The Ghomeshi trial shows that the Canadian judicial system still works

What prompted this post is this article in Toronto’s 24-hr news radio station 680 News, entitled “Jian Ghomeshi’s trial highlights need for deep legal reform: lawyer”. Now I am not suggesting that you should listen to 680 News for deep thoughts, but it is a great place to go to see what the Mainstream Media’s current zeitgeist is, because 680 is both too stupid and too sane to deviate much from the received wisdom.

So why does the lawyer quoted by 680 News think our criminal justice system is broken?

“A Toronto lawyer who’s called for substantial reforms to how the legal system handles sexual assault cases says the Jian Ghomeshi trial shows that the adversarial model presently in place is ‘structurally ill-suited’ to deal with such allegations.

The current system is ‘basically trial by war.’”

The reason why our justice system involves ‘trials by war’ is that trials necessarily represent two irreconcilable interests: the interests of the guy who doesn’t what to go to prison, as well as the people who want to send him there. Non-adversarial criminal trials may sound superficially nicer but in practice will mean that one side will not be fairly represented. You either have kangaroo courts – where the rights of the accused are waived – or you have a paradise for criminals. I am old fashioned enough to not favour either option.

“That is probably the worst thing to do to complainants who are coming forward to talk about very intimate and distressing violations of their sexual integrity,” he said.

What about the distress that an innocent man will have to endure for the next ten years in a federal prison?

“The high-profile Ghomeshi case has seen witnesses alter their statements under relentless cross-examination that often focused on details of memories dating back more than a decade”

This is an interesting point, and illustrates the need for a statute of limitations on sexual assault. These cases, especially after an intervening decade, devolve into a question of he said – she said, with no physical evidence or corroborating testimony available for either side. If memories are as unreliable as has been demonstrated in the Ghomeshi trial, how can anybody be found guilty of sexual assault beyond a reasonable doubt after a decade has passed?

“— a tactic deemed common among defence lawyers.”

This tactic is also common among prosecutors. This, because it is useful for separating truthful witnesses from perjurers and false accusers.

“Moving away from an adversarial model, I think, is going to be necessary because look at the Ghomeshi trial — who would voluntarily put themselves through that?”

Somebody with a desire for vengeance against a person who has done them grievous harm? Of course, that assumes, grievous harm has actually been inflicted.

“Canada’s legal system has made strides in the last few decades in trying to recognize the unique nature of sexual assault cases, including the implementation of rape shield laws that bar using a woman’s sexual history to discredit her.”

If the Ghomeshi trial illustrates anything at all, it is the absolute necessity of vigorous cross-examination. The testimony of every complainant was full of contradictions and fanciful stories that made no sense at all. If they hadn’t been exposed by cross-examination, what chance would Ghomeshi have to prove his innocence?

“Sexual violence is nonetheless often kept secret: a Statistics Canada survey found that only five per cent of sexual assaults were reported to police in 2014, a proportion consistent with previous studies.”

Really? So how do you go about counting something that is, by definition, unreported? I smell a statistical fish here - as well as another story about the corruption in our sciences.

What’s their solution?

“Creating a specialized court to deal with sexual assault cases, like those earmarked for young offenders or those accused with mental health issues, could help, although those tend to focus on the circumstances of the offender, Witelson said.”

A specialized court that focuses on the circumstances of the complainant? Sounds like a kangaroo court to me.

“In order to convict, the criminal justice system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard that is ‘almost impossible’ to meet, particularly in cases when the complainant and accused have an existing relationship, Butt said.

The civil system, meanwhile, needs only for one side to be more believable that the other, which increases the likelihood that someone will be held responsible, he said.”

See, what did I tell you. This validates what I said in my previous article:

“I also think this case points out how dangerous The Left really is. They demonstrate through their actions that they do not want justice at all - in any recognizable form of the word. What they want to do is to mete out group justice, like the way the Bolsheviks meted out group justice to the kulaks, or how Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge exterminated a third of Cambodia. If this assessment seem harsh, then let me ask you this: in what way is the feminist idea of justice in sexual assault cases different from communist persecution?”

You know, the social justice warriors are not going to stop. They are going to keep going until they achieve Pol Pot’s Year Zero. And green-eyeshades conservatives who just want to focus on ‘balancing the books’ while leave the messy, culture-war stuff to the Left, are inadvertently aiding and abetting them.

For this nonsense to stop, good men (and women) have to step up to the plate and stop them.

Comments

[neo]

*
you do get that ghomeshi has been getting away with this type of thing for thirty years, right?

if he assaulted these women without prior explicit consent, he goes down.

if the women perjured themselves or obstructed justice, there's penalties for that too.

one possibility does not exclude the other.

*

[Cincinnatus]

I agree that the witnesses should probably be charged with perjury. But then if that happens, what evidence did they present against Ghomeshi?

You do get that the accused can only be convicted by evidence that is presented in a trial, and that in this case no evidence at all was presented?

[JohnnyD]

What the feminists and their leftie allies seem to want is to strip the presumption of innocence from men accused of any offence against women.
It's not that I don't believe the accusations against Jian Ghomeshi. It's that the evidence does not support these accusations.
Who would write little love letters to her abuser after a vicious assault?
Really, the prosecutors should be sacked. And the police investigators. Yes, this is a culture war.

[Cincinnatus]

Right on the money Johnny D.

The only place where I would disagree is that I think the prosecutors and the police investigators knew that their case was a dog, but were forced to proceed, where they normally wouldn't have.

Don't forget that the then-police chief was Bill Blair, who was angling for a place in the Liberal Party (which he has since found). And the prosecutors have to answer to the Wynne government. I don't think I need to elaborate on the motivations of the latter.

[Mary]

You know that there are still women here that are victims? Never forget that. Once you have unfortunately been a victim of crime you will loose your lefty-progressive attitude.

[Damon]

Thing is, this supposed abuse of his is supposed to be systemic and pervasive, and yet, of all the ladies allegedly violated, the best ones to use to prosecute were these 3, who's camplaint dates back a decade, and who arent the best at all. Instead they are lying, colluding, scorned, fame and civil suit $ seeking, likely Borderline Personality females.
If anything, its a reflection of our 50 shades of Grey loving society and the mixed signals sent by them to Jian that is the issue here. -(from a left-winger).

[Cincinnatus]

Dear Mary:

I have not spoken about the other complainants because I have not heard their story yet.

I am a law and order guy, but I also insist on due process. The point of my article is that the due process rights, such as the right to cross-examine your accusers is critical for the determination of guilt.