The biggest defenders of power protection at this moment are the thermophobics defending the toppling pseudo science of Human Induced Global warming, Binoy.

There is a whole gravy train of climate science Hare Krishna's chanting "We have 97% agreement" now being forced to defend their indefensible claim that humans are driving climate change.

Pell = Evil
Global Warming = A fact of life.
Get used to both of them.

The Cardinal can do no RIGHT: George Pell's Attackers and Witch Hunters.

Miranda Devine is right: Catholics are being hunted.

"Pell = Evil
Global Warming = A fact of life.
Get used to both of them.
Posted by ateday,"

Not going to wait for the appeal?

"I'm not absolutely certain of the facts,
but I rather fancy it's Shakespeare who says
that it's always just when a fellow is feeling
particularly braced with things in general that
Fate sneaks up behind him with the bit of
lead piping."
(P.G. Wodehouse).

Cardinal Pell had his lead piping recently served to
him by 12 jurors.

Whether he'll get another serve we have to wait and see.

Binoy,

What ?! " .... hoping that faith prevails over evidence" ?! Or that " .... assertions don't require evidence" ? What evidence apart from assertions ? Although there is supposed to be a presumption of innocence before a court has finalised any evidence, surely a case has to be made, even against suspected pedophiles ?

Can you see the possibility, the danger, that an Appeals Court may overturn that verdict on the grounds of insufficiency of the weight of the evidence provided ? That Pell might get off - and not because all of the appellate court judges are secret Catholics or reactionaries or whatever - but because the evidence is insufficient ? That he may walk, scot-free ? Unless he is actually innocent (in this case), I don't want to see that.

Cheers,

Joe

" hoping that faith prevails over evidence, "

What evidence?

Don't bother reading the article to find the answer to that. It seems the author's 'evidence' is that Pell is supported by people the author dislikes which somehow proves his guilt.

The only evidence is the recollections of one man. There were three people in that room that day. Two said nothing happened. A man is incarcerated because the judicial system decided to believe the third.

On that basis leaders and others from disfavoured groups should learn the lesson of not daring to voice their opinion. And in the end that is what this is all about.

Poor old bold OLOers who identify with Pell.

Are they Pellophiles or Pellophiliacs?

You choose.

Wow Binoy, not just displaying your bias, but screaming it from the roof top.

Fat lot of good an education did you.

As a life long atheist and hostile to religion I enjoyed Pell's literal fall from grace. A friend pointed out that it is unlikely that a paedophile would just offend the once and after that court verdict there should have been a "Me too" movement?
This author is just a horrible writer. Try and keep it simple mate and say you have it in for Pell at the start and why.
I think the appeal may succeed but could not care a less really. A seer in the 13th century listed all popes and said this is the last one, perhaps it is.
The last Pope seeing so much devastation changes to a committee of sorts to run the church? How do we turn people from this idiocy? Religion I mean.

ateday, you are wrong on both counts. Do you follow the Green religion?

Pell in his televised interview with the police, was accorded civility and respect. As was his defence when he had his day in court. As he no doubt will, when he goes to appeal.

For that to succeed there must be an error in law! He apparently successfully suppressed his five previous convictions, December 2018. As no doubt, that knowledge may have swayed the jury on these other matters? Who unanimously judged him guilty. And not easily overturned.

Every paedophile in creation has always claimed most strenuously, when they too had their day in court, that they were innocent of these heinous crimes! I say, let the jury decide. Oops, they already have!
Alan B.

Alan B, I was unaware of any previous convictions of Pell? Surely on appeal these can all be bought up and I would think that is a pertinent piece of evidence. Evidence of not just one incident but a pattern of illegality.

J B. five previous convictions, December 2018. And all over the news as soon as the suppression order was lifted.

And suppressed it was claimed, so as not to affect the jury verdict/deliberations of the most recent 2019 trial?

You were unaware? What planet are you living on?

The suppression and its stated reasons almost sure to impact on the appeal judges deliberations and later sentencing!?

Pell, it was reported, showed absolutely no remorse? And that won't help if the appeal fails and Pell has to stand and receive his sentence?

One wonders, should it come to that, if he will be judged less harshly than paedophile Rolf Harris?
Alan B.

