New law in Canada to make rape convictions easier
There's a new law in progress in Canada.
It will make all defence evidence (texts, emails, letters etc.) in a rape case required to be submitted in advance to the judge and prosecution or else be held inadmissible.
This will enable the accuser to change their story in advance of the case being heard in order to negate the defence.
October 11th, 2018 3:40am
Why the sudden interest in rapes? Is that Canada's top priority right now?
October 11th, 2018 3:47am
Surely the plaintiff's evidence must be advanced to the judge as well?
October 11th, 2018 3:58am
I thought all trials worked with full disclosure of evidence by both sides before the hearing?
October 11th, 2018 5:13am
> I thought all trials worked with full disclosure of evidence by both sides before the hearing?
Arguments and affadavits, which are of course evidence, but not full disclosure of evidence. To prevent surprises to the other party and to reduce the number of hearing days (because courts are clogged).
October 11th, 2018 6:00am
If you have to give all your defensive evidence to the prosecution before you've seen their evidence against you, you can't raise a defense because you don't know what you've really been accused of. The prosecution being able to start to make their case after you are forced to lock in a defense to a prosecution you don't know is absurd.
They are changing the law because they are unhappy about exculpatory evidence disproving allegations and derailing the rape conviction against someone that is innocent. That's a fucked up think to be unhappy about.
In the US it works like this.
Prosecution files charges against you.
You file for disclosure. They are required by law to show you the evidence they have against you and any exculpatory evidence in particular they know of. Often they illegally withhold information. They know you are innocent, but they want to keep their conviction rate up so that they'll get reelected DA, or go on to become governor.
In this period additional evidence is gathered, depositions, lab analysis, etc.
October 11th, 2018 6:44am
Just prior to the trial there's one or more motions hearing. Here lawyers on both sides explain what they intend to do during the trial. There will even be some possible witnesses show up at this hearing and do a dry run of their testimony. Then the lawyers will argue why that witness should or should not be allowed to testify. Same goes for each piece of evidence. The judge gets to find out what they plan to do so he's not having to be reactionary during the trial itself.
This motions hearing is what you want to attend if you're a trial junkie and you want to know whether the guy did the crime because this is when all the extremely interesting and relevant stuff gets tossed out and will never be seen again. You'll also get descriptions of the actual crime itself, which may never be seen in the press, and you'll find the names of the victims even if there's a gag order.
The judge then has at least one other hearing to rule on those motions and tell each side what they're going to be allowed to argue to the jury.
It's at this point that plea bargains are made. You might have a fantastic defense, but then the judge says you can't make it. Or you might have a great prosecution, but the judge says you can't argue it. So both sides are willing to compromise at this point.
There's a very small chance at this point that a trial commences. However, most plea deals are worked out just as the jurors are arriving for their first day.
Most cases of jury duty you get sent home because they don't need you anymore.
October 11th, 2018 6:44am
This recent case 5 girls accused a boy they didn't like of sexually assaulting them. All corroborated the other's accounts.
The boy was arrested, detained, and put through the legal system, eventually causing him to have a nervous breakdown and PTSD.
Far into the investigation the phones of the girls revealed them confessing that the allegations were all false and were a plot to send him to jail because they didn't like him.
If this case was in Canada, under this law, none of these texts confessing that the accusations were false would be allowed. That's good because we want a high prosecution rate showing we are doing something about assault.
October 11th, 2018 8:59am
It started with 2 of the five girls. One accused him, the other corroborated.
He had to make a plea deal and go on probation since his chances at trial were poor.
Once he had this conviction on his record, and was required to stay away from trouble under his probation terms, the girls moved into phase 2 of their plot. The remaining 3 then worked together. One accused the boy of while on probation, breaking into the home of the girl and sexually assaulting her. The other two girls testified under oath that they were there and saw the assault.
He was then arrested for parole violation, sexual assault, and breaking and entering, and put in detention. The girls showed up at hearings with experts who testified the boy was a serial predator and a threat to the community who could never be allowed free.
Some time after that it was found all the girls lied and none of the charges were true.
5 witnesses to sexual assault. 100% false.
Lets use the dipshit math.
0.02^5 = 3.2e-9
So 3 in a billion chance all 5 girls were lying about the assault, assuming 2% of accusations are false.
Obviously he really did rape them then!
October 11th, 2018 9:07am