3 ms·

I'm not a lawyer and not playing one here. In any case, it is my understanding that 'innocent until proven guilty' is part of criminal law. In other kinds of

by phicoh 8y ago

I'm not a lawyer and not playing one here. In any case, it is my understanding that 'innocent until proven guilty' is part of criminal law. In other kinds of law the burden of proof is lower. Of course these claims have to be investigated carefully. But I think it is wrong to try to copy elements of criminal procedures to civil matters. It is important to strike a sensible balance. We cannot have a situation where women would always lose because of lack of hard evidence.

snackbugs 8y ago
Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict. When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not. Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essentially a non-punishment.
- phicoh 8y ago
  Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act). But maybe there are such places.
  - threevodka 8y ago
    Evidence is evidence. Witness testimony is evidence, photographs are evidence, video is evidence, dna is evidence. All evidence has credibility, which can be challenged. Every case is different: witness testimony can be far more credible than photo evidence, dna evidence can be less credible than video evidence. There is — as far as I know — no legal system in the world that measures the validity of a case based on the amount or type of evidence. You can absolutely be convicted on witness testimony alone in the US. That’s very unlikely but entirely possible under the law.
  - gnicholas 8y ago
    This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him. Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a victim's testimony alone. It just doesn't happen often because usually there is some sort of corroborating evidence of a crime, and because it's hard to eliminate all reasonable doubt without any.
    - phicoh 8y ago
      Maybe you can point to a case where literally the only evidence was the story of the victim? (I would be really scared to live in such a country, that strikes me a a recipe for disaster)
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        Sorry, it's been a long time since I was a lawyer, and I didn't do criminal cases!
    - mannykannot 8y ago
      So, it is no different than for any other sort of accusation lacking corroborating evidence? Is there evidence that this is more likely in sexual assault cases than others? Your post here [1] (and the post you are replying to) seem to suggest that it is actually less likely in these cases. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977
      - gnicholas 8y ago
        I think all cases that are based only/mostly on a victim's statement are very difficult to prove. In my other comment, I was pointing out that sex-based cases are more likely to be based mostly on a victim's statement than other cases.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  > Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. How can we know what specific pieces of evidence led to his conviction? I would assume the jury took into account the victim's testimony and the testimony of the onlookers who stopped him. What makes you say he was "convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny"?
MickerNews 8y ago
"...would always lose" Really? I think the reasons for the requirements of evidence are justified in civil matters just as they are in criminal. We cannot have a situation where men always have no defence because of a lack of requirement of evidence.
- phicoh 8y ago
  At least where I live (The Netherlands) for civil matters it is, as far as I know, about which story the judge finds most plausible. In a criminal case, if the defendant remains silent then it is up to the prosecution to present enough evidence. In a civil case, any argument made by the plaintiff that is not rejected or corrected can be accepted as true. Of course, legal systems vary, but in general there is no right to remain silent during a civil case.

by phicoh 8y ago

snackbugs 8y ago

Testimony of lived experiences is evidence. It's enough to convict. When you serve jury duty and the case involves domestic violence, you are explicitly reminded of this because most people will assume it is not. Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. And then receives what is essentially a non-punishment.

phicoh 8y ago
Of course judicial systems vary with countries, but I'm not aware of a jurisdiction where only the word of the victim is enough to convict somebody (who denies the act). But maybe there are such places.
- threevodka 8y ago
  Evidence is evidence. Witness testimony is evidence, photographs are evidence, video is evidence, dna is evidence. All evidence has credibility, which can be challenged. Every case is different: witness testimony can be far more credible than photo evidence, dna evidence can be less credible than video evidence. There is — as far as I know — no legal system in the world that measures the validity of a case based on the amount or type of evidence. You can absolutely be convicted on witness testimony alone in the US. That’s very unlikely but entirely possible under the law.
- gnicholas 8y ago
  This is possible in the US. Imagine someone rapes a nun, and she testifies to it. She identifies the defendant, and in his testimony he denies it. If the jury finds her testimony more credible — to the extent that there is not a reasonable doubt as to his guilt — they can convict him. Of course, it helps if there is corroborating evidence, but there is no rule that says one cannot be convicted (in the US) based on a victim's testimony alone. It just doesn't happen often because usually there is some sort of corroborating evidence of a crime, and because it's hard to eliminate all reasonable doubt without any.
  - phicoh 8y ago
    Maybe you can point to a case where literally the only evidence was the story of the victim? (I would be really scared to live in such a country, that strikes me a a recipe for disaster)
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      Sorry, it's been a long time since I was a lawyer, and I didn't do criminal cases!
  - mannykannot 8y ago
    So, it is no different than for any other sort of accusation lacking corroborating evidence? Is there evidence that this is more likely in sexual assault cases than others? Your post here [1] (and the post you are replying to) seem to suggest that it is actually less likely in these cases. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18590977
    - gnicholas 8y ago
      I think all cases that are based only/mostly on a victim's statement are very difficult to prove. In my other comment, I was pointing out that sex-based cases are more likely to be based mostly on a victim's statement than other cases.
gnicholas 8y ago
> Still, we end up with cases like Brock Turner where he does get convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny. How can we know what specific pieces of evidence led to his conviction? I would assume the jury took into account the victim's testimony and the testimony of the onlookers who stopped him. What makes you say he was "convicted not with the victim's testimony but a mountain of corroborating evidence and national media scrutiny"?

MickerNews 8y ago

"...would always lose" Really? I think the reasons for the requirements of evidence are justified in civil matters just as they are in criminal. We cannot have a situation where men always have no defence because of a lack of requirement of evidence.

phicoh 8y ago
At least where I live (The Netherlands) for civil matters it is, as far as I know, about which story the judge finds most plausible. In a criminal case, if the defendant remains silent then it is up to the prosecution to present enough evidence. In a civil case, any argument made by the plaintiff that is not rejected or corrected can be accepted as true. Of course, legal systems vary, but in general there is no right to remain silent during a civil case.