Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-13-2018, 04:42 PM
Mrdeals Mrdeals is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 348
Legally, what rights does a falsely accused sexual predator have?

Letís say a man is accused by a women, a group of women as being a sexual predator, or rapist.

After all is said and done, no evidence is found, and the accusers are found to have lied.

By this point, realistically, the accused reputation is ruined, probably lost their job or company.

Is there anything the falsely accused can receive as compensation?
  #2  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:05 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,115
IANAL, but I would think the accused could sue the false-accuser for slander.
  #3  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:23 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek Beckdawrek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 8,394
Man, that would be bad luck. I doubt there is any way to get compensated. A lawsuit against the accusers probably would generate much in the way of cash, but maybe regained reputation would help in future employment.
  #4  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:47 PM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,219
If the accusation has involved making a false report to the police, presumably there's a possiblity of criminal proceedings against those who made the report, though this isn't something the accused person can control, and it won't result in compensation for him.
  #5  
Old 01-13-2018, 05:59 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,102
Quote:
Originally Posted by UDS View Post
If the accusation has involved making a false report to the police, presumably there's a possiblity of criminal proceedings against those who made the report, though this isn't something the accused person can control, and it won't result in compensation for him.
The victim of false accusations should insist that they be criminally charged. The state should offer simple pleas for the accusers that they'll accept, which means they've admitted to make false charges, and then it's a slam dunk in civil court. Whether the accusers have any assets, and the victim can eventually collect is another matter, but it should restore his reputation. However, considering his legal costs and employment or business losses, he has little chance of ever being made whole again.
  #6  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:20 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdeals View Post
After all is said and done, no evidence is found, and the accusers are found to have lied.
Just pointing out that these two things aren't necessarily connected. There may be no physical evidence of sexual assault, and having the trial end in a "not guilty" verdict doesn't say anything about the veracity of the accusers statements. If there is evidence that accusers actually and purposely lied, then that is in fact evidence in favor of the accused.

In short, are you asking about a case that simply isn't proven, or a case where it's been shown that the accusers were lying?
  #7  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:25 PM
Beckdawrek's Avatar
Beckdawrek Beckdawrek is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: So.Ark ?
Posts: 8,394
Look at O.J. Simpson. He was acquitted, nobody really believes him innocent, though. His rep. is irreparably damaged.
  #8  
Old 01-13-2018, 06:32 PM
dstarfire dstarfire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Tacoma, WA; USA
Posts: 1,432
Towards restoring their reputation, media outlets often publish corrections/retractions when they discover previously published information is inaccurate. The story of lying accusers would be almost as newsworthy as the original accusations.

Depending on their relationship with their previous employer they may be eligible for for the same or similar position at another location (i.e. office branch). At the very least, they should be able to get the false accusation removed from their personnel records (so they're considered eligible for rehire, and can use that company as a reference).
__________________
Dion Starfire, grammar atheist.
  #9  
Old 01-14-2018, 06:30 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Telemark View Post
In short, are you asking about a case that simply isn't proven, or a case where it's been shown that the accusers were lying?
The OP - the bit you quoted, even - specifies that the accusers have been found to have lied.
  #10  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:44 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Yeah, Telemark seems to be purposefully thread shitting.
The answer....depends. A purposefully false allegation is different from one made under an honest but mistaken belief.
  #11  
Old 01-14-2018, 08:48 AM
rbroome rbroome is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,117
What is interesting to me is that almost all (in fact all that I can think of) of these accusations are based on the numbers of people making the accusations. Not many people notice when one person accuses another-when it is six people accusing one person that is news. However, we rarely (as in never to my knowledge) have six people speak out in defense of an accused. And yes I have seen the stories about the women who have 'accused' actor X of going out on nice dates and just being a nice guy. As uplifting as those stories are, those aren't examples of an accused being defended. If the actor/politician/businessman/etc is accused by six people surely there are six people that person has helped without any mis-behavior. Why don't those people speak up? Do they and their stories aren't heard? Would it matter?

