3 ms·
I obviously don't think anyone should be the subject of violence, let alone rape. I can understand however, that in a society where the truth is seen as a nega
by iinnPP 4y ago
I obviously don't think anyone should be the subject of violence, let alone rape.
I can understand however, that in a society where the truth is seen as a negative, why more than a person and their potential bestie is needed to testify against anyone for anything major.
More so when the laws against perjury are more often used in a dishonest way to take the truth and silence it. We have a serious problem with honesty.
- michaelt 4y agoEh, loads of crime can only be prosecuted because of the victim's testimony. Let's say Bob thinks Charles is an asshole, so he goes to Charles's house and beats him up. Charles has no CCTV in his home. The police can see he's been beaten up, but the only thing identifying Bob is Charles's testimony. Bob says it wasn't him, he was at home watching TV. Is it just for Bob to be convicted?
- thfuran 4y ago>Let's say Bob thinks Charles is an asshole, so he goes to Charles's house and beats him up.[...]Is it just for Bob to be convicted? Of course.
- dsfyu404ed 4y ago>Is it just for Bob to be convicted? No. If Bob beat the shit out of Charles there should be a mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing in that direction. Witness testimony is just the cherry on top.
- michaelt 4y ago> there should be a mountain of circumstantial evidence Like what? Neighbours didn't see anything. Bob and Charles once had a minor dispute over one parking in front of the other's house. The cops didn't check for DNA or fingerprints. Bob's claim he was watching TV would fit with his normal habits, he is a film lover.