Quote:
Originally Posted by jayswin
But again, I'm not sure anyone knows what point you're making. You keep saying you don't know what needs to be done as if there's more qualified people who would know.
At the end of the day, if there's any changes to be made it would be on the police process end, which you've boldly declared is so poor at rape investigations that we need to outright skip it and just toss guys in court as soon as a girl makes a complaint.
The reason you can't think of what could be done is that we have this thing called due process in Canada and the United States and what you're asking for is to skip that and send guys to the point where they're one step away from jail with a jury of citizens who may or may not be biased to decide their fate with no proof. 
I understand the emotions involved and I see now where you're coming from with a daughter getting to that age, but at the end of the day what you want isn't realistic, it's completely unattainable, full stop. |
I don't think you're using the word "proof" correctly. "Proof" is simply evidence which is probative (or tending to prove) a material fact. For example, the evidence of the complainant is "proof".
Also, generally speaking, police should only be doing a very, very limited assessment of complainant's credibility, especially in a classic he-said-she-said situation (like the vast majority of sexual assaults. Credibility should be assessed at trial, according to all of the rules of evidence and criminal procedure. It should not be assessed ad hoc by police, who are far more likely to succumb to old stereotypes and prejudices.
Basically, in the vast majority of sexual assault investigations, a complaint should lead to the laying of criminal charges.