It would seem that it should be a defense against these accusations and the the accused would have a strong incentive to make some calls. Either the accused can't-there aren't six people he helped without sexual harassment or that the individuals don't wish to speak up. Not sure why the reverse doesn't happen more often. Personally I can't imagine a person being such a creep that in his entire life he hasn't simply helped six people. But perhaps I don't understand the mentality of the people involved.
  #12  
Old 01-14-2018, 09:05 AM
Quartz Quartz is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Home of the haggis
Posts: 28,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
Not many people notice when one person accuses another-when it is six people accusing one person that is news.
That's not true. For instance, a few years back there was an odious politician and his wife falsely accused. Then there's

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...lieve-her.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...s-suicide.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...135635?SThisFB
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/articl...rongly-accused
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/480...to-avoid-exams
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/think...vivors-battle/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...collapses.html
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...nt-prosecution
https://www.theguardian.com/society/...boyfriend-rape

etc


Quote:
However, we rarely (as in never to my knowledge) have six people speak out in defense of an accused. And yes I have seen the stories about the women who have 'accused' actor X of going out on nice dates and just being a nice guy. As uplifting as those stories are, those aren't examples of an accused being defended. If the actor/politician/businessman/etc is accused by six people surely there are six people that person has helped without any mis-behavior. Why don't those people speak up? Do they and their stories aren't heard? Would it matter?
Surely these are the character witnesses in a defence? But you also have to look at the backlash against women who haven't fully supported the campaign. I would not be surprised if women were fearful of speaking out.

Last edited by Quartz; 01-14-2018 at 09:06 AM.
  #13  
Old 01-14-2018, 11:44 AM
electronbee electronbee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 763
What do you mean by accused? Like, it went to court or in a more informal/social setting/work?
  #14  
Old 01-14-2018, 12:05 PM
WilyQuixote WilyQuixote is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Cape Town, South Africa
Posts: 467
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdeals View Post
Letís say a man is accused by a women, a group of women as being a sexual predator, or rapist.

After all is said and done, no evidence is found, and the accusers are found to have lied.

By this point, realistically, the accused reputation is ruined, probably lost their job or company.

Is there anything the falsely accused can receive as compensation?
Let's get this out of the way: the scenario outlined above is extremely rare.

In most sexual assault cases resulting in an acquittal, dismissal or similar, such a decision is reached due to the prosecuting body's failure to adduce sufficient evidence to demonstrate an accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rarely is such failure due to a complainant fabricating a rape and even more rarely can it be shown that a complainant deliberately lied about a rape.

Assuming a scenario where a complainant deliberately and knowingly laid a false charge of rape or other sexual assault, and assuming this can be proved in at least a civil court, which has a lower standard of proof than a criminal court, the wrongfully accused has the following options: (Note this is largely based on the law of my home country and what i can remember from law school but unlikely to be substantially dissimilar to other Anglophone countries)

Firstly, the wrongfully accused can sue for defamation/slander/libel. I don't know what its like in the UK and USA, but here, on the basis that the purpose of a defamation suit is to restore one's reputation, the monetary award in a successful suit is pretty small and almost certainly dwarfed by the legal costs. (small, as in "I can't even buy a new hatchback with this!" small)

Secondly, both the complainant and the prosecuting authority can be sued for malicious prosecution, if applicable;

Thirdly, you can sue the complainant for your monetary losses which can be proven to have arisen as a result of the false charge. This is only worthwhile if the complainant is a woman (or for that matter, a man) of some means.
  #15  
Old 01-14-2018, 06:19 PM
D_Odds D_Odds is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queens
Posts: 12,376
I agree with you, WilyQuixote, that it is extremely rare, but it does happen. And it is usually very, very bad for the accused. The public being what it is, people are far more likely to remember the accusations rather than the exonerations, and between the time of accusation and exoneration, the accused will have their names and reputations dragged through the mud and worse by most anyone with access to a public forum. Everyone has an opinion, and negative opinions sell ads better than positive ones.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accused were able to get a settlement from Duke University. In the Tawana Brawley case, the accused was able to win suits for defamation against prominent community members, including Rev. Al Sharpton, and also won a default judgment against Brawley when she didn't show. IMO, it nowhere near compensated for what he was put through, with the court of public opinion and public ostracization being far worse than what he was put through by the legal system.

