Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien
You're advocating a system whereby a rape trial becomes a zero-sum game where one of the participants is going to jail either way. Either the defendant is found guilty or the woman was lying. There would be no grey between the lines. It would be a binary certainty that one of those two things would have to be true even though our justice system doesn't work this way.
You're not allowing for the fact there can simply not be enough evidence.
You're not allowing for the fact two people can hold contrasting views of the same event.
You're not allowing for the fact that a jury system is, while very good, fallible.
You claim this angers you because there are victims of sexual assault out there but do you know how many of them would come forward if doing so could see them imprisoned if they're not believed, the jury decides the other way or the case simply isn't strong enough? I imagine very few. Rape convictions would fall to almost zilch.
It's horrible.
|
i think that this woman should be tried as there was gaping holes in her story that's why it was quashed in the first place and why he has been found not guilty.
on the second part i never said that if someone is found not guilty the claimant should go to jail, i said that anyone who makes a false claim should serve time man or woman