Dear Foxy,

«so that their perpetrators cannot continue
to commit their crimes on new victims.»

Possible perpetrators of crimes in the previous century, now in their late 70's and requiring a walking stick can commit sexual crimes on new victims?
Do you think they can still get an erection even?

«And religious people and their religious
institutions must be held to account.»

So it seems you have no faith.
Is there any soul in the universe who can escape being held to account?
Is there anywhere to hide from the almighty?

(also, can a religious person commit any such hurtful crimes, yet remain religious? If not, then why do you call them or their institutions "religious")

«And this is not about
any vengeance . It is about justice,»

Justice is already here, always was, always will remain, absolute unshakable justice with precision that no mortal can ever come close to, justice that not even the grave can obstruct!

Do you seriously believe that humans can do any better?
Of course they cannot, but if it is not vengeance that they are really after, then it must be their desire to take the credit, to boast what they cannot do, to tempt people to trust and love their petty selves instead of the Divine.

Foxy,

Still struggling that 12 rock spider jurors believed the witness without any other evidence and got it wrong, next the incompetent Judge screwed up and 2 VIC appeal judges screwed up.

But then you "believe".

.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Life is not always fair. To convict someone to a long stint in jail you need to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rectifying one injustice by creating another injustice is never the answer. »
.

Yes, naturally, I share those concerns, shadowminister. It has always been one of my principal preoccupations.

At the same time, I felt that the scales of justice had been so heavily weighted in favour of sex offenders for so many years that it would take a tremendous force to overcome the resignation of society and accumulated inertia in order to bring them back to a position of equilibrium. The disaster was such that exceptional means would have to be employed to redress the situation.

Consequently, despite the psychological shock it was bound to provoke, it seemed to me that Jeremy Bentham’s proposal of the reversal of the burden of proof from the complainant to the defendant was of the nature of what was needed to awaken consciences to the gravity of the problem and to accept the drastic measures that were necessary to fix it.

Bentham argued :

« Between Plaintiff and Defendant, the presumption ought to be in favour of the former, to the prejudice of the latter.

« The probability in favour of the former, because he voluntarily submits his right to the decision of justice; but the defendant appears in spite of himself. The case in which it is the interest of the complainant to litigate in opposition to his own conviction, must always be rare. »

He also noted :

« Since all punishment involves pain and is therefore evil, it ought only to be used “so far as it promises to exclude some greater evil.” »

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

Reflecting further on this, I realised that the presumption of innocence is contrary to what are generally considered to be the core values of justice : (1) fairness and (2) equality before the law.

It is not fair to the complainant (the victim of the purported sex crime) because the defendant has the advantage of being presumed innocent while the complainant (the victim) is presumed, a contrario, to be lying. Obviously, that being the case, the litigants are not “equal before the law”.

The same criticism applies to Bentham’s proposal. The litigants are no more on an equal footing before the law if the complainant is presumed to be telling the truth and the onus of proof is on the defendant to prove his or her innocence.

In the final analysis, the equitable solution would be not to make any presumptions of any sort in respect of sex crimes and judge each case on its merits.

Which is why I advocate :

• trial by jury

• no presumption of guilt or innocence of either defendant or complainant – each case to be tried on its individual merits

• no right to silence by either defendant or complainant during the trial. Both to present his/her version of events and be submitted to cross-examination if so required

• complainant and defendant to be treated on an equal footing – neither to be advantaged. The onus of proof to rest equally on both

• onus of proof defined as “beyond a reasonable doubt (at least 95% certainty

.

shadowminister,

Now I've heard it all from you.

You really are a pygmy, a third-rate commentator on
this forum.

One with which I no longer wish to inter-act.

Foxy,

While you pose as a bleeding heart lefty, you are an intellectual pygmy who is happy to convict people based on public opinion and cares not for a fair trial as long as there is a conviction.