Jian Ghomeshi: Guilty or Innocent?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I doubt the Crown would have even proceeded with charges if they knew the full extent of the collusion and contact before hand.

What do you expect the Crown to do when one of their witnesses admits to being deceitful to police under examination and the lawyers for another bring up new information about contact after the incident they were told never happened the day before that witness was called?

It too late to pull the plug by the time everything went to hell for the Crown. Pretty sure after the cross of witness number one they saw the writing on the wall but it only got worse for them after that.

In this case, the police and crown (not to mention the media) may have actually been too easy on the witnesses. If they had been challenged a little more, pressed a little harder, the omissions and deceptions may have come out before the trial.

People - all kinds of people - lie and deceive and try to turn things to their advantage. Our justice system recognizes that, and regards claims put forward by witnesses with skepticism. But we crave simple and emotionally-satisfying narratives. The news media has come to be just another source of those narratives, little different from movies or TV dramas in how they frame conflict. The verdict in the Ghomeshi trial has frustrated the narrative presented by the media, and now people will blame the justice system. Maybe we should blame the narrative. Life isn't an episode of CSI.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

I doubt the Crown would have even proceeded with charges if they knew the full extent of the collusion and contact before hand.

What do you expect the Crown to do when one of their witnesses admits to being deceitful to police under examination and the lawyers for another bring up new information about contact after the incident they were told never happened the day before that witness was called?

It too late to pull the plug by the time everything went to hell for the Crown. Pretty sure after the cross of witness number one they saw the writing on the wall but it only got worse for them after that.

One would hope crown would have dug a little deeper and got to this before it got into court.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I wonder if part of the problem here is that when one thinks "sexual assault" one tends of think of groping, fondling, and other 'harder' stuff, etc.

When one thinks of slaps, punches, hair pulling, one tends to think more "assault". A fine distinction, but I wonder if it played into effect at all.

If, for instance, what Jian did wasn't foreplay, he could have gone up the river for just plain assault. He never denied that it happened, just that it was consensual.

If you take out the sexual element and the publicity none of the physical contact would see Ghomishi sent to jail, he'd get a caution or a peace bond with a no contact if this had been Friday night drunk outside the legion.

[ricosuave]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomes...nald-1.3506958

[Kjesse]

Peter Mansbridge interviews Marie Henein. Awesome interview, a must see for anyone interested in not just the case but the operation of the criminal justice system:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/j...idge-1.3511752

[rubecube]

People know that I'm generally one of the more outspoken people on this board on this topic, but I'm really having trouble taking seriously a lot of what's coming from people I'm normally aligned with on the issue. Do I think he probably did it? Yes, I do. Do I think that the system failed these two women? No, I can't really say that, and I think the people going after the judge or Marie Henein need to give their heads a bit of a shake. As much as I think more needs to be done to help SA victims, I don't think a lot of it can be done within the legal system.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Delgar

Peter Mansbridge interviews Marie Henein. Awesome interview, a must see for anyone interested in not just the case but the operation of the criminal justice system:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/j...idge-1.3511752

Henein is very bright. We need public figures like her, who can discuss issues rationally and not pander to an audience with simplistic and emotional narratives. I particularly liked her point that when two men disagree nobody says one of them has betrayed his gender. Why can't women be treated as autonomous individuals with their own opinions?

Also, Mansbridge gettin' old.

[troutman]

I don't believe a female member has posted in this thread. Very seldom in the other thread (or the political threads on CP).

What does this say about the CP environment?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by troutman

I don't believe a female member has posted in this thread. Very seldom in the other thread (or the political threads on CP).

What does this say about the CP environment?

I'd guess it's because hockey fans are predominantly male. And that arguing about political stuff on the internet appeals to men more than women.

What's your theory?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'd guess it's because hockey fans are predominantly male. And that arguing about political stuff on the internet appeals to men more than women.

What's your theory?

Far be it from me to speak for women.

Women are very interested to talk politics in other arenas.

I think you have part of the answer, but women do appear often in other threads.

I'm afraid they don't feel welcome to join these conversations.

