Found not guilty, then judge says he may be guilty

[MrJonno]

What does Mr. Jonno suggest here -- that we just take the accuser's word? If not, what else other than a standard of proof of some sort can we impose? If a woman says "Mr. Jonno raped me," ought Mr. Jonno be jailed if the sum total of the evidence is her word against his? I don't think so. Does that make her a liar? No. It means that people who weren't there can't decide what happened there without evidence, and we can't jail people when the evidence either way is about equal.

I think in the case of rape we probably do the best we can (juries are a different matter), just nothing wrong with recognising its complete shit. Women don't go trial because quite simply they pain didnt even happen as far the world is concerned if the accused if found innocent

[Cormac]

What does Mr. Jonno suggest here -- that we just take the accuser's word? If not, what else other than a standard of proof of some sort can we impose? If a woman says "Mr. Jonno raped me," ought Mr. Jonno be jailed if the sum total of the evidence is her word against his? I don't think so. Does that make her a liar? No. It means that people who weren't there can't decide what happened there without evidence, and we can't jail people when the evidence either way is about equal.

I think in the case of rape we probably do the best we can (juries are a different matter), just nothing wrong with recognising its complete shit. Women don't go trial because quite simply they pain didnt even happen as far the world is concerned if the accused if found innocent

Interesting concept of justice you have for those falsely accused.

[MrJonno]

Miss the point about rape, there is generally no real evidence bar the two people involved statements.

The only question the jury or judge have to answer is who is more likely to be telling the truth and who is lying. No will say to parent of a child who has been murdered when someone in court is found not guilty that their child is still alive, wasn't murdered get over it

[Coito ergo sum]

What does Mr. Jonno suggest here -- that we just take the accuser's word? If not, what else other than a standard of proof of some sort can we impose? If a woman says "Mr. Jonno raped me," ought Mr. Jonno be jailed if the sum total of the evidence is her word against his? I don't think so. Does that make her a liar? No. It means that people who weren't there can't decide what happened there without evidence, and we can't jail people when the evidence either way is about equal.

I think in the case of rape we probably do the best we can (juries are a different matter), just nothing wrong with recognising its complete shit. Women don't go trial because quite simply they pain didnt even happen as far the world is concerned if the accused if found innocent

In the US, people aren't found innocent. They're acquitted or found "not guilty" which is not the same as innocence. It means that the prosecution's case has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

I don't know anyone who views rape victims the way you describe. If anything, in this day and age, rape victims are given more credence and believed more than other crime victims. There are rape shield laws that protect the accuser's identity. There are evidence laws that keep evidence out of court that would be allowable in other types of cases. There are special policies and procedures to safeguard evidence, and there are confidential reporting lines and dedicated persons to help.

In the past, I'm sure the attitude you describe was commonplace, but I think it's pretty rare these days. In fact, what seems more prevalent is "Duke Rape Case" attitudes, where "frat boys" are automatically assumed guilty and the prevailing view is that a woman would never lie about rape.

[Coito ergo sum]

Miss the point about rape, there is generally no real evidence bar the two people involved statements.

The only question the jury or judge have to answer is who is more likely to be telling the truth and who is lying. No will say to parent of a child who has been murdered when someone in court is found not guilty that their child is still alive, wasn't murdered get over it

Actually, forensics nowadays is pretty good, so when rape victims promptly report, there are rape kits which can demonstrate elements of the case and corroborative factors.

It's difficult to convict people when the decision being made is "which of two people is lying?" How wide must the credibility gap be before you can say "Yup - it's so likely that you are a liar, that we ought to send you to jail because there is no reasonable doubt that you're lying?"

Generally, facts and circumstances exist that enter into it. The behaviors of the persons involved. Admissions. Witnesses who testify as to the interaction between the people concerned (not necessarily to the penetration, but to the pre- and post- activities, which can point to what happened). Forensics. Etc.

[Cormac]

Miss the point about rape, there is generally no real evidence bar the two people involved statements.

The only question the jury or judge have to answer is who is more likely to be telling the truth and who is lying. No will say to parent of a child who has been murdered when someone in court is found not guilty that their child is still alive, wasn't murdered get over it

That is not the point.

It is a hallmark of tyranny to pervert the system of justice to the extent that its purpose is to produce scapegoats instead of justice.

Taking your example. The child was, as per your example, murdered. But the person who was acquitted shouldn't be fixed with guilt after they have been acquitted.

[MrJonno]

Actually, forensics nowadays is pretty good, so when rape victims promptly report, there are rape kits which can demonstrate elements of the case and corroborative factors.

No forensics exist for determining consent, I doubt even you could perfectly read minds and have perfect lie detectors it would help much

Not guilty = innocent no matter how you want to play with words. This is no such thing as not proven in English and US law (Scotland is obviously different).

