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?