Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
She should absolutely go to prison. The oath doesn't mean very much anymore, practically speaking - most people are not heavily swayed by the fact that they swore on a bible to tell the truth. The deterrence of "if you're lying you rot in jail" is more important than it was.
|
Agreed, she committed perjury, she should serve jail time IMO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
But the appeal judge cannot overturn the trial judge's findings of fact without palpable and overriding error, so that will be largely useless in cases like these. And most criminal cases, really, I would think.
|
For the sake of both accuracy and efficiency. The trial judge is leaned on heavily to make findings of fact because they are actually in the courtroom listening to evidence being presented. They are the best authority to make the determinations - a lot of power is vested in them. I don't think it would be a good idea for appellate judges to start making new factual determinations years after the evidence was first introduced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR_Six
No physical evidence where the only thing the trier of fact has to go on is a "he said she said" should never result in a conviction. Absent some strange and important context or surrounding circumstance, there is always going to be reasonable doubt where you have two conflicting stories and neither is corroborated.
|
I don't think it's so cut and dried, especially when dealing with issues of consent. Modifying the law as such would almost be like granting carte blanche to rapists as long as they were careful not to leave evidence (especially in the context of something like a drug-aided date rape). There might not be physical evidence, but that doesn't mean an assault didn't occur. Sexual assaults are already massively unreported, we don't need to empower criminals (and deny victims justice) anymore than already happens.
