|
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11089960)
The Judge makes decisions prior to the trial starting, sometimes during the trial, about evidence. S/he does so on the basis of rules of evidence that are known to the lawyers for both sides. What you appear to be arguing for is that a conviction should be obtained at all costs. Thankfully, the law doesn't agree with you.
I am not arguing for a conviction at all costs, I am arguing that the jury should be presented with sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, either for or against. In my view its hard to have too much information about the players when having to decide on the facts in a case such as this, how else are you supposed to decide where the truth really lies. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by PeterF
(Post 11089999)
My whole thing was that it was seen differently in those days, who watched the chauvinistic portrayals in 'Life on Mars' with a grimace and remembered yes it was a bit like that.
What he did was wrong, I'm sure in this day and age it would be stamped down on very quickly, in those days it was not. With it not being stamped down on the perpetrator would imagine himself being a bit of fun and no doubt get worse. Now the world has changed and this type of thing is recognized for what it is at all levels. Today it would be stopped early, the person would be dealt with, probably a sacking. So as i said, I believe its a waste of money to get a pensioner up in front of a court today for something he was allowed to get away with 30-40 years ago. Goes without saying if it was pedophilia, rape or murder then those would be some of the exceptions. Do you think that everyone who is molested now automatically feels able to speak out? That they would be believed, and action swiftly taken? That they wouldn't fear repercussions, that they wouldn't be made to feel like they did something wrong, something to deserve it, both in and out of court? Really? A 'waste of money' to prosecute someone for a suspected crime just because it was 30-40 years ago? Who gets to decide if a crime is still a crime because it was in the past? That's 30-40 years these women have lived with what happened to them. Might not seem like a lot to you, but trust me, it really actually is. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
[QUOTE=bats;11090002][QUOTE=PeterF;11089977]
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11089957)
Those quotes from you show how flippantly you are dismissing groping breasts, touching a woman's knickers. You don't think they are serious actions enough to hurt, to leave a lasting memory. You side with the groper when you say it's a witch hunt. That you can't even see this confirms my opinion. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by PeterF
(Post 11090012)
Apart from anything else, no-one was killed or seriously harmed and memories will have faded.
|
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by PeterF
(Post 11090012)
Apart from anything else, no-one was killed or seriously harmed and memories will have faded.
. Its not the physical damage, those scars heal relatively quickly. Mentally it can take years and years to come to terms with in even the most basic way, and even then i suspect that those memories never really go completely away, you just learn how to deal with them. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
What is the statute of limitations in the UK on sexual assaults? I saw a piece in the news today about a woman in the States who is bringing a civil suit against a (female) teacher who molested her years ago; the DA won't take up the criminal case because it's too long ago - lots of "allegedly"s and "media reports say" flying around, so it's hard to sieve out the facts...
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920 |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
None, scroll down a bit to 'higher courts' under criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitat...iods_in_the_UK |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
[QUOTE=PeterF;11090028][QUOTE=bats;11090002]
Originally Posted by PeterF
(Post 11089977)
I never sided with the groper and yes I do think its a witch hunt that has cost the British public millions. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11089997)
Nothing, I would be in favour, but I cant think of a way of it being practical in this age of instant internet information.
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11089997)
However, just because there is not a reporting ban in no way makes it acceptable in my view to subject the (alleged) victims to more trauma than the legal procedures already inflicts on them.
If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers tread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11090060)
If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers dread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe.
|
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11090016)
Right, but they are not necessarily always black and white calls, they are judgment calls. Thats why a judge makes them.
Originally Posted by iaink
(Post 11090016)
I am not arguing for a conviction at all costs, I am arguing that the jury should be presented with sufficient evidence to make an informed decision, either for or against. In my view its hard to have too much information about the players when having to decide on the facts in a case such as this, how else are you supposed to decide where the truth really lies.
That applies to both sides: the fact that the accuser has been promiscuous previously does not mean that s/he consented on this particular occasion. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by Oakvillian
(Post 11090037)
What is the statute of limitations in the UK on sexual assaults? I saw a piece in the news today about a woman in the States who is bringing a civil suit against a (female) teacher who molested her years ago; the DA won't take up the criminal case because it's too long ago - lots of "allegedly"s and "media reports say" flying around, so it's hard to sieve out the facts...
Here it is. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/jamie-c...quit-1.2504920 Civil law and criminal law are very different. IIRC, even in civil law, the Limitations Act prevents a Court with discretion to waive the limitation period if a fair trial is still possible (witnesses haven't died, etc.) |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
[QUOTE=bats;11090050][QUOTE=PeterF;11090028]
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 11090002)
So how do you define "witch hunt"? Persecution of the innocent? |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11090073)
Actually, they are, which is why, usually, the judge will make a decision soon after the lawyers have finished speaking. It is very rare for the Judge to have to reserve his/her decision.
They clearly believed the testimony to be relevant and admissible and that they could make a legal case for its inclusion, but the judge, after due deliberation, did not. They screwed up. |
Re: Dave Lee Travis
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 11090060)
Eh? How are the accusers going about their day to day lives in the current cases?
That's fine, so long as you accept that it is fine for the reputation of one person to be trashed, without them being able to identify the person responsible for the trashing. If you have ever attended a trial involving a sexual offence, you will know that the lawyers dread very carefully when using cross examination of the accuser. It is nowhere near the free for all that Hollywood would have some believe. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:11 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.