Alsn B

You really are a dill. The five 'suppressed' convictions that you suppose may have influenced the jury were the convictions that the jury actually delivered. They were suppressed because of an ongoing case elsewhere against Pell which was dropped because of lack of evidence - which in the current circumstances is a miracle unto itself.

You've got the time-line utterly confused but as usual act as though you're the only person in step.

Lol Allan B, you really need to keep up. The only convictions against Pell, ever, are the ones he was found guilty of, with no evidence, on just the word of one man. He has never even been tried for any other offences.

.

Cardinal George Pell has been found guilty of sexually penetrating a child under the age of 16 as well as four charges of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16. He no longer has the benefit of the presumption of innocence and will spend the next three months in jail while waiting for a decision on his application for a repeal trial due to be announced on the 5th June. If accorded, the repeal trial will take place immediately on the 5th and 6th June.

The twelve members of the jury judged unanimously that he was guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, on all five counts, on the sole testimony of his accuser. There was no decisive material evidence and no witness. It all boiled down to “my word against yours”.

For this reason, it is a foregone conclusion that the appeal trial will be granted and there is a good chance it will succeed.

In cases of “my word against yours” there is necessarily doubt as to who is telling the truth. In such cases, the benefit of the doubt must go to the accused by virtue of the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence. The accuser is presumed to be lying.

Also, justice in modern democracies such as Australia commands that “all are equal before the law”, irrespective of social status, religion, or any other consideration.

As for “divine justice”, the bible indicates (Matthew 18:6, King James Version) :

« But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea »

Unlike human justice, there is nothing in the bible about a right of repeal in the event of conviction.

.

I am going into bat for Alan B now. The original trial was hushed up which is far more common than you would believe. I visit the courts and there are many trials where there are conditions of entry or no entry at all.
I remember the furore about a famous man and soon found on the overseas net it was Pell. I thought it was because of an additional upcoming case but I forgot that lol. I also thought I had missed something but because of these absurd secrecy laws it all gets confused.
The courts are literally a law unto themselves but our courts are very fair even when the accused is probably undeserving.
You either like Georgie or hate him as is obvious. I do think we can leave it to the Court but anyway his reputation is totally ruined. He will not be welcome in polite society but most importantly his sanctimonious attitude will be severely dented now.

And while we await the outcome of the appeal there are petitions online calling for Pell to be stripped of his Order of Australia.

I remember Lindy, there is some of the same "look at me righteousness" about. Lets see the what happens on appeal.

McCakie if you are talking about Lindy Chamberlain just remember she was actually innocent and suffered the loss of her child and jailing for years. I for one thought she was guilty and felt badly about my judgement after all the facts were known. These cases are not at all similar.
What to do, one's calm and innocent is another's smug and guilty.
Rely on a jury. From what I have seen they take it very seriously, pay attention and I am sure carefully consider the facts. I would trust a jury rather than judges applying law but look at poor Lindy.

Banjo,

The question should be why are the left whingers happy about crooks such as McDonald being freed after their jury convictions were overturned while cleaving to the sanctity of the jury conviction of Pell based on the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness especially as previous trial could not convince a majority of jurors?

.

According to the Crime and Corruption Commission of Queensland, only about a quarter of sexual offences are reported to police and only about 17% of those reported result in a conviction – a figure consistent with data from other States and overseas.

Consequently, only about 4.25% of sexual offenders are brought to answer for their crimes. The other 95.75% are deemed to be innocent and get off scot free. For the victims to obtain justice, one or more of the following conditions must be met :

1. Significant material evidence
2. A credible eye-witness
3. Proof that the victim did not consent
4. Admission of guilt by the offender

The accused is presumed to be innocent until proven otherwise. The onus of proof is on the accuser.

Minors and very young victims are psychologically incapable of seeking justice until long after having been sexually abused – typically 20, 30 or even 40 years later. Such long delays render justice inoperative. It’s just a matter of “my word against yours”. In such cases, there is necessarily doubt as to who is telling the truth and who isn’t – and the benefit of the doubt is attributed to the accused by virtue of the sacrosanct principle of the “presumption of innocence”. The victim (the accuser) is presumed to be lying.

