Quote:
Originally Posted by Makarov
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.
|
Oh, well I'll defer to you as I believe you have a legal background. So it's standard for police to get a complaint and basically just lay a charge and let the courts deal with it?
And I guess my follow up would be; If that's the case, then what's going on with this investigation? They seem to be doing a lot more than you suggest they're supposed to.
And also, that last sentence is a little concerning, as it suggests somebody should be charged as soon as anyone makes a complaint?