bats

I'm not sure that anyone accused of a crime should have their name made public until found guilty or at least brought to trial.

Terminology is important. When talking of a criminal case involving rape or sexual assault surely the accuser is the Crown and not an individual? A person who has been beaten up is referred to as the victim and not an accuser. Why is this different for sexual assault victims?

The question shouldn't be whether or not they were raped but whether or not the defendent did it.

daveincolchester

Surely the question should be whether or not they were raped.

If this is proved then we move on to whether or not the defendant did it.

mikelincs

Of course there will be no evidence at this stage unless they have a report from a hospital.

Almost Canadian

The Crown is the prosecutor, but, unless one is accused, the prosecutor cannot prosecute. Semantics at best, and I have no idea why you raised the point.

Frequently, the accused admits that sex occurred, but alleges it was consensual. So, "doing it" isn't really the issue, the issue is: was it a sexual assault?

bats

yep, that's part of the problem.

jerryhung

Thanks for clarifying, db33. At first I thought you were referring to the women. But I see that your context for this comment is the Spacey incident, whereby I can empathize with your perspective on that one.

jerryhung

Hi Almost Canadian

I understand and respect this position. In many circumstances, I agree - trial by media or by social media is unfair and not judicious.

However, I can't concur with you that in this case (Harvey Weinstein) this isn't that case. Having said that, yes, it's a slippery slope.

Nevertheless, 90+ women have now come forward. By coming forward, it's a shame cast on them (the women) - they gain nothing by doing that, and in my mind, I am glad this sick, sexual predator and rapist has been outed - given his considerable financial resources, legal team (who threatened women who dared to want to sue him), shady networks (journalists who work for him, the Manhattan DA who didn't prosecute him despite evidence and who then accepted $ from Weinstein's lawyer), the power dynamics -

This could not have happened any earlier for him. The question is when/if the legal system is able to prosecute him.

Sexual assault crimes are notoriously difficult to prosecute, especially once a day has passed, and the he said/she said nature of it, and the propensity of lawyers to diminish/smear/attack the victim, is the only reason people like Weinstein might still escape THAT sentence.

You once said OJ Simpson is innocent - again, I do not agree with you. The courts of law finding him innocent is different to factual reality because unlike you, I see a different context to the legal system.

Having said that, I fully agree with you that people are entitled to the presumption of innocence - and this is what you are arguing for. I can't disrespect that part, but just note my perspectives herein which account for discrepancies in action.

Cheers

Shard

I thought that too, but Fallon has just resigned. He does seem the most unlikely flirt. Julia on the other hand...!

Almost Canadian

I suggest that the problem is always assuming an accuser is a victim before the trial has taken place and the accused convicted.

Almost Canadian

The evidence is weighed and the fact finder makes a decision as to whether the burden of proof has been met. If you have ever attended a sexual assault trial you will have noted that the lawyers have to be very careful with the questions that they ask the person allegedly assaulted.

Unfortunately, cross examination is deemed to be the best way to determine credibility.

I doubt any witness that has been cross examined enjoys the experience, whether they are involved in a sexual assault trial or any other trial.

What I can tell you is, despite what Hollywood would have us believe, if a witness tells the truth, there is precious little that a lawyer can do to really undermine them. Unfortunately, few witnesses are able to stick to the truth and, when they deviate, the lawyer makes them look foolish.

I have no opinion as to whether OJ Simpson is innocent. A jury acquitted him and that is all that matters.

Unfortunately, what you think really doesn't matter. The jury listened to all of the oral evidence, looked over all of the exhibits, and made their decision.

Shard

Are you suggesting that every jury is infallible all the time?

bats

What do you call the parties in non sexual assault cases? Or burglary? Or theft? or fraud?

Jingsamichty

There must be more to Fallon's resignation than just the JH-B knee story... who would resign over that?!

Almost Canadian

Of course not. What I am suggesting is that it matters not a jot what people on a forum like this think. The Court made its decision and, if there is not appeal, that is the end of the matter.

Almost Canadian

The parties would be the State v The Defendant.

You can call the various witnesses whatever you wish to: the mother of the Defendant; the person accusing the defendant of the assault, whatever you want to. The Court usually calls them Mr. X, Ms. Y.

If you wish to, once a conviction has been obtained, you can change the names again if you wish to. Calling someone a rapist before they have been convicted is, IMVHO, too prejudicial, which is why the Court never refers to them as such.

Sometimes, Judges refer to the person you choose to call the victim as the complainant.