The “presumption of innocence” is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counter-productive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it.

There should be NO PRESUMPTION OF EITHER INNOCENCE OR GUILT. Each case should be judged solely on its merits. THE LAW MUST BE CHANGED – and the sooner the better !
.

http://www.ccc.qld.gov.au/research-and-publications/publications/crime/seeking-justice-summary-report.pdf

.

SM,
You have a point but you forget that Pell's case is in Victoria, which is a different world. Why, they had a mob of red shirts defraud the government and got off and they still will not acknowledge that African gangs roam the streets.

From the list of evidence, the accused should not even have been in court let alone found guilty. Unless the court releases some other extraordinary evidence given by the accuser then Pell has to be acquitted on appeal, purely on the lack of evidence. But somebody altered the rules so supporting evidence is not needed to convict now.

However the public will continue to lose faith in the courts and the jury system

Banjo,

Thanks at least for making your agenda clear. For particular cases you want to abandon the presumption of innocence and assume that anyone that claims to be a victim is telling the gospel truth. Given the devastating consequences of an erroneous conviction, and the recent case of an innocent man jailed for 22 years for a crime that someone else was later convicted of should give you pause for thought.

Or perhaps you would simply prefer the Soviet system where an occasional show trial was run to establish the extent of the guilt and the taxpayer saves $ms by simply arresting the accused then shooting them without any expensive and inconvenient trial.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The question should be why are the left whingers happy about crooks such as McDonald being freed after their jury convictions were overturned while cleaving to the sanctity of the jury conviction of Pell … »

If you’re thinking along the same lines as I am, Shadow Minister, I think you already know the answer to that one.

Ian Macdonald was a former member of the ALP and Labor minister for NSW. Isn’t that sufficient reason for the “left whingers” as you say ?

Had he been a member of the National Party, I doubt that they would have been so happy about his conviction being overturned. Though the “right whingers” might well have been pretty thrilled about it, don’t you think ?
.

You then surmised :

« For particular cases you want to abandon the presumption of innocence and assume that anyone that claims to be a victim is telling the gospel truth. »

What I wrote was :

« There should be NO PRESUMPTION OF EITHER INNOCENCE OR GUILT. Each case should be judged solely on its merits – and the sooner the better ! »

The current situation is that “only about 4.25% of sexual offenders are brought to answer for their crimes. The other 95.75% are deemed to be innocent and get off scot free”. If the inverse had been true (95.75% of sexual offenders were brought to answer for their crimes and 4.25% were deemed to be innocent and got off scot free), I would have written exactly the same thing :

« There should be NO PRESUMPTION OF EITHER INNOCENCE OR GUILT. Each case should be judged solely on its merits – and the sooner the better ! »

The scales of justice would be just as unbalanced in favour of the accuser as it is at present in favour of the accused. Either way, the dice are loaded. There is obviously something very wrong with the system. It should be brought back to the drawing board and redesigned.

That’s not justice !

.

SM & BP,
The rules of evidence have already been changed for child sexual offences. According to the 'Guardian' that Foxy posted about a week ago.

Because the prosecutors were frustrated in getting convictions the rule changes were to allow uncollaberated evidence (allegations) to stand as valid evidence for convictions. It is not known when the changes were made but the current Pell case is evidence that they exist. There may well be other cases where word on word evidence alone resulted in a conviction.

Further, it appears the Royal Commission is recommending more changes to make the job easier for prosecutors.

Hopefully His Most Reverend Eminence Cardinal Pell's [1] fellow inmates won't give him too hard a time.

Even if he does get off.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Eminence#Catholicism

.

Dear HenryL,

.

You wrote :

« The rules of evidence have already been changed for child sexual offences … Because the prosecutors were frustrated in getting convictions the rule changes were to allow uncollaborated evidence (allegations) to stand as valid evidence for convictions. It is not known when the changes were made but the current Pell case is evidence that they exist »
.

I am not aware of any change of rules or new law affecting the presumption of innocence, HenryL. What I do know is that there has been no lack of criticism over the past few years of a certain number of court decisions that are seen as making inroads into that fundamental principle of our common law.