It's cases like these that keep the MRA up at night. Personally, this issue isn't one that causes me to lose any sleep at all. I worry more about the alligators in our NYC sewers attacking.
  #16  
Old 01-14-2018, 07:47 PM
Telemark's Avatar
Telemark Telemark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Again, Titletown
Posts: 21,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quartz View Post
The OP - the bit you quoted, even - specifies that the accusers have been found to have lied.
That's why I asked. The OP also said that there was no evidence, but if the accusers were have been found to have lied, that's pretty significant evidence. I was trying to understand if the scenario you proposed was simple a case of "he said, she said" with no physical evidence either way; or a case where someone has been demonstrated to have falsely accused someone else for whatever reason. It sounds like you're discussing the latter. I think WilyQuixote covered it pretty well.
  #17  
Old 01-14-2018, 10:55 PM
Colibri's Avatar
Colibri Colibri is online now
SD Curator of Critters
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Panama
Posts: 39,432
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
Yeah, Telemark seems to be purposefully thread shitting.
Moderator Note

And this is junior modding. I don't find the post in question to be threadshitting at all. If you have a problem with someone's post, report it rather than responding yourself. No warning issued, but don't do this again.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator
  #18  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:11 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,907
I should point to the recent case of Gian Gomeshi, here in Canada. Fired from his job (prominent public radio host) after several woman alleged that over the years he had engaged in violent (attempted) sex. (choking, etc.) the case IIRC was thrown out because it was shown that the women had lied about being in contact to compare stories before the trial. He's still persona non grata in the entertainment community; that there was not enough credible evidence, given the tainted witnesses, to get a guilty verdict did not mean that he has/had a chance to recoup his reputation. The risk in suing for libel is that he then has to answer the accusations to a lower standard of proof than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The trouble with actual criminal charges is, in the case of assorted varieties of sexual assault, it often boils down to he-said-she-said. Absent any physical evidence contradicting the competing claims, can you really take one person's word over another's as the only proof "beyond a reasonable doubt"?

But really, the OP points to the dilemma so many accused - not just sexual assault defendants - face. Canada had a spate of prominent falsely accused /falsely convicted in the news over the last few decades. You can google Stephen Truscott (sentenced to death at 14), Donald Marshall Jr., David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, Thomas Sophonow. All charged, at some point convicted typically due to police with a single focus and willing to "stretch the truth" to fit the crime... then exonerated. Some will forever be haunted by questions. The ones convicted and in jail at least had some compensation from the government when it was shown misguided policework was to blame.

But basically, if you are wrongly accused, you're screwed.

To be fair, if the acquittal is prominent enough, like the cases I mention, everyone knows. The usual joke about crime reporting was that the arrest would be front page news and charges dropped later is on page ten. However, I heard about one case in a small town where the fellow was accused of murdering a girl. the case was so weak, the judge threw it out in the preliminary hearing and raked the police over the coals (Stupid stuff - like he washed the car, "obviously to destroy evidence"...7 days after the murder, 3 days after the body was found). That didn't stop the police from harassing - when the suspect's wife left him, the police were interviewing her the same day. They key piece of evidence in the hearing - a blood-soaked rag - DNA technology available 10 years later showed it to be what it was claimed, not the victims blood but a family member's. but... that didn't stop the fellow from having to leave town immediately after his release; there were people convinced he did it (he was seen in the area...) and all the lawsuits in the world are not going to fix that.

For that matter, at least in Canada interviews can only ask about "convictions for which you have not received a pardon"; I have heard that some US states allow a prospective employer to ask about arrests, even if no conviction. Therefore, any arrest regardless of the truth will forever taint your job prospects. the damage is done.

But, the short answer is - even a lawsuit probably won't fix a reputation issue. Most accusers, too, probably don't have the resources to pay you back for a legal fight, let alone pay any extra award for lost wages and lost prospects. Like everything else in life, sometimes fate screws you over. Just the same as if you are arrested, go to trial, and are found not guilty, nobody jumps in to reimburse you for your huge legal bill.
  #19  
Old 01-15-2018, 03:43 AM
Jim B. Jim B. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,812
I feel compelled to add, there is apparently little they could do in civil court (if someone lied on the witness stand, that is).

