Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Canada is getting scary

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 2:40:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
The Ghomeshi rape case, and attempts to actually overhaul the presumption of innocence and an adversarial trial system because it doesn't privilege the testimony of victims:

It's actually being considered that Canada have a 'non-criminal' wing of its government which prosecutes abuse claims under a lower standard of proof for civil damages so that the 'victims' have a chance to see the 'guilty' punished. It's pretty twisted and surreal to see the presumption of innocence fly completely out of the window. Does nobody remember how false rape charges were used to devastating effect against blacks in the Deep South? Don't people realize that these age-old systems exist for a reason?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 2:40:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The Ghomeshi rape case, and attempts to actually overhaul the presumption of innocence and an adversarial trial system because it doesn't privilege the testimony of victims:



It's actually being considered that Canada have a 'non-criminal' wing of its government which prosecutes abuse claims under a lower standard of proof for civil damages so that the 'victims' have a chance to see the 'guilty' punished. It's pretty twisted and surreal to see the presumption of innocence fly completely out of the window. Does nobody remember how false rape charges were used to devastating effect against blacks in the Deep South? Don't people realize that these age-old systems exist for a reason?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:10:22 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 2:40:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The Ghomeshi rape case, and attempts to actually overhaul the presumption of innocence and an adversarial trial system because it doesn't privilege the testimony of victims:

https://www.youtube.com...

It's actually being considered that Canada have a 'non-criminal' wing of its government which prosecutes abuse claims under a lower standard of proof for civil damages so that the 'victims' have a chance to see the 'guilty' punished. It's pretty twisted and surreal to see the presumption of innocence fly completely out of the window. Does nobody remember how false rape charges were used to devastating effect against blacks in the Deep South? Don't people realize that these age-old systems exist for a reason?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Hmm, you hear that? It sounds like democracy, freedom, and revenge for the War of 1812.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

What is really disturbing is the complete dropping of the presumption of innocence, the elimination of the consideration that the alleged victim may be lying. In the article, the lawyer argues to eliminate cross examination of the witnesses because it is uncomfortable, when a cross-examination in the very case which it was citing led to the revelation of perjury and collusion between witnesses. It's gotten to the point where people are tried in the court of public opinion, and an acquittal is always seen as the 'wrong' resolution, while the victim is assumed to be telling the truth. The quote is spot on: sexual assault has become 'so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.'
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:32:46 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

Wouldn't the defendant be on the hook for his defense costs anyway? Or are you saying that a public defender would not be available under this system, and if so, where are you getting that info?

Also, the penalties are not as great for the accused-- no jail time or felony record even if they lose the case.

What is really disturbing is the complete dropping of the presumption of innocence, the elimination of the consideration that the alleged victim may be lying. In the article, the lawyer argues to eliminate cross examination of the witnesses because it is uncomfortable, when a cross-examination in the very case which it was citing led to the revelation of perjury and collusion between witnesses. It's gotten to the point where people are tried in the court of public opinion, and an acquittal is always seen as the 'wrong' resolution, while the victim is assumed to be telling the truth. The quote is spot on: sexual assault has become 'so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.'

Where do you see the elimination of witness (other then the alleged victim) cross examination?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 5:45:13 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

What is really disturbing is the complete dropping of the presumption of innocence, the elimination of the consideration that the alleged victim may be lying. In the article, the lawyer argues to eliminate cross examination of the witnesses because it is uncomfortable, when a cross-examination in the very case which it was citing led to the revelation of perjury and collusion between witnesses. It's gotten to the point where people are tried in the court of public opinion, and an acquittal is always seen as the 'wrong' resolution, while the victim is assumed to be telling the truth. The quote is spot on: sexual assault has become 'so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.'

- Scary indeed, but not surprising. I've discussed topics like rape with some members of this Forum (& others), & I've noticed the inherent assumption in their minds that an alleged rape victim is a rape victim!!! People, in their emotional irrational fear of rapists, don't seem to have any problems with persecuting the innocent if higher chances of persecuting the guilty are possible. This will surely alleviate much restrictions on false accusations from those previously discouraged otherwise, due to inconvenience or fear of prosecution for perjury. Basically, the state is handing the enemies of these accusers to them on a silver platter.