An example that comes to my mind is the case of John Philip Aitchison, a former Anglican priest who was convicted in 2018 of sexual abuse of a young girl 30 years previously and sentenced to 9 years prison. The ACT Supreme Court that tried him was informed he had previously been convicted of offences against children in the United Kingdom, NSW, Victoria, and the ACT (but had spent only two years, in all, behind bars).

That sort of information during a trial is usually considered detrimental to the presumption of innocence. In the UK changes have been made affecting the principle of the presumption of innocence. Defendants' previous convictions may in certain circumstances be revealed to juries. I, personally, am unaware of any similar change having been made in Australia.

Perhaps, if Aitchison had appealed his conviction, his appeal may have been upheld. As it happens, he did not appeal it. I can only imagine his lawyers advised him not to. He had a long history of sexual abuse and the maximum penalty for the crime for which he had been convicted was 14 years. Instead of cancelling his conviction, he might have run the risk of worsening it.

You may be interested in the following note on the presumption of innocence from the Attorney-General’s office of the federal government :

http://www.ag.gov.au/RightsAndProtections/HumanRights/Human-rights-scrutiny/PublicSectorGuidanceSheets/Pages/Presumptionofinnocence.aspx#6whcih

.

.

That said, HenryL, if – based on what would seem to be the logical outcome of Cardinal George Pell’s appeal on the 5th and 6th June, having not received the benefit of the presumption of innocence at his trial – contrary to all expectations, his appeal is rejected, that decision could well prove to be a milestone in the judicial history of Australia.

.

It looks like Pell will spend 3 months or more in Prison for a 'crime' that never had any credibility and so ought never have even gone to trial. Pell was dealing with 5 unsupported and almost self evidently preposterous accusations from 1 man. This man was previously reported as 'not doing so well' and from a reading of Milligan it appears that he had some level of mental health issues at the time he made the accusations.

But crucially the vital change in his story is from locked to unlocked. The man either made up a story or more probably was delusional when he reported the matter to the police.

The police then took many months to get a cleaned up formal statement from him.

The truth was that the complainant never knew what the sacristy looked like from the inside because as a choirboy he would most probably never have been in it! The grieving mother had no reason to lie and Milligan knows this.

The police knew that the complainant changed his story from crimes that supposedly took place behind locked doors to ones that happened while the doors were open!

As Bolt is pointing out; the beak that has just sentenced Pell in his sentencing remarks simply said that he was compelled in his actions as a result of the Jury; reading between the lines he almost apologized for sentencing Pell, but that's not the way that the ABC types are reporting this.

BTW I'm an atheist quite hostile to any hocus-pocus. But this case is one of utter rubbish and as bad as any I have seen. The appeal will be unanimously upheld IMV.

Banjo

The moment you abandon the principle of presumption of innocence, then essentially the accused has to prove his innocence and the jury becomes a lynch mob where guilt is subjective and based on personal feelings rather than hard evidence.

The purpose of this presumption is that before the state robs a person of his human rights and liberty that a case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are already too many people falsely imprisoned.

If the appeal succeeds, then Pell is legally entirely innocent and up for a fat handout from the taxpayer for false imprisonment.

Pell's accuser was believed by police, the Victorian director
of public prosecutions and ultimately a jury. The first jury
did not acquit Pell. He was not in any sense cleared by their failure to reach a verdict. The very tight circle that knows how the
jurors voted does not include Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine.
The first trial could not reach a unanimous vote or a 11-1
majority verdict. This led to the second trial which unanimously
found Pell Guilty on all five charges - hence his conviction and
sentencing.

Foxy,

"The very tight circle that knows how the
jurors voted does not include Andrew Bolt or Miranda Devine."

How many more times are you going to repeat this obvious attempt at obfuscation?

"BTW - you told me in the article discussion about Pell -
that the jurors in Pell's first trial found him 10-2
for acquittal. In actual fact the first jury did not
acquit Pell."

of course, they did not acquit Pell, they however, voted 10 to 12 to find him not guilty, that is acquit him.

Why do you find it hard to think that people knew this; you seem to know.

When a case smells as bad as this one does it has clearly gone into the realm of a manifestly unsafe verdict.

