.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

1. « I don't know what it would look like to have a court prusume that the defendants are neither innocent nor guilty until proven either way, yet sill have the condition to prove guilt »

There is no “presumption of innocence” in civil trials. Hundreds of thousands of civil cases are tried annually in the Australian courts. If you want to know what it “looks like” you just have to look at them, NNS.

The lack of presumption of innocence or guilt does not pose any problem in the civil jurisdiction. It would not pose any problem in criminal trials either. It would still be necessary to prove guilt on the basis of the highest standard of proof, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty) as at present.

The only difference with the present criminal trial procedure would be that both parties, plaintiff and defendant, would be placed on an equal footing, which is not the case at present.
.

2. « … big enough cases … would get a negitive response for just being accused of them »

Some people would think like that, NNS, but people like you would not. There are many different reactions from many different people. The Pell case is a good example. Pell benefited from the “presumption of innocence” but that did not prevent many people from thinking he was guilty before, during and even after the trial when he was acquitted unanimously by the seven judges of the High Court.

Many people never presumed he was innocent. They still don’t.
.

3. « If they are not protected to some degree that they are innocent until proven guilty, then the number of false convictions will go up quite a bit.»

I already replied to that. I expect the current ridiculously low conviction rate of 13% for sex crimes will quickly increase to the average conviction rate for all crimes in Australia of about 80%, before declining back down and stabilising at about 50% as the dissuasive factor takes effect.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

4. « If the court is to not prusume innocence or guilt, I assume that also mean for the court will need to get rid of juries so to remove biased crowds and try to train judges to be unbiased. »

Trial by jury should be maintained. The Australian Constitution provides that :

« 80. The trial on indictment of any offence against any law of the Commonwealth shall be by jury, and every such trial shall be held in the State where the offence was committed, and if the offence was not committed within any State the trial shall be held at such place or places as the Parliament prescribes »
.

[ In Australian law, the right of peremptory challenge is a right in jury selection for the legal representatives to reject a certain number of potential jurors without stating a reason. Other potential jurors may be challenged for cause, i.e. by giving a good reason why they might be unable to reach a fair verdict, but the challenge will be considered by the presiding judge and may be denied. A peremptory challenge can be a major part of voir dire (preliminary examination). A peremptory challenge also allows legal representatives to veto a potential juror on a "hunch".

The idea behind peremptory challenges is that if both parties have contributed in the configuration of the jury, they will find its verdict more acceptable. The existence of peremptory challenges is argued to be an important safeguard in the judicial process, allowing both the defendant and the prosecution to get rid of potentially biased jurors. Their use allows legal representatives to use their training and experience to dismiss jurors who might say the correct thing but might otherwise harbor prejudices that could infringe the rights of the defendant to a fair trial.
All Australian states allow for peremptory challenges in jury selection; however, the number of challenges granted to the counsels can vary between states.] – Wikipedia.

.

To Steele Redux.

You said that I didn't answer your question

<<"... it would be interesting to hear whom you exclude from the Christian group of true believers. Are Catholics Christian? Are Jehovahs Witnesses? Are Mormons? I consider them all part of the Christian family, do you?">>

I did answer it though.

"As for walking on thin ice. I think I accept much more of Christianity as being part of my brothers and sisters in faith, then you do to accept all of Christians as one family. Clean up your own house before commenting on your neighbor's house."

If you would like I can go into more detail, however my question from here is will you read it? You don't seem to read what I've written so far very well. Nor do you seem to know what you've written yourself. Maybe just practice reading what people write. -their full post-, then we can move on to more detail on the things you're confused about, and want more information about.

To Banjo Paterson.

I thing the crux of the issue from here on is whether criminal cases will resemble civil court cases. I honestly think they are very different, enough that I think it was a good idea to handle one one way, and the other the other way. This goes beyond just rape and sexual abuse/ sexual assault, but to criminal cases in general. I've given my reasons why I think this already. At this point I don't think there's much point in hashing it out further. We've reached the point of a conversation where we're repeating ourselves as if the other person didn't see it the first time.

One thing that I do agree with you though is that something should change, or at least look into what other options are out there for the sake of rape victims. So for doing just that, I'm glad to hear those options to consider more.

To OzSpen,

Thankyou for the encouragement. I'm glad you're here too. It takes a bit to get through the harassing of some people doesn't it? Even if it's one or two people doing the harassing instead of more then that. Kind of difficult to be civil and loving when the venom of slurs, misdirection, and out right attack are a constant thing.

However it's also said that a rope with two cords is stronger then one with only one cord. In the same way, having more Christians here to help keep you strong in the face of the hatred of others hopefully helps keep you civil and not let our frustrations or our anger get the better of us.

Thankyou for being there too.

To Loudmouth.

Not every atheist is needed, to make it difficult. A while ago I made a thread about how God's love makes us stronger. That this is both a strength to be able to be loving and to resist our sins and temptations; as well as an observational bit of evidance that He is real.

By the end of that conversation though, there were a few people who replied often to the topic, andthe topic was more an accusation for me just being Christian, and how horrible that is.

That was just by a few of the members who regularly post anti Christian sentiments on OLO. There are many others. Perscution isn't an inaccurate term here. Though ?I'm glad to say, that you don't seem to be one of those regurarly I'll tempered people that bash Christians as a hobby. I'm glad for that.

Have a good one and stay healthy.

OzSpen,

You believe in God because you have a religious view of the world.

I do not believe in God because I have a scientific view of the world and do not have a religious view of the world.

What you need to tell people is the truth about yourself, saying something like "Folks, there really is a God because I have a religious view of the world."

And then you can add "Folks, if you adopt a religious view of the world like I do you too can have yourself a God and we can go around converting people by getting them to adopt a religious view of the world."

Mr. O

The reason you don't believe in God is because you haven't looked for Him. Call it arrogance to have to worry that you were wrong, or call it laziness. Either way you've chosen your own blinders to be placed on. Talking to OzSpen, he's looked into several religous aspects. Guess what, so have I and so have many others who acknowledge the obvious that God is real. You have it backwards that people believe in God because they have a religous view. Most people have a religous view, because they know God. (In some way or another).

Chin up though mate. If you actually look for Him, I'm sure you can find Him. After all if I can find Him, then so can you.