Yes, you have stated that you, personally, agree with the justice system here.
My argument isn’t with that, but with your characterization of why this case has become a big deal, despite the fact that the judgment appears, as we all agree, to be basically correct.
You see a natural grassroots anger expressing itself.
I see a process in which the press, presumably to generate controversy and sell papers, is artificially whipping up a legal controversy by giving a certain POV more prominence that it warrants or deserves - namely, that the legal system must bend in a particular way; this, after having pumped the story of his purported guilt for months before the trial.
Re: Presuming or not that sexual assault complainants are telling the truth:
Isn’t this a situation where imprecision in language leads to people talking past each other?
The judge of fact (whether jury or judge) should not start from the presumption that the complainant is telling the truth since this is mutually exclusive with the presumption of innocence of the accused.
The healthcare personnel/police staff who gather the complaint should just file it unless there is some major reason to doubt it*, the police investigators should start out agnostic unless there’s a major reason to doubt it*/smoking gun while the prosecutors should look at whether the available evidence makes prosecution a good use of limited resources, no?
Or is this one of those instances where words are not used according to their ordinary meaning and we have to ask dogs what the whistle sounds are saying?
*I’m thinking here of accounts which sound fantastical or complainants who are the equivalent of querulous/vexatious litigants.
The issue goes far, far beyond the limited issue of the Ghomeshi trial details. The anger that surrounds it was not merely whipped up by the media; I find that a staggering claim. (Have any major newspapers run an editorial saying the veredit was wrong?)
I personally know many women for whom this trial - even for the ones who know the prosecution did not prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt - has caused them to go through real feelings of anguish and anger over the fact they live in a time and place where women are assaulted, harassed and taken advantage of quite a lot. Hell, I know a few MEN for whom it’s a touchy subject right now. Men are abused, too, especially as young boys. I know a guy who was raped by a teacher for whom the trial caused a significant outpouring of grief and, to his great credit, reflection and contemplation and sharing of his feelings.
The point I was making is that there is nothing at all “perplexing,” as The Flying Dutchman put it, about people reacting emotionally (which does not always generate a rational response) to this trial. It’s not at all perplexing. No, it doesn’t instantly make everyone a lawyer. Christ, do we have to Bricker this thread?
I agree with what you say about symbolic flashpoints, the general problem of sexual assault and people having to go through more psychological suffering as a result of this case.
Emotional reactions are understandable although I wonder if anything helpful will come out of them here. In what ways if any might it end up helping actual & potential sexual assault victims?
Very interesting. As a law-talkin’ dude, I firmly believe in the importance of the presumption of innocence. As a citizen, though, as these complaints pile up, I start to wonder if “where there’s smoke, there’s fire…”
They said the verdict, while probably correct under this system, demonstrated that the system was wrong - that it failed to produce “real justice”.
I’m not doubting that lots of people were “triggered” by the constant coverage of this case.
That’s just the issue: people aren’t lawyers. So the bigger deal the press makes about someone’s awful acts, the more likely the public - who are not lawyers - gets to thinking they are quite obviously guilty. No smoke without fire and all.
Naturally, the same public then becomes annoyed and vexed when that very person, whom they have been led to believe was obviously guilty, “gets off”.
You merely have to look at the news articles I posted, to see how the press has reacted - as I’ve said, they have reacted by basically stating that the problem lies with the system, that fails to produce “real justice”.
Who wouldn’t be angry, reading that? Particularly as you have said, most people “aren’t lawyers” and so aren’t likely to (say) read and understand the judges’ reasons. The message they are getting loud and clear is that the system has failed to convict a guilty person.
If the legal system failed because Ghomeshi was not convicted, then what specific changes should be put in place to prevent it from failing in similar cases while at the same time not increasing failures in other types of cases?
That’s where the armchair critics calling for blood usually fall flat on their faces, for they seldom offer constructive criticism.