It is vital to recall that 2 boys were supposed to have been set upon by a Bishop in full regalia after a mass and both of them orally raped and that they then went back to singing and that they kept in contact but they never spoke of it again!

What we are being asked to accept is that a person who is always after money to feed a drug habit never twigged that he had a rock solid case and a big payout coming from the Church that was regularly paying!

He and his mate supposedly took no interest in the welfare of any other choir boys. They were treated in this manner but could care less about those that were to follow. Isn't that typical of men. Only think of what?

This isn't thinking it is lunacy pure and simple.

People have a duty to protect children but their minutes of trauma bring on nothing but a police beat up after a delusional accusation by one of them 20 very odd years later.

It is no good hiding behind the great wisdom of our police prosecutors and a perverse verdict from a jury because we all know that it was the very same idiocy that produced Lindy's nightmare.

This case simply can't be beyond a reasonable doubt and that is why it will be undone on appeal. But it ought never have gone to trial in the first place. The authorities knew that they were bringing a case that didn't stack up and ABC journo Milligan knows it as well.

Pell can't be convicted of this utter rubbish and it is not just right wingers saying so. I am of the extreme left and I say this madness endangers us all.

Is Mise,

No. they voted 10 - 2 to acquit in the first trial.
They could not reach a unanimous vote - Or a
majority of 11-1 verdict. Therefore the first trial
did not acquit Pell. He was not in any sense cleared by the
failure to reach a verdict.
Hence the mistrial. And a second trial with a unanimous
12 jury verdict of guilty!

What's wrong with you that you can't understand what's
being said?

cont'd ...

Anyone who's passing comment on the jury verdict as
Senator Kristina Keneally stated on Monday night's
emotional episode of "Q&A":

Unless they were in the room every day, heard everything
the jury heard, had access to all the information the
jury had, they're actually doing a great disservice. They're
doing a disservice to our democratic jury system and to the
victims of child sexual abuse.

I have faith in the integrity of our legal system. I believe
that Cardinal Pell has a right to lodge an appeal and I
believe it will be treated appropriately. But the disregard
that is being shown to the jury and to victims by this
public commentary is quite extraordinary and frankly it should
stop.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The moment you abandon the principle of presumption of innocence, then essentially the accused has to prove his innocence and the jury becomes a lynch mob where guilt is subjective and based on personal feelings rather than hard evidence »
.

What I am suggesting is not simply “abandoning the presumption of innocence” but judging sex crimes on their merits, without making any presuppositions whatsoever – especially, presumptions of innocence or guilt. That seems to me a much fairer basis on which to judge sex crimes whose characteristics of intimacy, secrecy, profound psychological damage, shame and fear of social ostracism, often have the disabling effect of inhibiting all possible recourse to the police and the courts for as long as 20, 30 or even 40 years – if not forever.

It requires a lot of courage to undertake that procedure. Only 4.25% are successful, which is why 75% of the victims don’t even try. It is a highly dissuasive uphill battle, full of obstacles and pitfalls, a real marathon and a terrible ordeal for the few brave souls who undertake it.

If 95.75% of sex crimes go unpunished, it is not because all the perpetrators are necessarily innocent. It is because 75% of the crimes are not even brought before the courts and the other 20.75% are acquitted for lack of proof of guilt and, therefore, receive the legal benefit of the presumption of innocence.
.

« The purpose of this presumption is that before the state robs a person of his human rights and liberty that a case needs to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. There are already too many people falsely imprisoned »

Regrettably, the state (our Institutional Monarchy) is already “robbing” many of its valued citizens today of their human rights and liberty simply by the inappropriate application of the sacrosanct principle of the presumption of innocence when judging sex crimes : 95.75% of the victims are deprived of their right to justice. The same percentage of perpetrators are granted legal immunity.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued ...)

.

In my view, for sex crimes, prosecution and defence should present their arguments and evidence on an equal footing, without any prior presumption of innocence or guilt in favour of just one of the parties – in the pursuit of justice within the adversarial system. The standard of proof for judgement should be based on the “balance of probabilities”, which essentially means more likely than not (more than 50% sure) – not, as at present, on the notion of “beyond reasonable doubt” (95% sure).