IANAL either. But it says in my law dictionary, lying on the witness stand isn't "actionable" as slander or libel. It is in fact perjury, which is a much more serious charge anyways.

Crash course in law: the only defense against perjury is the sincere belief that what you said was true. Even if it is later found to be false, because that basically is how our legal system works. Courts are like crucibles, someone once said, where we burn away irrelevant facts to get a more pure product. In ordinary slander and libel cases, the only defense is the truth (I.e., intent is not an issue). Except in cases involving public figures, where actual malice has to proven.

Carry on
__________________
"Love takes no less than everything." (from "Love Is", a duet by Vanessa Williams and Brian McKnight)
  #20  
Old 01-15-2018, 05:31 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
I should point to the recent case of Gian Gomeshi
Jian Ghomeshi
Quote:
He's still persona non grata in the entertainment community; that there was not enough credible evidence, given the tainted witnesses, to get a guilty verdict did not mean that he has/had a chance to recoup his reputation.
Maybe that's also because he settled with the last, separate accuser in such a way that his actual guilt is hardly in question even if not a formal guilty verdict.
  #21  
Old 01-15-2018, 06:07 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Jian Ghomeshi
Maybe that's also because he settled with the last, separate accuser in such a way that his actual guilt is hardly in question even if not a formal guilty verdict.

He signed a peace bond, the Crown withdrew the charge and there was no admission of guilt. After the shitshow the first trial was, little surprise that they would do so.
That is about as far from "guilt is harldy in question" as is possible.
  #22  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:41 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post

He signed a peace bond,
Yes, you can tell I know this because I posted a link to where it said just that. "settled" is a perfectly fine gloss for that.
Quote:
That is about as far from "guilt is harldy in question" as is possible.
He issued a formal apology, including an admission of his actions. "His guilt is hardly in question" is quite accurate, TYVM. CBC clearly agrees, given that they also issued their own apology to his victim.

Last edited by MrDibble; 01-15-2018 at 07:45 AM.
  #23  
Old 01-15-2018, 07:49 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,022
Or, to put it another way - by all means, Red Pillers, try and use Jian Ghomeshi as a poster boy for the falsely accused. I'm sure that'll go swimmingly for you.
  #24  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:18 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Or, to put it another way - by all means, Red Pillers, try and use Jian Ghomeshi as a poster boy for the falsely accused. I'm sure that'll go swimmingly for you.

Considering his accusers lied under oath, colluded with each other and had at best only a passing relationship with the truth, it probably will.

Contrary to what the poster might think, many falsely accused arenít exactly pillars of the community. I think Ghomeshi is a despicable person. But a bad man can have a good case. The Duke Lacrosse Boys were the defination of frat boys. Ronald Cotton was a small time crook. And the Central Park Five, well their defence was that they were beating up people elsewhere when the rape happened. Still, does not make the charges true.

As it is, I donít think rape accusations necessarily result in a life long exile. Mike Tyson recovered just fine, his later problems were not related to his rape conviction. And the quoted poster will be aware that Makhaya Ntini, landed on his feet, and his eventual exoneration is one I do have doubts over.
  #25  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:31 AM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 12,175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beckdawrek View Post
Look at O.J. Simpson. He was acquitted, nobody really believes him innocent, though. His rep. is irreparably damaged.
His reputation was not damaged by a false accuser who was later found to have lied. His prosecution was based on a case built by the police and the state, not statements from the victims, who were dead. One could argue that an acquittal repairs the damage to one's reputation. The irreparable damage was done by the state of his reputation prior to the crime; the public's view of the preponderance of evidence, some of which was not available to the jury during the trial; and last but not least If I Did It.
__________________
Making the world a better place one fret at a time.
| | |∑| |∑| |∑| |∑| | |:| | |∑| |∑|
  #26  
Old 01-15-2018, 08:46 AM
MrDibble's Avatar
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 23,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
right back at you.
Quote:
Considering his accusers lied under oath, colluded with each other and had at best only a passing relationship with the truth, it probably will.
Kathryn Borel was not part of the first trial. Your calumnies against her aren't helping rehabilitate Ghoreshi's reputation in the slightest.
  #27  
Old 01-15-2018, 10:30 AM
Poysyn Poysyn is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrDibble View Post
Yes, you can tell I know this because I posted a link to where it said just that. "settled" is a perfectly fine gloss for that.
He issued a formal apology, including an admission of his actions. "His guilt is hardly in question" is quite accurate, TYVM. CBC clearly agrees, given that they also issued their own apology to his victim.
His firing from the CBC was not because of the criminal charges either, but because he brought in video evidence and showed it to his employers under the "it's just I am into rough sex" explanation.

