The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
[Canadian Politics] Justin Trudeau's Great Canadian Electoral Reform Personality Test
Posts
Orillia bros... commiserate I guess?
Not like there's anything else to do aside from make fun of the MURF.
There was actually a police brutality case laid against an OPP cop out of Orillia back in 2013.
Hi5 Edge homepage bro!
So, looks like the trial that Ghomeshi got himself into is now underway. Good news?
Well...
...So, basically, the trial is probably going to devolve into a character assassination game where Henein sex shames the victims because lol lawyers.
Holy shit I hate lawyers. And people wonder why.
The Conservatives have a majority because 20% of the seats are vacant. If Trudeau filled them all they'd be two votes short of an outright majority... one vote when the next Conservative hits mandatory retirement (in.. uh.. two weeks). Good luck with that.
Although the cornerstone of senate reform for Trudeau is to not have the senate filled with partisan hacks- sticking his own cronies in there just before enacting reform would look a bit...funny.
Given that Senate reform will likely need Senate approval, and that sitting senators will likely vote against it, he'd actually be justified in filling Senate with cronies before enacting reforms.
I agree with you that the legal system needs some reform to better protect sexual assault complainants in the courts. But it's Ghomeshi's lawyer's responsibility to put forward his best case and advocate as fiercely as she can for him, within the boundaries of the law. And maybe I'm an eternal optimist, but I believe the judge will make the right decision regardless.
(Also as an aside, the Michael Bryant case sure was facinating)
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
They know perfectly well than they have no democratic legitimacy and the last thing they want to do is rock the boat.
It's empty rhetoric. Whatever Trudeau wants, Trudeau will get.
Which is precisely why I think the system is shitty. It involves an entire profession of people who by trade must not only be excellent liars, but excellent at arguing cases that they don't even believe are true. That would be seen as a form of fraud in any other context (or, at the very least, the worst sorts of Devil's Advocate academic masturbation).
It's a system that has eked out survival in a modern word based on it's traditional & political prestige alone. When we have so many Goddamn institutes that have become really good at analyzing data & testimony to piece together exactly how things worked or what happened in the past, it's disgraceful that we still rely on a demonstrably racist, classist relic from a feudal era to dole out 'justice'.
I never worked very long in criminal law, but I can tell you that much of the defence's focus is on ensuring a fair and speedy trial and that the accused's rights are respected. It's a serious breach of professional conduct for a lawyer to lie--and as for advancing a case that they don't even believe in, it's at least a poor strategy to take on, because how can you expect the judge or jury to believe what you can not? :P You might be surprised at the amount of legal professionals who absolutely (or at least partially) believe their client's position.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
This reminds me, has there been a Phoenix Wright game yet where one of your clients actually is the murderer?
Yep!
In T&T's final case, it turns out that Phoenix's client hired a hitman to kill his rival.
Oh, and Phoenix helps get a guy acquitted of a series of heists he should have been found guilty for.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
In a lot of sexual assault cases that's what it comes down to. Many of these assaults took place years ago and have no physical evidence and unless he was stupid enough to put anything in writing it's generally hard to get a conviction. The whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a two edged sword sometimes.
But again, it's worth pointing out that the series was created in part as a protest against the Japanese judicial system, which is that ridiculous and biased.
Ugh, this pisses me off. I know the "teen" has said she doesn't want anything untoward to happen to the shop owner, but I think something like this really needs to be prosecuted by the Alberta Human Rights Commission.
MWO: Adamski
Man, this guy.
You can pretty much read the "which we totally didn't give him because fuck you, guy" at the end of that last sentence.
Well, in fairness, I don't think he expected to be given it. He was just telling CBC to piss off. It is basically "No comment, unless you make it worth my while."
"You mistook the make & model of his vehicle. Ergo you lied about being violently assaulted & we can dismiss the entirety of your testimony. Also, here is a bald assertion about how totes into Ghomeshi you were - which is irrelevant to the argument regardless of whether or not it's true,"
This is truly the height of intellectual honesty. Our glorious legal system hard at work, ensuring that important details are overshadowed by any number of superficial details.
Questioning a witness' memory and credibility is a fundamental component of cross examination. That was one question in a few hours worth of cross examination. What action would you consider appropriate here instead--for the defence to ignore that inconsistency and fail to call it to attention?
