Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
|
Oh okay, let's have a look.
Quote:
|
Butt and others are advocating for specialized sexual assault courts like those that exist for criminal cases involving drugs and mental health; these will entail a subset of judges with special training in the psychological dynamics of sexual assault and lawyers for complainants.
|
Well, this seems like a good idea in theory, but presents huge practical and administrative problems. The court system is already overtaxed. But I guess if you could find a way to make it work... it just seems really unrealistic. There is also a problem that this could develop as a sort of parallel justice system, which is no justice system at all. Preventing that would place an even bigger administrative burden on the endeavour.
So, next?
Quote:
|
Complainants’ access to lawyers, destined to be controversial, could even out a lopsided playing field. As it stands, accusers appear as witnesses in the people’s case against the alleged perpetrators; they’re not given counsel of their own.
|
I see no problem with this idea. Seems like a good one and I can't really imagine how it would prejudice anyone and it would certainly help with the witness not feeling like they're on a limb by themselves. I'm on board.
What else have you got?
Quote:
|
Butt would also like to see the burden of proof lowered from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to a balance of probability, as well as reduced penalties. “The bar is so high,” he says, “that even if the defendant is remotely believable, the law says a conviction won’t happen.”
|
#### you.
Seriously, #### right off. This should never, ever in a million years happen.