I'm not going to derail this with anything else, but Ghomeshi's career was in the toilet before the criminal charges, and for good reason.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Anyone that is involved with prosecuting sexual assaults will tell you that the burden of proof is very (and necessarily) high, and that can cause a lot of heartbreaking acquittals.
  #28  
Old 01-15-2018, 11:11 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poysyn View Post

Not guilty is not the same as innocent. Anyone that is involved with prosecuting sexual assaults will tell you that the burden of proof is very (and necessarily) high, and that can cause a lot of heartbreaking acquittals.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.
High burden of proof does not mean the amount of evidence presented. It means that there is sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of an offence to a trier of fact.

You can have a case with little evidence and properly record a conviction; see for instance most drug offences. You can also have a case with a lot of evidence and properly fail to secure one, for instance, the OJ Simpson case. The analogy used often at the Bar is that of a chain. It does not matter whether the chain is heavy or long. What matters is all the links are there, no matter how big they are. Once the trier of fact is satisfied that all the links are present, well nothing else matters. WHat an accused s trying to do is to say that there is a break in the links, or one of the links don't fit and the prosecution rebuts that, showing that infact all the links are present.

Whats often forgotten is that a person can absolutely be convicted solely on the word of a complainant. And there is nothing wrong with that, legally or morally. Yet that raises another issue. If a complainant sticks to their story on the stand, chances are that the Court will believe them.

In the satanic abuse and the recovered memory cases, there was little evidence besides the claims of the complainants. It was properly enough to convict, as the Court was convinced that the complainants were credible and the accused could show no reason why they would lie. Of course, the fact was, that most of the claims were bunk, no matter just how honest and believable the complainants appeared to be. It turned out that evidence which was thought to be reliable was in fact no so much, or that the links which appeared to be unbroken was in fact not so.
  #29  
Old 01-15-2018, 12:05 PM
doreen doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 5,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by AK84 View Post
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of how the burden of proof works.
High burden of proof does not mean the amount of evidence presented. It means that there is sufficient evidence to prove all the elements of an offence to a trier of fact.
It doesn't mean the amount of evidence presented- but a "not guilty" verdict means that was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt to a specified standard to a trier of fact. There may have been sufficient evidence to prove the same facts in a different sort of proceeding with a lower burden of proof - for example, a person can be acquitted of murder but still found liable in a civil suit for wrongful death because the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than that in a criminal case.

Last edited by doreen; 01-15-2018 at 12:06 PM.
  #30  
Old 01-15-2018, 01:01 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,907
Yes, sorry, I wasn't using Gian as an example of someone falsely accused - simply someone who was accused and the charges dropped. On the theory of innocent until proven guilty, such as it is, somewhat like OJ Simpson, that should have meant some form of "back to business as usual". (Perhaps we should have the Scottish verdict option, "not proven"). In fact, he is, as I said, persona non grata. All the lack of convictions in the world won't set the clock back.

Maybe a better example is Michael Jackson. He acted in an incredibly suspicious manner, is still the butt of jokes, but never convicted. His first accuser was leverage in a custody battle - the boy's father wanted to prove the mother was unfit for letting him hang out with Jackson. The second accuser- it came out the whole family was blackmail artist/gold diggers who couldn't keep their story straight. Jackson was around a huge number of children all the time, and the local prosecutors scoured the woodwork for anyone who would make a claim, and those were the only examples they could produce.

So did he? Who knows. Nobody has proven anything. But... there's no way to put the reputation genie back in the bottle.
  #31  
Old 01-16-2018, 01:31 AM
AK84 AK84 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 14,961
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
It doesn't mean the amount of evidence presented- but a "not guilty" verdict means that was not sufficient evidence to prove guilt to a specified standard to a trier of fact. There may have been sufficient evidence to prove the same facts in a different sort of proceeding with a lower burden of proof - for example, a person can be acquitted of murder but still found liable in a civil suit for wrongful death because the burden of proof in a civil case is lower than that in a criminal case.
Yeah true, but only part of the picture. Criminal and Civil cases also operate under different procedures, which makes the "lesser burden of proof" much reduced as a factor.

