Foxy,

If you are happy to dismantle the rights of the accused, why don't you simply adopt the Chinese system which has a 99% conviction rate.

Then you can happily imprison all accused and won't have to worry about trifles like the accuser could be lying as has happened multiple times.

shadow minister,

Ask yourself. Do you really not see any flaws in
the way our legal system deals with sexual abuse
cases?

I rest my case.

Foxy,

No, I don't. The courts treat sexual abuse cases in exactly the same way as any other and stripping the accused of basic protections to obtain an unproven conviction can easily be applied to other crimes.

With any crime, reporting it decades later makes proof nearly impossible and with the huge penalties for sexual assault there have already been many people serving long sentences that were later proven innocent.

That "victims" lie has been demonstrated frequently. The word of one person cannot be the sole evidence for any conviction.

Shadow minister,

That's where there's a misunderstanding between us.
I am not advocating for stripping any one of their
rights. On the contrary what I am asking for is to
have both sides treated equally and to be interrogated
equally to get to the truth of what happened. In sexual
abuse cases as we know - there usually aren't any witnesses
and it's onw word against the other. But only putting the
victim on trial to me is wrong. Both parties should be
questioned.

However, you don't agree with this - and see nothing wrong with
the system as it currently stands - fair enough. There's nothing
more that needs to be said. To me the system is flawed and
that's part of the reason why so few sexual abuse cases are
ever reported.

Foxy,

A criminal court case is very different to a civil case. In a criminal court, one has an imbalance between the resources of the accused and the nearly unlimited resources of the state.

You say that "I am not advocating for stripping any one of their rights" then immediately advocate stripping the defendant of the right to silence, and by interrogating him put the onus on the defendant to prove his innocence.

Clearly, you are clueless.

shadow minister,

So you think I am clueless?

And yet you are the one who is persisting to argue
with me.

That says more about you than me1

LOL.