Should I start a #JeSuisChedEvans campaign? http://t.co/i6kM5BjQX3 #ChedEvans
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 16, 2015
@TheSistaSensi "I am a believer in adhering to the principle of only convicting the accused if he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt"
— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) January 16, 2015
There is no way "Je suis un croyant dans le respect du principe de seulement condamner l'accusé se il est coupable au-delà de tout doute raisonnable" would fit into a tweet, so we will have to go with JeSuisChedEvans, boys and girls.
Girls will say in tones of horror and disgust "Oh, but I would never roast another chick with my mates." http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=roasting
But it is easy to condemn a crime that you have no inclination to commit, isn't it?
What if it because a crime attracting corporal punishment if you are found guilty of having had extramarital sex attracting the punishment of 100 lashes?
You wouldn't be so cavalier about the criminal standard of proof then, would you?
Both girls and boys should reflect on the principle, unique to the English legal system, that no one accused of a crime shall be convicted unless guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt.
There are two standards of proof in our courts of law.
If you are charged with a crime, you are not supposed to be convicted until after a fair trial and the evidence is sufficient to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt - 75+%.
The lower standard of proof is for civil cases when the court is to find in favour of the party who has proven a claim on the balance of probabilities - 50+%.
Was the criminal standard of proof satisfied in the case of Ched Evans case? NO.
The most important point to bear in mind about Ched Evans’ conviction is that the criminal standard of proof was not satisfied.
The complainant offered no evidence because she said she could not remember anything, yet she was obviously a slag because she was prepared to have sex with a stranger she met in a kebab shop.
If she was offering no evidence, then she was unable to confirm or refute the evidence of both defendants even as both defendants corroborated each other's testimony.
At no time did the judge direct the jury appropriately as to whether Ched Evans had grounds for reasonable belief that the complainant had consented. His defence was that he had because the complainant said he could have sex with her provided he performed a sexual favour for her, which he did. Having done so – and this was corroborated by the first defendant Clayton McDonald – he proceeded to have sex with her having reasonable belief as to her consent.
Of course, the jury could choose not to believe Ched Evans, but if they chose not to believe him, they could not have reached a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. It could only have been reached on the balance of probabilities because the complainant herself offered no evidence, while the two defendants corroborated each other’s testimony.
For some reason this technicality was not raised by the defence or if raised was not taken by the judge, nor was it raised at appeal.
If ever you were accused of a crime and value your liberty and reputation, you will know how precious this right is.
It is not unknown for women to be accused of crimes, is it?
Ched Evans won't have much of a chance, I know because most of the judiciary are libtard. The ones who are not are punished as Judge Joanna Greenberg has been.
Ever wondered why our courts have a Leftist bias?
Leftie bishops, liberal judges, a biased BBC and how the gutless Tories lost control of our national institutions
Sex with consent ‘can still be rape’ says libtard judge Lord Judge
Igor Judge is a LIBTARD, a running dog of the feminazis and a feminazi apologist
SHOCK HORROR: arrested female judge also an SSM!
No comments:
Post a Comment