In a civil case after perusing pleadings, a Court will frame issues. The number and type of issues will vary in every case. In a criminal case, the issue are known ahead of time, typically limited to proving whether the elements of a particular offence are present, with occassional tweaks to accomodate things like affirmative defences, mental health claims etc. In a civil case, both sides might have the burden of proof depending on the issue (for instance, a Court might say 6 issues are to be proved by the Plaintiff and 2 by the Defendant), while in a Criminal case it is rare for the Accused to have to prove anything. In a civil case the State is an impartial, disinterested observer, in a criminal case, the State is leading the prosecution. In a civil case, the parties are in theory at least on a even footing, both are expending their own resouces. In a criminal case, you have the State, with all its resources on one side versus a private individual, who has limited funds and if he is under detention during a trial, will have difficulty in accessing those. In a civil case, the Complainaint is a party. In a criminal case, the Complainaint has a very limited role if any.

So to say, "but, a Civil case has a lower burden of proof, so xyz evil offender will doubtless be found responsible", is very misplaced. Civil cases, are not criminal cases with a lower burden of proof and no jail time, they are almost a different planet.

The OJ Simpson case has given people a warped view of civil v criminal.

Last edited by AK84; 01-16-2018 at 01:31 AM.
  #32  
Old 01-16-2018, 06:33 PM
hosspower hosspower is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrdeals View Post

Is there anything the falsely accused can receive as compensation?
In late 2016 my then-wife and I separated - she wanted me out, she wanted sole custody of our two kids, and wanted me to grant her our house and farm.
She wanted me to walk away with nothing, after 16 years together. I refused - so she got NASTY!
She alleged domestic violence, alleged I stole money and jewelry, alleged I stalked her after the separation, alleged a host of other crap - and then finally she alleged that I abused my 6yo daughter.

I was initially interviewed by police over domestic violence, and then immediately my 'Criminal Record' showed 'Pending charges of domestic violence". I am a Medical Professional, so I had to explain this to my medical board, and as a consequence I stood down until the investigation was over.

Now over one year later I have just been informed the Police have closed all the investigations, and there are No Charges At All. None.

I have not seen my kids since this started, my reputation in our small community is below zero, I lost a years salary. I started seeing a new woman a few months ago, my Ex wrote to her with a list of my alleged crimes.

I don't know what the answer is. No form of violence is acceptable, and our society is becoming more aware and less tolerant of violence against women and children in particular - but the system can be now be used as a weapon, with the accused named and shamed before being found guilty.

I don't know what the answer is....
  #33  
Old 01-17-2018, 09:51 AM
madsircool madsircool is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,329
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
Yes, sorry, I wasn't using Gian as an example of someone falsely accused - simply someone who was accused and the charges dropped. On the theory of innocent until proven guilty, such as it is, somewhat like OJ Simpson, that should have meant some form of "back to business as usual". (Perhaps we should have the Scottish verdict option, "not proven"). In fact, he is, as I said, persona non grata. All the lack of convictions in the world won't set the clock back.

Maybe a better example is Michael Jackson. He acted in an incredibly suspicious manner, is still the butt of jokes, but never convicted. His first accuser was leverage in a custody battle - the boy's father wanted to prove the mother was unfit for letting him hang out with Jackson. The second accuser- it came out the whole family was blackmail artist/gold diggers who couldn't keep their story straight. Jackson was around a huge number of children all the time, and the local prosecutors scoured the woodwork for anyone who would make a claim, and those were the only examples they could produce.

So did he? Who knows. Nobody has proven anything. But... there's no way to put the reputation genie back in the bottle.
There were far more accusers against MJ than just a couple of children; like other sexual predators Jackson was good at choosing his victims. Corruptable parents tell us nothing about whether sexual abuse happened. His staff have many shocking stories. An overview from this Datalounge thread:

https://www.datalounge.com/thread/19...-lover-stories
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017