Quote:
Originally Posted by Macindoc
That is an oversimplification, particularly when it comes to the courts. The state bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that an offense took place. If someone is driving your car without having a contract for its purchase and a registration in your name, it's quite reasonable to conclude that they are doing so without your consent. When an intimate encounter has occurred between two adults (with the exception of circumstances in which one has a significant power advantage, such as when a child is involved or a relationship between an employer and employee or between a doctor and their patient), it falls on the state to prove that consent was not obtained. In a he-said, she-said scenario, should the testimony of one party be given more weight than that of another? It's not as if claims of sexual misconduct have never been proven to have been false and vexatious. I mean, you could require written consent prior to any intimate interactions between people, but they would have to repeatedly renew that consent (since consent for one intimate act does not imply consent for any additional or future acts) before each such interaction in order to protect both parties from later accusations that such an act occurred without consent, and both parties would have to be free from the influence of any substance while providing such consent. Some people might consider that a bit of a mood-killer (although others may feel quite the opposite).
This is not to say that any allegations of sexual misconduct should be dismissed or that they should not be investigated fully; I strongly believe that they should be investigated and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And there may be physical, eyewitness, or electronic evidence that can back up a claim of sexual misconduct. But I also believe that the presumption of innocence should continue to be the foundation for the Canadian legal system, regardless of the nature of the alleged offense.
|
Just to be clear, there is absolutely no requirement for corroborating evidence on any kind in order for a court to convict someone of sexual assault. Indeed, due to the nature of the offence, there is rarely corroborating evidence of any kind. Courts can and do convict on the basis of accepting the complainant's evidence alone.