[peter12]

My wife, a future law student at an elite school, had absolutely no qualms with the Ghomeshi decision, and is disgusted by the behaviour of many of her friends' vicious denouncement of the judge.

I also have a close friend, a female practicing lawyer, who has taken the opposite perspective. A lot of this boils down to what preconceptions were like before the trial, and you can't change those if you are emotionally connected.

I actually find these threads very fair, and even-handed. The vast majority of CP was absolutely certain Ghomeshi was guilty, and unreasonably bemoaned the competence of the Crown in executing their duty.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by rubecube

People know that I'm generally one of the more outspoken people on this board on this topic, but I'm really having trouble taking seriously a lot of what's coming from people I'm normally aligned with on the issue. Do I think he probably did it? Yes, I do. Do I think that the system failed these two women? No, I can't really say that, and I think the people going after the judge or Marie Henein need to give their heads a bit of a shake. As much as I think more needs to be done to help SA victims, I don't think a lot of it can be done within the legal system.

I believe that one of the most important tenants of our justice system is that before we take away people's freedoms we need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. A consequence of this is that there are relatively more people guilty of crimes who freely walk among us than innocent people locked away for crimes they did not commit. To lower this standard would increase the number of innocent people locked away and in my opinion is a more unacceptable outcome.

I believe the SA victims, but I also believe we need a high threshold for the burden of proof and hence I agree with the outcome of the Ghomeshi trial.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by peter12

My wife, a future law student at an elite school, had absolutely no qualms with the Ghomeshi decision, and is disgusted by the behaviour of many of her friends' vicious denouncement of the judge.

I also have a close friend, a female practicing lawyer, who has taken the opposite perspective. A lot of this boils down to what preconceptions were like before the trial, and you can't change those if you are emotionally connected.

I actually find these threads very fair, and even-handed. The vast majority of CP was absolutely certain Ghomeshi was guilty, and unreasonably bemoaned the competence of the Crown in executing their duty.

Trinity Western? I kid...(but I don't think there are "elite" law schools in Canada, unless you believe their own marketing materials).

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Trinity Western? I kid...(but I don't think there are "elite" law schools in Canada, unless you believe their own marketing materials).

I think UBC and UofT qualify. Certainly their entrance requirements match those of the American top 15, which are typically termed "elite."

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Trinity Western? I kid...(but I don't think there are "elite" law schools in Canada, unless you believe their own marketing materials).

Not true at all. UVic, UBC, and Osgoode all are recognized internationally for a variety of reasons, but it usually depends on which type of law you want to study.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by peter12

I think UBC and UofT qualify. Certainly their entrance requirements match those of the American top 15, which are typically termed "elite."

UofT and McGill are probably slightly above the rest. The rest are all equal in terms of job prospects.

Canada is very regional that way, very few schools are national.

[troutman]

UBC is elite because I went there!

We had an acronym to describe others - S.N.A.I.L.S. (students not actually in law school).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by troutman

UBC is elite because I went there!

We had an acronym to describe others - S.N.A.I.L.S. (students not actually in law school).

We used the same term (U of A).

Not arguing that all of the schools mentioned above aren't excellent, but honestly, in this country, it doesn't matter which (Canadian) school you attend. Elite students, yes. Elite schools, not so much, unless you want to dub 90% of them elite. Which is dumb.

[Johnny199r]

I went to Dalhousie for law school. It makes no difference what law school you went to in this country, for the most part.

Exceptions would be Mcgill,UofT and Osgoode if you want to move to certain states in the U.S to practice, possibly, or slightly improve your chances of landing a Bay street interview.

I've practiced in two Provinces, and Dal Law grads are everywhere. Literally, everywhere.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Not true at all. UVic, UBC, and Osgoode all are recognized internationally for a variety of reasons, but it usually depends on which type of law you want to study.

90% of schools could likely point to some national or international recognition in a similar manner to UVic, UBC and Osgoode. Not sure if that is what is meant by elite.

So far, we have had votes for UVic, UBC (Troutman!), Osgoode, U of T, McGill, Dal and U of A (FBS!). Just need to hear from our own U of C, U of S, Western, Ottawa and we'll get to 90%!

EDIT: Sorry to derail. Just having a bit of fun.