To SteeleRedux.

You consider yourself a strongly cultured Christian, and you're proud of those roots?!

That's a bit of a surprise. When the topics of religion come up, I had you pegged as part of the anti Christian swarm that post on those topics. If I was wrong, I appologize for that.

.

Dear Runner,

.

The High Court decision in Pell's case was as follows :

« The Court held that, on the assumption that the jury had assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable, the evidence of the opportunity witnesses nonetheless required the jury, acting rationally, to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt in relation to the offences involved in both alleged incidents. »

Consequently, the Court ordered that :

« (a) the appeal be allowed; and

« (b) the appellant's convictions be quashed and judgments of acquittal be entered in their place. »
.

To acquit means to “free (someone) from a criminal charge by a verdict of not guilty” (OED).

As the High Court indicated : the jury should have “entertained a reasonable doubt as to the applicant's guilt” – despite “the assumption that [it] assessed the complainant's evidence as thoroughly credible and reliable”.
.

The applicable Common Law principles were :

1. “presumption of innocence” of the accused

2. charges to be proven by the prosecution

3. proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt”

Justice depended on the nature and quality of the facts presented to the court by the prosecution.

The High Court considered that in Pell's case, the prosecution had not established the facts "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order to prove the charges.

There is nothing unusual about that. In cases that boil down to “my word against yours”, the principle of “presumption of innocence” acts as an invincible barrier of legal protection – not just for the innocent, but also for the guilty.

In such cases, "acquittal" does not necessarily mean innocent.

Because of the intimate nature of sex crimes, and the profound psychological damage, shame and social stigma they cause to the victims, most of them are never even reported to the police, let alone brought before a court of law.

For justice to prevail, nothing should be presumed in advance – neither innocence nor guilt. Plaintiff and defendant should be treated on an equal footing and each case judged on its individual merits.

.

To Banjo Paterson,

The only ones who should prusume neither innocence nor guilt are detectives looking for clues and motives around a crime.

In court, as with anything else, you have to start somewhere. Saying that your innocent until proven guilty just makes that starting place an safe starting place. If you start off with someone being guilty and needing to prove their innocence, then that has no justice in it. All it will do is create a corrosive justice system.

As for the system you're asking, to go to court presumed neither guilty nor innocent, that isn't a practical solution because people will stil have a starting place to go on where either the defendant has to prove their innocence regardless if there is any merit to the accusations against them, or the prosecutor has to prove their guilt. Neither the judge nor the jury will have a middle ground starting place. They will take one side or another and destabilize any justice that can be had.

More so then that though, if a person has to prove their innocence, regardless if there is a condition of proving guilt as well, then anyone with an accusation has power over them. You can be accused of anything and have to prove that your innocent. The accuser has nothing to lose, even if they don't prove the guilt. But the accused have everything to lose if they don't prove they are innocent.

Thus making a slander based justice system, and no justice in it.

SteeleRedux,

<<Where have I attacked your God? I consider myself a strongly cultural Christian, proud of those roots, who has a deep respect for the bible and utterly adverse to those who would take its teaching in vain to promote their particular brand of exclusionary religion.>>

From where did you get the idea that before God, you need to become a strong cultural Christian to enter God's kingdom? Or, are you a cultural Christian to affirm these characteristics: http://www.gotquestions.org/cultural-Christianity.html.

As a cultural Christian, do you worship with any group of people. This article states,

'There was no such thing as cultural Christianity in the days of the early church. In fact, to be a Christian was to more than likely be marked as a target of persecution. The very term Christian was coined in the city of Antioch as a way to identify the first followers of Christ (Acts 11:26). The first disciples were so much like Jesus that they were called “little Christs” by their detractors. Unfortunately, the term has lost meaning over the years and come to represent an ideology or a social class rather than a lifestyle of obedience to God'.

According to the Bible, 'no strongly cultural Christian' will enter God's kingdom . There is only one way to eternal life, according to Jesus' response to Nicodemus, a Jewish religious leader: “I tell you the truth, unless you are born again [i.e. born from above], you cannot see the Kingdom of God” (John 3:3), http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A3&version=NLT

SteeleRedux,

<<This is an opinion site. If you are so put out by the opinion of others then why don't you go an post of a far more sympathetic forum.>>

You missed my point. I don't object to the 'opinions' expressed. It's the way some posters express those opinions with fallacious reasoning - logical fallacies.

In this post to which I'm referring you use this erroneous reasoning when you wrote: <<Grow up, grow a spine, and put counter arguments rather than cowering in victimhood.>>

'Grow up, grow a spine' is an Ad Hominem (Abusive)Logical Fallacy, which is where you are 'attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making', http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Ad-Hominem-Abusive

You attacked my personal traits, 'Grow up, grow a spine', instead of dealing with the issues I raise, http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Why can't you admit to what you are deliberately doing in this response to me?

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« As for the system you're asking, to go to court presumed neither guilty nor innocent, that isn't a practical solution … More so then that though, if a person has to prove their innocence, regardless if there is a condition of proving guilt as well, then anyone with an accusation has power over them. You can be accused of anything and have to prove that your innocent. The accuser has nothing to lose, even if they don't prove the guilt. But the accused have everything to lose if they don't prove they are innocence »

It can’t be any worse than it already is, Not_Now.Soon. The conviction rates are so low that something like 80% of sexual assaults, including rape, are not even reported to the police.

I advocate that we make no presumptions regarding innocence or guilt especially in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped).

Another problem that needs to be addressed is our so-called adversarial trial system which allows the accused to remain silent. Pell’s trial is a good example. He remained silent and was acquitted without pronouncing a single word. The jury and judges never heard his version of events, nor was he ever cross-examined.

It was his accuser who was on trial, not Pell.

Pell’s trial is typical of most sex cases that boil down to “my word against yours”. The presumption of innocence combined with the adversarial system of justice assures quasi-legal impunity to the alleged offenders.

That does not qualify as justice. For it to be slightly more even-handed and still maintain the sacrosanct principle of presumption of innocence, either the adversarial system should be replaced by the inquisitorial system, or the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished.

In civil trials, there is no presumption of innocence, no right to silence and the onus of proof for the allegations is less burdensome – not “beyond reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty), but “on the balance of probabilities” (just more than 50% certainty).

.