American Politics

[Reebi]

That is very misleading. Sure, you technically have to prove it but it's one thing to prove something conforming to beyond reasonable doubt and another entirely to prove something to meet preponderance of evidence standards. Preponderance of evidence in used in civil cases precisely because the stakes are lower, they usually are resolved with compensation. The stakes in this case are in no form or context low, for the potential victim as for the potential assaulter. It's completely fair to want to overhaul the system to encourage victims to speak out but it is not fair towards accused people that the standard of proof for such a severe, potentially life ruining accusation, to be so low.

But how can the victims be encouraged to come forward when the system is broken and they are most likely have to share their story in public where they tell intimate details of his/her personal life, get cross-examined where he/she is blamed for the incident because the point of the defence isn't to prove the defendant is innocent but the victim is not creditable? Oh, and the defendant sometimes isn't on the stand. After the trail, it's most likely a "not guilty".

The problem is the system is too afraid of having an innocent person convicted that too many people have gone free. Where is the justice? Yes, having a sexual conviction is serious but it's unlikely going to lead to conviction and what about the majority of those that don't receive justice?

 

[kkck]

But how can the victims be encouraged to come forward when the system is broken and they are most likely have to share their story in public where they tell intimate details of his/her personal life, get cross-examined where he/she is blamed for the incident because the point of the defence isn't to prove the defendant is innocent but the victim is not creditable? Oh, and the defendant sometimes isn't on the stand. After the trail, it's most likely a "not guilty".

The problem is the system is too afraid of having an innocent person convicted that too many people have gone free. Where is the justice? Yes, having a sexual conviction is serious but it's unlikely going to lead to conviction and what about the majority of those that don't receive justice?

The system is broken, that much is true, but it is not because the burden of proof is too strict. Diminishing the burden of proof requirements doesn't solve victim blaming issues and other nonsense chikanery which can go on here. And yeah, the system is afraid of sending innocent people convicted, that is absolutely true. And it is also how it should be, the entire point of the system is to not have innocent people prosecuted. The issues surrounding sexual assault on campus or elsewhere are ultimately cultural, the solution to that won't be found at any court. When it comes to investigations the issue is victim blaming and whatever other variety of the victim's sexual history being brought up (which is every sex assault case it is 100% irrelevant). That is not solved by lowering the burden of proof standard but rather people simply accepting that the victim's sexual history is 100% irrelevant to the fact she was assaulted.

 

[Reebi]

The system is broken, that much is true, but it is not because the burden of proof is too strict. Diminishing the burden of proof requirements doesn't solve victim blaming issues and other nonsense chikanery which can go on here. And yeah, the system is afraid of sending innocent people convicted, that is absolutely true. And it is also how it should be, the entire point of the system is to not have innocent people prosecuted. The issues surrounding sexual assault on campus or elsewhere are ultimately cultural, the solution to that won't be found at any court. When it comes to investigations the issue is victim blaming and whatever other variety of the victim's sexual history being brought up (which is every sex assault case it is 100% irrelevant). That is not solved by lowering the burden of proof standard but rather people simply accepting that the victim's sexual history is 100% irrelevant to the fact she was assaulted.

Actually, the justice system is to bring people to justice. If someone commits a crime, they should be charged accordingly. It costs a lot of money if they convict someone and is retried as innocent. Also, is hard to prove consent and sexual history in most courts is irrelevant. Most sexual assults aren't some random dude attacking a woman and raping her. It could be touching or oral sex - anything unwanted down there. Even if that were the case, the attacker could lie and say it was concentual; thus the problem. Due to innocent proven guilty, the victim has to prove their truth when the defendant doesn't have to. This means the system is broken for sexual assult cases.

I actually know someone who was falsely accused with friends and there maybe false accusation or miscommunication; however, those aren't all the case.

This article is really good for intoxicated sexual assaults, which happen on campus.

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/ne...4338370/?ref=https://www.theglobeandmail.com&

 

[M3J]

Sexual assult is very hard to prove because it comes down to consent and therefore cannot be tried under convention means. It's not just the US having difficulty understanding thus concept here in Canada it's not campuses that gain attention it is high profile (police were recently found not guilty and same with a broadcaster). However, any age shouldn't experience unwanted sexual assult.

Problem is, this makes it easier for offenders to get away with their shit, and many get away as it is, like Brock Turner, unless they're not white or wealthy. It's worse among college students because there are some judges who are worried about the white offenders' future that they try to impose a light sentence if possible. While there are women who tend to lie, that's no justification for hurting other women.

Besides, pretty sure most women wouldn't want to go on a trial given the shit that happens, like victim blaming and offender-defending.

 

[Reebi]

Problem is, this makes it easier for offenders to get away with their shit, and many get away as it is, like Brock Turner, unless they're not white or wealthy. It's worse among college students because there are some judges who are worried about the white offenders' future that they try to impose a light sentence if possible. While there are women who tend to lie, that's no justification for hurting other women.