Henein's questions and suggestions aren't just going to be taken as fact. This matter is just before a judge, who will be well versed in weighing all the facts together.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
That the judge shut down wasting time on bullshit irrelevancies.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
Well look, it's not like something extremely traumatic and emotionally distressing happened to you on that day. I mean, if something like that happened, it'd be understandable how you might not remember mundane details like the particular brand of a car or what kind of cereal you ate that morning, unlike on most other days, when everybody remembers all of those details, right?!
...Yes, the fact that the witness was traumatized and may not remember certain details perfectly is going to be considered by the judge. Again, the defence questioning her on this point doesn't mean the judge is necessarily going to place any weight in it. But that doesn't go to say that Henein did wrong by asking that line of questioning.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog
It's a bullshit line of questioning that is irrelevant to the case. It doesn't matter whether I can recall the make & model of your vehicle at the time you attacked me; that is a terrible indicator of how truthful or not I'm being, and a non-sequitur fallacy.
Heiein actually went much further than that, suggesting the victim lied entirely about the altercation in her police report (and by implication suggested that the woman wasn't attacked at all). This is fine, apparently - but what is not fine, according to the defense, is reviewing the actual fucking photographs showing the damage done to the victims after Ghomeshi had finished assaulting them (the same evidence that prompted the CBC to fire him). Oh no no no, that would unfairly besmirch the reputation of her well paying client.
As to appeals to the judge's ability to distill the matter, I don't hold an overly generous amount of confidence in the old white guy's club that judges traditionally operate within.
EDIT: Because this is perhaps worth addressing to clear-up a fundamental matter:
The bolded is everything wrong with the justice system. Your 'credibility' should not fucking matter. At all.. Does it matter in an academic setting? No, of course it doesn't. You can be as fly-off-the-fucking-handle outright crazy as Newton, and the arguments that come out of your mouth & truths you speak can still be 100% right on the fucking money. This is why we examine the Goddamn arguments themselves when we want to actually discover useful truths about the world, not how 'credible' you are or aren't (in an ideal world, anyway). Arguments about character are the domain of conspiracy quacks, politicians, bigots and, sadly, the legal system.
This is how we get a system that is inherently prejudiced & racist: by fucking design it reflects the biases & prejudices of the public it serves!
I want to impress this matter as bluntly as possible: the victim had her head repeatedly mashed against a car window, without in any way consenting to it, with Ghomeshi hoping to violently kick-off a biological arousal response. When that didn't work, he brought the victim home and beat her head with his fists until he got the reaction he wanted.
This story has been consistent from the victim, and was not in any way challenged by the fucking lawyer. Said fucking lawyer didn't even go anywhere near that story; instead she diverted the argument to details which the victim may or may not have been wrong about (misidentifying a VW Golf as a VW Beetle. Because, according to the post - who have apparently never seen either a beetle or a golf - those cars totally look nothing alike at all; being unsure about whether or not she had hair extensions in while she was being sexually assaulted), and then assassinated the victim's character by saying, hey, you went to the press first (even though that's exactly where she was fucking told to go first, she didn't want her name publicized, etc, etc, fuck you for suggesting that someone is obviously just in it for themselves because they went to the press. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO GO THE TE GODDAMN PRESS VNdsjVbhdzsuKDZSF)
Imagine if you constructed a thesis, and when you went to defend that thesis nobody even addressed it. They just attacked your political beliefs, your taste in art & music, etc.
How long would it take before we collectively didn't know shit all about anything other than what to wear and how to phrase things when you go defend a thesis? That's our legal system. And then we wonder why it looks so broken & it's results are so piss poor.
It is the single worst thing you can bring up as evidence in any serious setting, and the fact our entire justice system is founded on it scares the fuck out of me.
This is lawyering 101. Especially in sexual assault cases where evidence is insubstantial and everything comes down to He said, She said.
Innocent until proven guilty is also an integral part of our justice system yet a lot of people here are acting like he has been found guilty. Some of the jurors probably already had pre-exisitng opinions also and punching holes in the prosecutions witnesses is the only defense he has, really.
If this made you mad you should probably stop reading updates on the trial as it will be nothing but more of the same until the verdict is out.
There's a difference between attacking the testimony and attacking the person. The lawyer is going after the latter, trying to paint them as seeking fame and money. It's the old "not guilty on account of the victim is a slut" defense, and there's a greater and greater push to stop treating it as being acceptable as part of a vigorous defense.