One was an editorial in which it was suggested the prosecution did a poor job, which, frankly, they did. The editorial does not make a case for abandoning the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You also linked to an opinion column - not an editorial - in which a lawyer who represents sexual assault victims never once suggests a person should face criminal conviction without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
I’m not seeing what there is to disagree with there.
Well, I’d certainly have a bone to pick with how narrowly you want to frame the question!
You asked:
The first article I posted is entitled “Real justice would give sexual assault victims a real voice and real choice”. The obvious conclusion anyone would get from that is that this trial did not deliver “real justice”. The second editorial was along the same lines: it was the prosecution’s lack of preparation that was “the problem” (though how they are supposed to deal with complainants who willfully deceive them, I’m not sure).
As I said already, the pieces said the verdict, while probably correct under this system, demonstrated that the system was wrong - that it failed to produce “real justice”.
I suppose you could say the first was “not an editorial”, if you wanted to quibble. I have pointed out that it was run opposite another “opinion piece” arguing that the verdict was just: indicating that, to this conservative paper, these were two equal POVs.
That’s the real question - not whether the verdict was “wrong”, but whether it was “just”.
So here’s the question: do you think the verdict was “just”? If so, isn’t it a concern that so many are angry about it? If not, what would a “just” verdict look like?
Calling any and all Blue Jays fans here in the GTA area - I know there’s a few of you - I’m probably taking my dad to some games later this summer and I was wondering about what the best places to sit in Skydome (yes I know, I’ma call it Skydome) are. Important notes - my dad will be 80 and while not infirm by any means, he doesn’t like a lot of stairs. Pricewise, anything but the In The Action and the Comfort Zone (maybe one game? But I understand those sell out quick anyway) areas, but I’m not opposed to saving a bit if there’s good places to sit that are cheaper. Nor do we have to sit in the same spot each game (thinking like a Fri-Sun series, late summer).
A conclusion not at all inconsistent with the judge making the correct decision, as one can plainly read from the text of the article. One should read past the headline.
Huh? What are you arguing against? I said - twice now - that the issue wasn’t the “correctness” of the decision, but rather the justice of it.
A judgment can - very easily - be both “correct” and “unjust”. Reading, as you say, past the headline, reveals very clearly that this is this commentator’s position.
To quote more from my post above:
Then you disagree with the article.
Ant this is what I disagree with. Having large numbers of people evidently feel that the justice system is failing is a bad thing, for a number of reasons.
For folks with limited mobility I suggest the second deck, which has elevator access and the sections are very small, so even if you have to go down a few stairs it won’t be very far.
When you buy tickets you can select your specific seats. Pick ones in the back row and you’ll never have to use a stair. If you are behind the bases/home plate, there really aren’t any bad seats.
Obviously, the system can always be improved. Like Winston Churchill’s critique of democracy, our legal system is the worst - except for all the rest that have ever been tried.
My point is that positive improvements, that will indeed lead to women being less often assaulted and raped, and all sorts of other social goods, are better based on actual knowledge of the law and the facts, and not on emotional reaction apparently indifferent to either.
Thus a widespread denunciation of a judgment that you yourself have stated was both correct and just strikes me as dangerous: a call to action without careful thought.
The law is all about balancing different positive social goods and evils. Stripping rights from those accused of crimes in the name of victim protection sounds great. Who could possibly be against “positive social change where women are less often assaulted and raped”? Not me!
However, actually doing it has all sorts of unintended consequences - which is why it is often said, in the context of our common law system that depends on precedents, that “bad facts make bad law”. What you may find, for example, is that in attempting to achieve the positive social good (of less assaulted women), you have achieved as well a positive social evil (more wrongly accused incarcerated, a burgeoning prison population, etc.).
Saskatchewan election tonight : Brad Wall wins third term with an increased majority. As of the CBC ending election coverage at 11pm, Cam Broten, the Leader of the Opposition, didn’t know yet if he’d won his seat. He was trailing by about 100 votes, with one poll yet to come.