- In Shari'a, the issue doesn't exist, because true justice is expected to take place in the Hereafter, not this life. Meaning, one acquitted by a judge only means one is apparently innocent, not truly innocent, for only God knows who truly is such.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:00:06 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 5:32:46 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

Wouldn't the defendant be on the hook for his defense costs anyway?

No; normally if they are acquitted their legal costs fall on the plaintiff.

Or are you saying that a public defender would not be available under this system, and if so, where are you getting that info?

Public defenders are crap compared to prosecutors. That's one of the most instrumental oppressive aspects of the US criminal justice system: poor black people who can't afford a top-class lawyer take plea deals waaaay too often because they're afraid to take the case to trial without a good lawyer. The same dynamic would apply here.

Also, the penalties are not as great for the accused-- no jail time or felony record even if they lose the case.

Lol! That's a ridiculous cop out. An innocent person being punished is still an innocent person being punished.

What is really disturbing is the complete dropping of the presumption of innocence, the elimination of the consideration that the alleged victim may be lying. In the article, the lawyer argues to eliminate cross examination of the witnesses because it is uncomfortable, when a cross-examination in the very case which it was citing led to the revelation of perjury and collusion between witnesses. It's gotten to the point where people are tried in the court of public opinion, and an acquittal is always seen as the 'wrong' resolution, while the victim is assumed to be telling the truth. The quote is spot on: sexual assault has become 'so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.'

Where do you see the elimination of witness (other then the alleged victim) cross examination?

The alleged victim is a witness. In many cases, they're the most important witness. If they don't want to be cross-examined, then they shouldn't bring their case to trial. People have a right to face their accuser in a court of law.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:07:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 5:45:13 AM, Yassine wrote:

- Scary indeed, but not surprising. I've discussed topics like rape with some members of this Forum (& others), & I've noticed the inherent assumption in their minds that an alleged rape victim is a rape victim!!! People, in their emotional irrational fear of rapists, don't seem to have any problems with persecuting the innocent if higher chances of persecuting the guilty are possible. This will surely alleviate much restrictions on false accusations from those previously discouraged otherwise, due to inconvenience or fear of prosecution for perjury. Basically, the state is handing the enemies of these accusers to them on a silver platter.

It's disgusting. Beyond revolting. Especially considering the very recent history of abuses in that vein. 25% of lynches in the deep south were justified by overwhelmingly unsubstantiated rape allegations which fed into the same limbic 'protect the womens' hysteria.

- In Shari'a, the issue doesn't exist, because true justice is expected to take place in the Hereafter, not this life. Meaning, one acquitted by a judge only means one is apparently innocent, not truly innocent, for only God knows who truly is such.

Voltaire summed it up pretty well: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:16:37 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 6:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:32:46 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

Wouldn't the defendant be on the hook for his defense costs anyway?

No; normally if they are acquitted their legal costs fall on the plaintiff.

Cite for that please?

And the Crown would not pay in this scenario? If not, cite please?

Or are you saying that a public defender would not be available under this system, and if so, where are you getting that info?

Public defenders are crap compared to prosecutors. That's one of the most instrumental oppressive aspects of the US criminal justice system: poor black people who can't afford a top-class lawyer take plea deals waaaay too often because they're afraid to take the case to trial without a good lawyer. The same dynamic would apply here.

Understood. So, the answer to my question is that a PD would still be available?

Also, the penalties are not as great for the accused-- no jail time or felony record even if they lose the case.

Lol! That's a ridiculous cop out. An innocent person being punished is still an innocent person being punished.

That could be said of any lawsuit. Yet we still have lawsuits.

What is really disturbing is the complete dropping of the presumption of innocence, the elimination of the consideration that the alleged victim may be lying. In the article, the lawyer argues to eliminate cross examination of the witnesses because it is uncomfortable, when a cross-examination in the very case which it was citing led to the revelation of perjury and collusion between witnesses. It's gotten to the point where people are tried in the court of public opinion, and an acquittal is always seen as the 'wrong' resolution, while the victim is assumed to be telling the truth. The quote is spot on: sexual assault has become 'so heinous a crime that even innocence is not a defense.'

Where do you see the elimination of witness (other then the alleged victim) cross examination?

The alleged victim is a witness. In many cases, they're the most important witness. If they don't want to be cross-examined, then they shouldn't bring their case to trial. People have a right to face their accuser in a court of law.