Naturally, nothing is perfect, but I expect that the modifications that I advocate would bring the scale of justice back closer to its point of equilibrium than at present and significantly reduce the huge stockpile of injustices that our judiciary system continues to generate year after year at an alarming rate.

.

.

Oops !

I meant to write “(our Constitutional Monarchy)” – of course – not “(our Institutional Monarchy)”.

Sorry about that …

.

Major stitch. Total hoax. I wrote to the Crikey website this morning. Crikey’s article says "Someone committing the ultimate profanity of child sexual assault at the heart of the sacred? That’s not an impossibility, it’s a Law and Order:SVU episode". In other words, Crikey is literally saying that the event is a fictional event, written by a scriptwriter.
I e-mailed kelso lawyers last night. Their website has an article dated 30.6.2017 which does not say anything bad about Pell, but suggests he is going to be stitched up. The website says "But his name will never be cleared now, even if he is found innocent. There is hardly any chance of Pell winning these cases".
Is this what Milo meant when he said that the word was out that Pell was going to be stitched up? Kelso lawyers web page seems to be evidence that at least they thought that a stitch up was going to take place.
I still think the evidence against Pell is absurd. I assume that the witness is lying, or deluded. I assume there is nothing unusual about a witness discussing their evidence with a lawyer. In this case I think the witness has been fed his lines by the lawyer (a scriptwriter with an over-excited imagination, perhaps smoking crack).

Peter Bowden says " I trust our legal system. This trust, plus my background and my experience, says that the jury got it right". What a steaming load of dog's droppings. The accusation against Pell is probably a combination of corrupt litigation lawyers who will say anything for money, and a witness with an overactive imagination, probably from smoking ice or crack.

Banjo,

The tenet of assumption of innocence is not just an inconvenience to be dispensed with in particular cases, but a founding principle of the entire criminal law system.

Given that conviction in a sexual assault case carries not only a severe sentence, but ruins careers and lives, and that the resources of the state are vastly greater than most individuals, the presumption of innocence and rules of evidence are the protection of the weak against the predation of the state and should never be dispensed with.

Secondly, even in civil cases one man's word is not taken as sufficient evidence, and corroborating evidence is required here too with the result that civil cases are normally adjudicated by a magistrate or judge on the legal merits.

The last thing we need are kangaroo courts.

Telfer
According to an article from the 'Guardian' our legal eagles watered down our laws regarding proof in child sex cases to enable prosecutors to obtain convictions on allegations alone, without supporting evidence. Word on word alone used to mean acquittal but apparently the prosecutors became frustrated in having to prove their case.

I notice there have been two appeals upheld recently on child sex matters, so hopefully the appeals judges still have some belief in 'innocent till proven guilty' Keep watch for the Pell appeal in June.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « Given that conviction in a sexual assault case carries not only a severe sentence, but ruins careers and lives, and that the resources of the state are vastly greater than most individuals, the presumption of innocence and rules of evidence are the protection of the weak against the predation of the state and should never be dispensed with »
.

I appreciate your concerns. Determining innocence or guilt is important. Sentencing is also important. I outlined in my previous post what I considered to be a more equitable system of determining innocence or guilt for sex crimes. As regards sentencing, I think it is necessary to differentiate between cases of “my word against yours” and all other cases, i.e., those for which there are one or more of the following :

• probative material evidence
• a credible eye-witness
• proof that the victim did not consent
• admission of guilt by the offender

In cases of “my word against yours”, unless there are aggravating factors related to the crime for which the accused is found guilty, sentencing should be light, convictions, nevertheless being a matter of public record. The sole objective is the regeneration and instauration of justice.

Current sentencing practices should remain unchanged for all other cases of sex crimes.
.

2. « … the presumption of innocence and rules of evidence are the protection of the weak against the predation of the state … »

The state has a legal obligation to protect the weak from predators. It owes them its protection and its defence. In the large majority of sex crimes, the presumption of innocence acts as an effective legal barrier in preventing the state from accomplishing its duty. To the extent that only 4.25% of sex offenders are convicted for their crimes.

This is due to the specific nature of sex crimes and the psychological damage they cause, preventing victims from obtaining justice through the courts.