Almost all rape cases are one persons word against another and within the restrictions of law the prosecution/defence job is to discredit (ie make the other person appear as 'confused' ie a liar).

I don't have a solution for it but it doesn't change the fact that innocent until proven guilty means liar until proven otherwise for the victim

[Pappa]

MrJonno, the rape cases where it's just one person's word against another, with no forensic or other corroborative evidence rarely even get to court because of the low probability of obtaining a conviction and (conversely) high probability of a miscarriage of justice.

[pErvinalia]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

The law should not require experts to understand it. As far as I'm concerned, any law which requires a lawyer to "interpret" it should be void for vagueness. Moreover, I'd ban any lawyer from EVER serving as a judge. Judges should be drawn from the community of non-legal professionals precisely so that they can toss out laws that a person of ordinary and average intelligence cannot understand.

To adopt that reasoning, I'd say that if we are going to have juries of our peers, then the jurors should have to have at least average intelligence. IQ and knowledge tests for jurors. If you aren't at least "average" then you don't get to decide the fate of other people.

[pErvinalia]

I thought you'd be more for judges being like this one Seth...

Nah. I believe in trial by a jury of one's peers...so long as it actually IS a jury of one's peers and not a jury made up of the most brain-dead disconnected dependent-class idiots the lawyers can manage to empanel.

Unless it is in Texas, where you can be your own judge, juror and executioner.

[Seth]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

The law should not require experts to understand it. As far as I'm concerned, any law which requires a lawyer to "interpret" it should be void for vagueness. Moreover, I'd ban any lawyer from EVER serving as a judge. Judges should be drawn from the community of non-legal professionals precisely so that they can toss out laws that a person of ordinary and average intelligence cannot understand.

To adopt that reasoning, I'd say that if we are going to have juries of our peers, then the jurors should have to have at least average intelligence. IQ and knowledge tests for jurors. If you aren't at least "average" then you don't get to decide the fate of other people.

Nope, random selection from the voting records, you get the first twelve names that come up, no voir dire, no preemptory challenges, no elimination for cause, just twelve randomly-selected citizens who have to ALL agree you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Seth]

I thought you'd be more for judges being like this one Seth...

Nah. I believe in trial by a jury of one's peers...so long as it actually IS a jury of one's peers and not a jury made up of the most brain-dead disconnected dependent-class idiots the lawyers can manage to empanel.

Unless it is in Texas, where you can be your own judge, juror and executioner.

Nah, that's not how it works. You just get to defend yourself and your property against imminent threats. If the crook gets dead in the process, that's merely a by-product of your exercising your rights not to be victimized by criminals. No judgment involved. No execution. Just plain old self-defense.

[pErvinalia]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

Like lawyers?

And in any case, the jury's job is to try the defendant AS PEERS, it is not to be an expert in the law.

As a lawyer, I would not trust lawyers to operate a judicial system without their being subject to citizen oversight.

I certainly agree that there should be citizen oversight, and indeed participation. I just feel uncomfortable with the idea of ordinary, and potentially quite stupid, people deciding the fate of another human being. Perhaps a mix would be good?

[pErvinalia]

The whole jury system is an abomination anyway and most democracies don't use it, I trust a random bunch of 12 untrained members of the public to decide someone fate about as much as I trust them to carry a gun.

Comes from a time when people feared the government more than the public, I will the public far far more

yeah, I don't think it's a very good idea. Guilt should be judged by people who understand the law.

The law should not require experts to understand it. As far as I'm concerned, any law which requires a lawyer to "interpret" it should be void for vagueness. Moreover, I'd ban any lawyer from EVER serving as a judge. Judges should be drawn from the community of non-legal professionals precisely so that they can toss out laws that a person of ordinary and average intelligence cannot understand.

To adopt that reasoning, I'd say that if we are going to have juries of our peers, then the jurors should have to have at least average intelligence. IQ and knowledge tests for jurors. If you aren't at least "average" then you don't get to decide the fate of other people.

Nope, random selection from the voting records, you get the first twelve names that come up, no voir dire, no preemptory challenges, no elimination for cause, just twelve randomly-selected citizens who have to ALL agree you're guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, I know how it works now. I'm suggesting that it should be changed to stop idiots from deciding the fate of other people.

[pErvinalia]

I thought you'd be more for judges being like this one Seth...

Nah. I believe in trial by a jury of one's peers...so long as it actually IS a jury of one's peers and not a jury made up of the most brain-dead disconnected dependent-class idiots the lawyers can manage to empanel.

Unless it is in Texas, where you can be your own judge, juror and executioner.

Nah, that's not how it works. You just get to defend yourself and your property against imminent threats. If the crook gets dead in the process, that's merely a by-product of your exercising your rights not to be victimized by criminals. No judgment involved. No execution. Just plain old self-defense.

Fuck off, it's not self-defence to shoot someone in the back as they make off with money gained from a broken contractual agreement.