johncarrion

3 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by johncarrion 14y ago

   "isn't it your position that civil rules should apply to all cases" No, you said that you thought what I was proposing was similar to civil rules. Big difference, dickhead.
2. 2.▲
   by johncarrion 14y ago

   "Why should a victim of crime be obliged to prove a case against their aggressor?" That's what I have issue with more than anything else. We don't know that they are a victim until the trial has concluded. Until then they're just claiming t
3. 3.▲
   by johncarrion 14y ago

   Why isn't it suitable? You say that the 'rules change' when it's criminal, but that's only because those are the rules we've got. There's no reason that we couldn't make all trials use the civil approach. If Sarah wants to accuse Bob of rap
4. 4.▲
   by johncarrion 14y ago

   It's not even about whether the evidence as we know it is convincing. Even if it is plainly obvious that someone did commit a rape, such as a video of it, a civilised society would treat them as simply an accused, just one side of a legal c
5. 5.▲
   by johncarrion 14y ago

   This article is terrible. There is no "rape", no "rapist", and no "survivor" until a trial has been conducted. Until then, there is only an "accuser" and an "accused". The article also links to a report that only 54% of rapes are reported t