Most of those who try are punished twice : first by the predator, then by the court decision.

.

Banjo,

"In cases of “my word against yours”, unless there are aggravating factors related to the crime for which the accused is found guilty, sentencing should be light, convictions, nevertheless being a matter of public record. The sole objective is the regeneration and instauration of justice."

So there is a 50% chance that the person is guilty so he gets 50% of the sentence?

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

Deviating from the sacrosanct presumption of innocence in judging a particular category of criminal charges, albeit those relating to sex offences, is a revolution that many of our compatriots would have difficulty accepting – simply as a matter of principle.

Yet the evidence is clear, and has been for decades : the “presumption of innocence” is an effective means of guaranteeing legal immunity to sex offenders and denying justice to the millions of victims it was designed to protect. In its present form justice is counter-productive. It achieves exactly the opposite result to that for which it was intended. Instead of preventing and punishing crime it encourages and facilitates it.

Only about 4.25% of sexual offenders are brought to answer for their crimes. The other 95.75% are deemed to be innocent and get off scot free. They never spend a single day in jail.

A classic example of just how easily this antagonistic effect can occur is related by Michael G. Vann, in "Of Rats, Rice, and Race: The Great Hanoi Rat Massacre, an Episode in French Colonial History" (2003): In Hanoi, under French colonial rule, a program paying people a bounty for each rat pelt handed in was intended to exterminate rats. Instead, it led to the farming of rats.

With the “presumption of innocence”, the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the accused who wins more than 95% of the time, declared innocent and washed clean, as white as snow. His victim is considered by the court, and society in general, as guilty of having made false accusations against him that smear his reputation.

There is no perfect solution to the problem. All we can hope to do is take whatever measures are necessary to stop the haemorrhage and, at the same time, do everything in our power to avoid transferring the current load of injustices from the plaintiff's side of the scales to the defendant's.

There is little more we can do than have trust in the impartiality of the jury which should probably be composed equally of both sexes.

.

Banjo,

The presumption of innocence grants no one immunity. What is does demand is that the authorities do their job and prove their case. That there are hundreds of examples of people spending decades in jail is evidence that even with these protections the innocent can suffer.

The reason people get away with these crimes is more to do with reporting them decades later when most of the evidence has disappeared.

What results would you expect if you report a car stolen 10yrs ago?

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « The presumption of innocence grants no one immunity »
It was certainly not intended to do so, Shadow Minister, but, regrettably, that is the antagonistic effect it has when judging sex crimes. It is not just because of the traumatism they cause, resulting in long delays before victims are psychologically apt to report them. It is especially due the nature of such crimes :

• perpetrated when the victim and predator were alone (no witness)
• no material evidence
• no proof the victim did not consent
• no admission of guilt by the accused

That is why only about 4.25% of sex crimes brought before the courts result in a conviction and 95.75% of defendants are declared innocent.
.

2. « What is does demand is that the authorities do their job and prove their case »

As I indicated in my previous posts, the dice are heavily loaded in favour of the defendant by the “presumption of innocence” before the trial even commences. Because of the particular intimate nature of sex crimes, both parties should be able to plead their case on an equal footing. Neither one nor the other should be privileged. The case should be judged on its merits by a jury composed equally of men and women.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Commenting on the doctrine of the “presumption of innocence”, the English philosopher and jurist, Jeremy Bentham, noted in “A Treatise on Judicial Evidence” (1825) :

« At first it was said to be better to save several guilty men, than to condemn a single innocent man; others, to make the maxim more striking, fixed on the number ten, a third made this ten a hundred, and a fourth made it a thousand. All these candidates for the prize of humanity have been outstripped by I know not how many writers, who hold, that, in no case, ought an accused to be condemned, unless the evidence amount to mathematical or absolute certainty According to this maxim, nobody ought to be punished, lest an innocent man be punished ».

.

3. « That there are hundreds of examples of people spending decades in jail is evidence that even with these protections the innocent can suffer »

You may be right, Shadow Minister. If you have any statistics on that perhaps you may be kind enough to share them with me. Personally, I suspect that there are far more criminals roaming the streets than innocent people in jail.

.