Quote:
Originally Posted by troutman
|
Isn’t that exactly the point, though? Where testimonies of an alleged perpetrator and the alleged victim cannot be reconciled, and where there is no basis for believing one witness’s testimony over another’s, in an open, democratic, law-based society, it is essential that the prosecution provides strong evidence beyond the testimony of the victim. Otherwise, any of us could be charged and convicted of sexually assaulting someone else, even if we had never met them, just based on their testimony. Of course, that’s not what happened in this case, and I can understand the anger at the acquittals. In my opinion, the things that everyone agrees happened were at the very minimum abusive and misogynistic. But the Crown couldn’t prove that they were non-consensual. It would be far worse if the prosecution could get convictions without adequate evidence.