Quote:
Originally Posted by Delgar
That's a pretty stacked statement on its own. The judgement itself explains why each witness' testimony was not adequate.
If you have an alternative, I'd like to hear it.
|
Nope, I think the system works as well as can be expected without venturing into the dangerous territory of convicting the innocent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GullFoss
Its not symetrical, and victims are given the short end of the stick...ill give you that. But id suggest (1) that its not stacked so much as is it tilted to be biased in favor of the accused and (2) its tilted against the victims of all crime, and is not actually specific to sexual assalt victims
And id suggest thats its purposely like that, largely driven by the reasonable doubt philosophy. Better to let 100 guilty men free than comdemn 1 falsely accused.
|
I think the difference between stacked/tilted is semantics, but I agree, though I think because of the nature of sexual assault the burden of proof is a much heavier burden to bear. If someone murders someone, there is tangible physical evidence. If someone is sexually assaulted, that isn't always the case.
I think you're right that the tilt is the same for all crimes, it's simply that it's much harder to convict someone of sexual assault or rape than it is of murder or even plain old assault.