Paul,

You should really stop apologising for Karel Solomon the Greens council nominee who was charged for child sex offenses. I have never claimed that all greens are pedophiles and I am prepared to grant you the presumption of innocence, a luxury that you don't grant to others.

Secondly I am not a member of the green, the labor or the liberal parties, and I don't believe that Pell is either.

Tell me Shadow, what crime are you are kindly bestowing this "presumption of innocence" on me for. To have a presumption of innocence one has to be suspected of a crime, so spit it out!

I have no presumption of innocence about YOU, as I do not suspect you of any possible crime, murder, armed robbery etc, none at all, so spit it out! Or forever be considered gutless!

Paul,

No you don't.

Banjo,

With regards to the high court's decisions they normally issue a reason why the case was accepted or denied. I suggest you look them up. Clearly Pell's case met the criteria. The judgement based on a single involved witness is a general public issue and a miscarriage of justice, and as far as I can see a prime example of where the high court needs to intervene. The 7-0 judgement indicates that the judges were of a single mind in that event as well.

I'm glad that we agree that the main problem is the lack of reporting of a crime. I still fail to see why the entire justice system needs to be perverted to be able to deliver guilty verdicts where there is little to no evidence.

Shadow Minister, coming on here with innuendo about another forum member namely me is your typical slimy way. Then not willing to spit it out, shows you are a gutless wonder. Do I make myself clear!

Here is your innuendo "I (Shadow Minister) have never claimed that all greens are pedophiles and I am prepared to grant you (Paul1405) the presumption of innocence," As I said to have a presumption of innocence, you have to be suspected of a crime.

Its clear what you are implying, and btw, shove your presumption of innocence up where the sun don't shine. What a pompous (pick any of a dozen adjectives) you are.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« I still fail to see why the entire justice system needs to be perverted to be able to deliver guilty verdicts where there is little to no evidence »
.

Justice does not need to be “perverted”, Shadow Minister. It needs to be adapted in order to deal equitably with sex crimes. Their intimate nature, the lack of material evidence and the severe psychological trauma they cause to their victims (often young children) renders their elucidation particularly complex and difficult.

As it stands, justice is largely ineffective in dealing with such crimes. The large majority of sex offenders are never apprehended and most of those that are leave the courts triumphantly having been acquitted. The verdicts brand the victims vicious liars – a stigma they have to bear for the rest of their lives – in addition to the consequences of the crime itself.

Sex crimes are “crimes against the person” which are the most serious of all crimes in criminal law and it is precisely these crimes for which justice is the most ill-equipped to handle effectively.

Child sexual abuse causes later serious emotional and behavioural problems in victims : drugs, alcohol, depression, mental illness, and suicide. In 2007 the Queensland Children's Commission reported that "some 70% of psychiatric patients are known to have been sexually abused as children". A study carried out in 27 prisons in New South Wales found that 65% of male and female prisoners had been sexually and physically abused as children.

Doesn’t that ring a bell, Shadow Minister ?

.

Paul,

Stop blaming me for your delusion based on illiteracy and incompetence. You are a witless wonder.

The presumption of innocence applies to every person until they are proven guilty whether they are arrested or charged or not. It is not as many on the site seem to believe, a state of not yet being proven guilty. Under the law there are only two states, guilty and innocent.

Banjo,

In "adapting" the legal system you make it sound like a little tweak, like renovating one's kitchen. The reality is that is more like bulldozing the house and rebuilding. If you ditch the fundamental concept of innocent until proven guilty you are essentially assuming that everyone is partially guilty until proven innocent.

Secondly, even in civil courts the laws of evidence still apply, and an accusation by one person without any corroborating evidence seldom wins a case. However, what it will mean is that the number of perfectly innocent people being convicted and having their lives destroyed will explode. Articulate con men and women will have the power to ruin others and will extort $ms with the threat of an accusation. The list goes on.

Divorce cases are replete with men struggling to retain even minor custody of their children in the face of completely unsubstantiated accusations of domestic violence.