So, you mean alleged victim cross examination is eliminated, not witness cross examination as you had claimed. As for facing one's accuser, you are still treating the scenario as a criminal case when it clearly would not be.
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 6:32:53 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 6:07:37 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:

It's disgusting. Beyond revolting. Especially considering the very recent history of abuses in that vein. 25% of lynches in the deep south were justified by overwhelmingly unsubstantiated rape allegations which fed into the same limbic 'protect the womens' hysteria.

- I've recently read a book of the History Of Consent Laws In The US, I realised this hysterical attitude against rape (statutory in this case) seems like a recurring theme from the onset of the 20th century.

Voltaire summed it up pretty well: Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien

- Well said. This is a form of extremism. Interestingly, in Arabic, the word for extremism, 'ghuluw', literally comes from the occurrence of water flowing our of its container due to over-boiling. There is an Arabic saying: "a thing which surpasses it's limit, turns into its opposite".

The alleged victim is a witness.

- True. Courts are ultimately all about witnesses. In the Maliki school, witnesses in courts are divided into 4 kinds of testimony:
1. Testimony of one's own actions => Iq'rar = confession.
2. Testimony of another's actions against oneself => Da'waa = allegation.
3. Testimony of another's actions against another => Shahada = attestation/testimony.
4. forgot what is was...
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 7:01:05 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 6:16:37 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 6:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:32:46 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

Wouldn't the defendant be on the hook for his defense costs anyway?

No; normally if they are acquitted their legal costs fall on the plaintiff.

Cite for that please?

' The "loser pays" rule was received in Canada through reception of French and English law and rests on the traditional justification, that a successful party should not have to bear the cost of establishing their right against an unjust claim or defence.'

http://www-personal.umich.edu...

And the Crown would not pay in this scenario? If not, cite please?

The Crown shouldn't pay for it. The accuser who brought a frivolous claim should. That's the entire point, otherwise someone can inflict harm on another capriciously.

Or are you saying that a public defender would not be available under this system, and if so, where are you getting that info?

Public defenders are crap compared to prosecutors. That's one of the most instrumental oppressive aspects of the US criminal justice system: poor black people who can't afford a top-class lawyer take plea deals waaaay too often because they're afraid to take the case to trial without a good lawyer. The same dynamic would apply here.

Understood. So, the answer to my question is that a PD would still be available?

Nobody has said anything one way or another. Either way it's irrelevant. PD's are a joke, and wouldn't stop systemic abuses springing from the system.

Also, the penalties are not as great for the accused-- no jail time or felony record even if they lose the case.

Lol! That's a ridiculous cop out. An innocent person being punished is still an innocent person being punished.

That could be said of any lawsuit. Yet we still have lawsuits.

Yes, lawsuits which punish frivolous accusations. The entire point of this situation is to eliminate that punishment, to allow an alleged victim to inflict harm regardless of the outcome of the trial. To remove those important measures meant to prevent abuse because the abuse of a falsely accused defendant is seen as acceptable if the plaintiff gets some cathartic release out of the experience. It is beyond grotesque.


The alleged victim is a witness. In many cases, they're the most important witness. If they don't want to be cross-examined, then they shouldn't bring their case to trial. People have a right to face their accuser in a court of law.

So, you mean alleged victim cross examination is eliminated, not witness cross examination as you had claimed.

No, I mean that witness cross examination is effectively eliminated because most sexual assault cases are very often he-said-she-said. The alleged victim is the central witness in these cases. It's a stupid nit-picky argument. It's like saying 'oh, this lady is going to testify that you hit her on a dark rainy day on an empty road with your car, but she doesn't have to take the stand. We're not eliminating cross-examination, though!'

As for facing one's accuser, you are still treating the scenario as a criminal case when it clearly would not be.

It's intended to replace the criminal system in some respects, because apparently the legal system meant to protect the accused shouldn't apply if a woman claims to have been harmed and doesn't get the result which she wants from a fair trial. Then we need to manufacture a bizarre civil system which allows her cathartic release regardless of the guilt or innocence of her target.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Fly
Posts: 2,048
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/17/2016 7:24:23 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 2/17/2016 7:01:05 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 6:16:37 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 6:00:06 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:32:46 AM, Fly wrote:
At 2/17/2016 5:12:23 AM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/17/2016 4:46:22 AM, Fly wrote:

I am not familiar with the particular rape case in question, nor do I know who the woman in the video is, but this doesn't strike me as all that disturbing. It just looks like the option for the alleged victim of sexual assault to sue the alleged assailant but on the government's dime. People can already file suit in these cases, but it is just very burdensome on them.

