nobody is asking for them to be burnt at the stake either, people are just discussing it normally
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
nobody is asking for them to be burnt at the stake either, people are just discussing it normally
No one suggested that there was any proof, they talked about the possibility of charging false accusers if it was the case. Surely people can discuss about that topic? The reality of the matter is that we don't know much, Mendy could have committed those acts though text messages seems to indicate that it wasn't the context and the accusers could be lying.
As long as people don't decided that one side is 100% guilty or innocent, people can have an opinion on both hypotheticals. The part that isn't correct is to frame either sides in a dishonest way which is what you did.
There have been cases where false accusations have resulted in punishments for the accusers. At the end of the day, it's very difficult to prove that an accusation was intentionally made falsely.
You can't prove a negative
You need absolute proof that perjury was committed. The burden of proof now falls on the person accused of rape to show that not only did he/she not rape, but the accuser provided testimony that can be proven as false beyond a reasonable doubt.
For public figures, being acquitted of sexual assault is victory enough. Why go back and revisit that clusterfeck in court?
Notice how those who have no issue assigning guilt before a verdict when it comes to sexual assault, become all cautious when it comes to assigning guilt before a verdict when it comes to lying/providing misleading evidence regarding sexual assault.
You'd have to prove they were lying for a start. Secondly women falsely accusing men is extremely low. When you factor in that the number of women who report rape, let alone feel strong enough to go to court is a lot lower than it should be, it would probably do more harm than good in the long run.
They do, if they're convicted of such.
Who's that then?
Excellent points. The CAF will as always ignore this and found the certain someone guilty even though the court judged otherwise.
You can prove that people made a false rape claim. It happens all the time, in trials where someone is charged with making a false rape claim.
That wasn't what this trial was about and it wasn't proven that they made a false claim.
They do.
Good question.
Lots of big talk talkers and virtue signalling. If you’re ever accused of a crime and you’re pleading your innocence, you’ll understand. The common law system works and the burden to prove any criminal offence is a difficult evidentiary burden for the Crown, and rightfully so. Thank goodness we don’t have mob rule.
Greenwood's case didn't go to court.
Let's not discuss this here.
Are those terrible posts about Greenwood gonna stay up? Cause I'm trying behave and not respond to them, as we're not meant to be discussing his case, but they've been there a while now.
This line of thinking is really worrying.
We either believe in our justice system, or we don't. The latter opening up a rather horrible pandoras box.
You have to look at the concvinction rates, they are way out of sync.
The justice system is essential but it's flawed, it's our duty to question it.
if there is a group of young ladies that are quite happy to regularly attend parties etc and to have sex with multiple men, repeatedly, at these parties with little discernment between partners and then should one be surprised if said women then collaborate to perhaps profit from these dalliances? And should one be surprised if these young men, who expect these young ladies to have sex with them on an ad hoc basis, may then just assume that the ladies are always consenting by the nature of their very presence, when on occasion they may most certainly not be consenting. Not that these over privileged men should be excused for their abhorrent behaviour.
when it comes to rape trials I don't, to be honest
not that I think there is much that can be done about it, but it's just a very difficult thing to prove in most cases
I think a lot of people expect a high burden of proof to fully accept innocence in a not guilty verdict, it's very unfair to some people but it's just the reality we have to face
It did and it was dropped due to withdrawal of key witness and new evidence.
Tone of the post was clearly ironic in response to other poster.
Not in Scotland, unless it got changed ,they also have "Not proven"
If a woman has consensual sex with 99 different men in a row at a party and then gets raped by number 100, he's a rapist and the woman did absolutely nothing wrong.
So then critique the system, not the individuals who have passed through it and who you cannot be 100% certain deserve to have their lives ruined.
Hence, not guilty?
You originally said the court found Greenwood not guilty. That didn't happen.
“Innocent until proven guilty”.
absolutely. but without actual clear evidence, how would the CPS prove in a court of law that sex with man 100 was non-consensual, because the circumstantial evidence which is what you are left in most cases, as its one parties word against the other would not be of any use to the prosecution, and would be seized upon by the defence, when looking to convince a jury.
Yeah but we all know that's bollocks.
That's why rape convictions are so hard to get and most rapists walk away free.
I mean they can't charge him because of withdrawal of key witness and new evidence. Hence, not guilty?
Yeah, and I do. It's just a sad fact of life that not all problems in society can have perfect solutions. This is certainly one of them in my eyes.
I get your point being declared innocent/not guilty in court its because they couldnt prove you did it, it doesnt mean you didnt do it just mean they cant prove it. Now after saying that, guilty and innocent are literally the same thing.
In the eyes of the law he is innocent just like Mendy. What it means is they feel if it went to court they would lose and he'd be found not guilty.
thats not the point I was making at all, and you know it. some of the details from the mendy case are harrowing, with the males attitudes to the women being utterly repugnant. and as has been noted, the 'victims' themselves dont exactly cover themselves in glory with some of their bravado about the 'conquests' either.
I assumed the original point was that, a 'not guilty' verdict in a court of law has to be taken as the person remaining to be seen innocent in the eyes of the public as well as the law. Based on 'innocenct until proven guilty'.
Yes, the verdict may turn out to be wrong. But that's exactly the same had he been found guilty - that could have been an incorrect verdict as well. But if found guilty, they'd have been seen as guilty. So when found 'not guilty', they should be seen as not guilty. Rather than 'probably guilty as hell but got away with it because it's tough to prove.'
If what that Guardian quote says is true, then that woman (the enthusiastic sex -> claim rape) should be ashamed of herself. I dont think she understands how much such behavior damages the chance of justice for actual victims.
It’s not that black and white. Especially when it comes to rape cases. They are notoriously hard to prove.