Why? I believe he is guilty as sin but there are cases, especially against celebrities, where people do go after them because they are rich and/or famous. A person's character is a pretty intrinsic part of our legal system.
The prosecution is going to pull the same thing on Gian when they get their turn. This is how the sausage is made, folks.
We all like to not think about it on the grounds that it is, as you say, scary as shit that our entire system of justice is based on human memory (which doesn't work) and human judgement by a jury of your peers (which is horribly biased and mostly based on things having nothing to do with the facts as presented in a case).
Which kinda swings back to The Ender's objections because the whole point of the cross-examinations in question is to paint the witness in a bad light cause that's how you win court cases. It's not about challenging the evidence or the reliability of the witness so much as making the jury not like them based on her being, say, a slut or something vaguely similar to that line of attack.
Things like "I thought the defendant didn't look respectful enough cause he took too long to stand up when the judge entered the courtroom" is the kind of thing people go to jail for life on.
But is the prosecution really going to put Jian up on the stand and ask him if he remembers her license plate number? Or what size shoes she was wearing or anything else irrelevant to prove he has a bad memory though? Sure they'll each try and assassinate the others' character, values, morals whatever... but I don't think this stupid memory thing is something that comes up often for the alleged assailant in these cases.
...Am I wrong here?
The thing is, the same can be said about the prosecution. They will do their best to paint the defendant as a shady, low morals kind of guy.
The current system is not perfect but it does come down to a jury made up of your "peers". Reasonable doubt is why so many acquittals happen in cases like this because actual evidence is scarce and it's all based on testimony. Gian actually has a leg up here as he is a seasoned interviewer and making people like him was his job.
That being said, what alternative is there?
Double post, I know.
The thing is, Jian is being accused.
The accuser needs to bring more to the table as they are the ones making allegations. Shaggy's hit "it wasn't me" is all you really need to say with the lack of physical evidence.
It does come across as a pretty blatant attempt at searching for a razor thin technicality, rather than actually making a case for her client's innocence.
I know, innocent until proven guilty, and there would certainly be cases where the shoe would be on the other foot, but in this particular case, I think it's fair to say that it feels real shitty to a lot of people.
I think everyone agrees that the accuser has the burden of proof on them, for sure. But I don't see the reasoning of the defense being able to use "human memory is fallible" as some sort of shield against accusation, or even as a sword to make the accuser uncomfortable in public. In cases where there is mental incompetence that can be documented, I guess that could be an issue that is raised. But bringing up a test that anyone without exceptional memory will fail on the stand just doesn't seem fair or even useful, other than as a way for the accused and their lawyer to make their accuser feel bad.
I mean if the defense has a reason to believe that a person has memory loss or something and wouldn't be able to remember the details properly the judge could request an out-of-court private test or something with a professional and enter the results into evidence, fine. But what we have now seems barbaric, useless and frankly offensive.
Opinions?
This is why they throw doubt on someone before dropping the bomb.
Court is better then any reality show.
Perhaps I should clarify on the definition of credibility. It has a legal meaning that may be different from common usage. It's not simply assessing the witness' appearance and demeanour, and it doesn't mean judging them by their irrelevant political beliefs, gender, race, etc, though of course those biases can and still do exist.
Credibility is also about the strength of the witness' memory of the incident, and how directly they were experiencing the incident:
(sorry, I didn't look up a Canadian definition, but this is comparable)
So in your example of defending a thesis in an academic setting, where the thesis is "X causes Y". Credibility is assessed where an examiner asks "How do you know X causes Y?" and they assess your data, sources, etc, and the strength of each. That's a more faithful analogy / comparison.
DiManno, though I'm not in love with her reporting all the time, wrote about her observations of Day 1:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/02/01/first-ghomeshi-witness-suffers-self-inflicted-cuts.html
Here we can see the defence's position more clearly. It's not just about the model/make of the car. It's not just about whether she had hair extensions that were torn out or not. It's all of that plus the details of her head having been smashed in the window, and more, putting into question the accuracy of her memory.
It's completely fair that the witness' memory is weak because it happened 13 years ago and the trauma of any incident would have caused her to misremember/repress/forget some details. And it sucks that this may mean there's not enough to convict Ghomeshi. But at the same time the reasons for the defence being able to test credibility and a witness' memory should be evident. A person, scummy as he is, faces jailtime, and for criminal matters the Crown must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Switch: SW-7603-3284-4227
My ACNH Wishlists | My ACNH Catalog