So the government would pay for the money to take the suit to trial, but not for the defense? It's basically the elimination of the adversarial system by proxy; it pushes the costs of the trial onto the defendant, which is unprecedented. Normally, the plaintiff bears both their own legal costs and the costs of the defendant for a very good reason: bringing a suit to trial ought to come with risks, and if the suit is frivolous, the defendant shouldn't suffer for it. We already have litigation financing; if a case doesn't qualify for that then it shouldn't go to court on the public dime.

Wouldn't the defendant be on the hook for his defense costs anyway?

No; normally if they are acquitted their legal costs fall on the plaintiff.

Cite for that please?

' The "loser pays" rule was received in Canada through reception of French and English law and rests on the traditional justification, that a successful party should not have to bear the cost of establishing their right against an unjust claim or defence.'

http://www-personal.umich.edu...

Looks like Canada has a general system of "loser pays," but the specifics can vary widely.

And the Crown would not pay in this scenario? If not, cite please?

The Crown shouldn't pay for it. The accuser who brought a frivolous claim should. That's the entire point, otherwise someone can inflict harm on another capriciously.

My point is that should the accused win the case, he isn't on the hook for the cost as you claimed.

Or are you saying that a public defender would not be available under this system, and if so, where are you getting that info?

Public defenders are crap compared to prosecutors. That's one of the most instrumental oppressive aspects of the US criminal justice system: poor black people who can't afford a top-class lawyer take plea deals waaaay too often because they're afraid to take the case to trial without a good lawyer. The same dynamic would apply here.

Understood. So, the answer to my question is that a PD would still be available?

Nobody has said anything one way or another. Either way it's irrelevant. PD's are a joke, and wouldn't stop systemic abuses springing from the system.

Also, the penalties are not as great for the accused-- no jail time or felony record even if they lose the case.

Lol! That's a ridiculous cop out. An innocent person being punished is still an innocent person being punished.

That could be said of any lawsuit. Yet we still have lawsuits.

Yes, lawsuits which punish frivolous accusations. The entire point of this situation is to eliminate that punishment, to allow an alleged victim to inflict harm regardless of the outcome of the trial. To remove those important measures meant to prevent abuse because the abuse of a falsely accused defendant is seen as acceptable if the plaintiff gets some cathartic release out of the experience. It is beyond grotesque.

I am unclear on a central point: would a Crown provided lawsuit be able to move forward on much less evidence than a criminal trial? If not, then a frivolous accusation has just as much chance of being dismissed as in the current system.

The alleged victim is a witness. In many cases, they're the most important witness. If they don't want to be cross-examined, then they shouldn't bring their case to trial. People have a right to face their accuser in a court of law.

So, you mean alleged victim cross examination is eliminated, not witness cross examination as you had claimed.

No, I mean that witness cross examination is effectively eliminated because most sexual assault cases are very often he-said-she-said. The alleged victim is the central witness in these cases. It's a stupid nit-picky argument. It's like saying 'oh, this lady is going to testify that you hit her on a dark rainy day on an empty road with your car, but she doesn't have to take the stand. We're not eliminating cross-examination, though!'

If there aren't any other witnesses, I would think the accuser would have to take the stand in order to win the case. The point is that it gives the accuser the option considering the very personal nature of the offense.

As for facing one's accuser, you are still treating the scenario as a criminal case when it clearly would not be.

It's intended to replace the criminal system in some respects, because apparently the legal system meant to protect the accused shouldn't apply if a woman claims to have been harmed and doesn't get the result which she wants from a fair trial. Then we need to manufacture a bizarre civil system which allows her cathartic release regardless of the guilt or innocence of her target.

Again, the penalties for the loser are quite different from a criminal case. And this is where my previous question arises again about the required level of evidence to proceed with a trial. It sounds as though the idea is way too much in the embryonic stage to really flesh out the particulars...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz