.

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.

Given that I have almost zero knowledge of what evidence there is or isn't in that case, I can't make any conclusions in that case, one way or another.

His public comments after-the-fact, however, I can conclude that he was an idiot.
 

trigger324

Full Member
Reaction score
52
Points
460
Yes, 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 not
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,575
Points
1,010
Definitely not, for a victim
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.
 

trigger324

Full Member
Reaction score
52
Points
460
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.
Seen, and in that 400 years many a guilty man has walked free, I’m sure you will agree.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,575
Points
1,010
Not necessarily a good thing
What is the alternative?

arbitrary detention?

star chamber “trials” where the accused gets no defence?

is that you want- a society where anyone can make an accusation and that equals a conviction?
 

ballz

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
426
Points
910
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

I would hardly call a witness's testimony (from the victim or not) being considered not credible by 12 jurors to be a "technicality."

Definitely not, for a victim

"Justice" does not in any way imply you're going to get the result you hope for. That would be the antithesis of justice.
 
Top