Quote:
Originally Posted by Jets4Life
What I was trying to say was, without the burden of proof (DNA, physical evidence, witnesses, past history of similar crimes, etc.), a person should not be charged with sexual assault. If there is enough evidence to reasonably believe a person has committed rape, then he should be arrested and charge, otherwise it is just a waste of taxpayer money, and a burden to an already overtaxed legal system.
It is up to the Crown, not the Police to lay official charges. If the Crown does not believe a case can be made, or the victim is not credible, they may decide not to prosecute on those grounds.
|
A few problems with your post:
(1) DNA evidence can only be obtained when the complaint is very recent. This is often not the case. Many complainants wait years until they disclose that he or she was sexually assaulted. Further, DNA evidence can only corroborate that sexual intercourse took place. It is irrelevant in terms of other types of sexual touching or, more importantly, whether the sexual touching was consensual.
(2) Due to the nature of most sexual assaults, there is often no physical evidence. However, that doesn't mean that the comllaint is not credible. Many persons are found guilty of sexual assault without any corroborating physical evidence.
(3) Sexual activity generally takes place when two people are alone. Therefore witnesses to the actual alleged sexual assault (apart from accused and complainant) are very rare.
(4) Generally, propensity evidence (such as prior convictions) is not admissible to prove the guilt of the accused, so an accused's criminal record is unlikely to substantially increase the likelihood of conviction. In any event, many perskns convicted of sexual assault are first time offenders.