Besides, pretty sure most women wouldn't want to go on a trial given the shit that happens, like victim blaming and offender-defending.

Some schools it goes through a tribunal before they contact police which is worse. Plus, campuses don't want to tarnish their name so they want to keep the sexual assaults hush hush. Anyone who is a victim should contact police but what really needs to be done is learning about consent. Assuming someone is up for certain things doesn't mean they are up for others and drunk people can't say yes and no. Also, drugging people to get laid is ridiculous and should be charged. The bottom line is respecting people and their boundaries because what happens if that was their sister, friend or even them?

 

[M3J]

Agreed, educating people on consent is better than telling women what they can and cannot do or wear to avoid being raped. Onus should be on the offender, not the victim, to not assault.

 

[kkck]

So.... Do we take trumps nk threats as a joke or seriously?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 20, 2017 ---

My first guess is as a joke given that there is no military option against nk that does not screw over us allies.

 

[M3J]

I'd say him being all talk as usual, but didn't he allow an attack in Syria and pissed off Russia?

 

[Reebi]

So.... Do we take trumps nk threats as a joke or seriously?

--- Double Post Merged, Sep 20, 2017, Original Post Date: Sep 20, 2017 ---

My first guess is as a joke given that there is no military option against nk that does not screw over us allies.

With him baiting North Korea and all these hurricanes and earthquakes, I wouldn't be surprised if the world ended this week.

 

[kkck]

With him baiting North Korea and all these hurricanes and earthquakes, I wouldn't be surprised if the world ended this week.

It's not like NK can do anything TBH. The most likely scenario is that they will continue business as usual and simply back down for a week or two, then insult trump, and then threaten everyone. Exactly as they did a few weeks back. I doubt there is much chance of them nuking anything... The moment they do that they get nuked out of existence, which is the opposite of their long term goal (survival).

 

[Reebi]

It's not like NK can do anything TBH. The most likely scenario is that they will continue business as usual and simply back down for a week or two, then insult trump, and then threaten everyone. Exactly as they did a few weeks back. I doubt there is much chance of them nuking anything... The moment they do that they get nuked out of existence, which is the opposite of their long term goal (survival).

The missiles they sent out were clearly warnings and more baiting. If Trump keeps poking the bear is going to attack out of spite. Allies are preventing a full scale war but they can only do so much.

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

If it is true that Kim is developing nukes only to prevent a regime change and just survive,then I don't see why he would invade or nuke anything.And if he won't be an aggressor then Trump won't have to "destroy North Korea".No nuclear war incoming,sorry.

 

[Reebi]

If it is true that Kim is developing nukes only to prevent a regime change and just survive,then I don't see why he would invade or nuke anything.And if he won't be an aggressor then Trump won't have to "destroy North Korea".No nuclear war incoming,sorry.

He send two nuclear missiles over Japan. That carries huge risk because what if they something went wrong and hit Japan? That shows he is a cocky bastard for thinking it wouldn't do damage. Luckily no one was hurt so they must have really researched but there is still a chance it could have caused damage and they launched knowing or ignoring that risk. These weapons aren't just for defence.

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

He send two nuclear missiles over Japan. That carries huge risk because what if they something went wrong and hit Japan? That shows he is a cocky bastard for thinking it wouldn't do damage. Luckily no one was hurt so they must have really researched but there is still a chance it could have caused damage and they launched knowing or ignoring that risk. These weapons aren't just for defence.

It wasn't a nuclear missile but rather just a missile (unarmed ICBM).That was just a show of power.

 

[xi0]

ICBMs don't need to have warheads in them to pose a threat though. They still carry fuel.

 

[Knight of Stalwart Heart]

I really doubt countries would go to war over the deaths of few common men especially when the war will eventually escalate into a global nuclear catastrophe.Kim most likely thinks he can get away with the worst thing that can happen when he tries to make an unarmed ICBM fly over Japan and I would say he is right.

 

[M3J]

silly republicans

 

[M3J]

I like how people will get offended over kneeling, but the same people will vote for a dunce who calls prisoners of war losers. Also how people will cry about disrespect to the troops but won't lift a finger to help them or fight for the government to guarantee the vets shelter and food no matter what.

 

[xi0]

It's always rather humorous to see people complain about political correctness, but have the same exact attitude towards things like the flag or anything patriotic.

I've been of the opinion for a long time that there's no reason to even sing the national anthem before most sporting events. The only time where national anthems make any sense to me is international competitions, like the Olympics. Most people who perform it are only there to sell themselves, turning "patriotism" into a business opportunity.

 

[M3J]

Not gonna lie, I'd definitely be against them kneeling if they didn't have a good reason along with annoyed with the people whining about it, but their reason is good. Racial equality and stopping police brutality. What's pretty annoying and fucked up is how people keep saying they should focus on black-on-black violence first, as if they've not been doing that for decades.