Jump to content

Crown v. Jian Ghomeshi


Life
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm going to rehash this case so that anyone who has not been following Canadian news can now follow along. Mostly because it's a doozy and to an aspiring law student such as myself, it's excellent food for thought.

Jian Ghomeshi was a radio host for a popular show on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's bill called Q. He wasn't extensively known but I had heard his name before. He interviewed many Canadians about different topics including Owen Pallett (of Arcade Fire) and Elvira Kurt (comedian who frequented the Just For Laughs festival in Montreal).

In October of 2014, Ghomeshi was let go from the CBC. I can't remember what the reason stated was but I do remember the response. Ghomeshi went to Facebook the next day and typed out a long letter about how he wanted everyone to know the truth. He was fired because of his enjoyment and participation in BDSM roleplay. A "jilted ex" was now out to ruin his career and the CBC had fired him to save face. He would be seeking reparations for this action and he wanted to let his fans know that he cared about them.

The message was entitled "Dear Everyone". I'm going to quote it in the spoiler so that you can read it. Needless to say, many people expressed their sympathy for Jian during the next 24 hours.

[spoiler=Dear Everyone]

Dear everyone,

I am writing today because I want you to be the first to know some news.

This has been the hardest time of my life. I am reeling from the loss of my father. I am in deep personal pain and worried about my mom. And now my world has been rocked by so much more.

Today, I was fired from the CBC.

For almost 8 years I have been the host of a show I co-created on CBC called Q. It has been my pride and joy. My fantastic team on Q are super-talented and have helped build something beautiful.

I have always operated on the principle of doing my best to maintain a dignity and a commitment to openness and truth, both on and off the air. I have conducted major interviews, supported Canadian talent, and spoken out loudly in my audio essays about ideas, issues, and my love for this country. All of that is available for anyone to hear or watch. I have known, of course, that not everyone always agrees with my opinions or my style, but I’ve never been anything but honest. I have doggedly defended the CBC and embraced public broadcasting. This is a brand I’ve been honoured to help grow.

All this has now changed.

Today I was fired from the company where I’ve been working for almost 14 years — stripped from my show, barred from the building and separated from my colleagues. I was given the choice to walk away quietly and to publicly suggest that this was my decision. But I am not going to do that. Because that would be untrue. Because I’ve been fired. And because I’ve done nothing wrong.

I’ve been fired from the CBC because of the risk of my private sex life being made public as a result of a campaign of false allegations pursued by a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.

As friends and family of mine, you are owed the truth.

I have commenced legal proceedings against the CBC, what’s important to me is that you know what happened and why.

Forgive me if what follows may be shocking to some.

I have always been interested in a variety of activities in the bedroom but I only participate in sexual practices that are mutually agreed upon, consensual, and exciting for both partners.

About two years ago I started seeing a woman in her late 20s. Our relationship was affectionate, casual and passionate. We saw each other on and off over the period of a year and began engaging in adventurous forms of sex that included role-play, dominance and submission. We discussed our interests at length before engaging in rough sex (forms of BDSM). We talked about using safe words and regularly checked in with each other about our comfort levels. She encouraged our role-play and often was the initiator. We joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady’s Giller-Prize winning book last year. I don’t wish to get into any more detail because it is truly not anyone’s business what two consenting adults do. I have never discussed my private life before. Sexual preferences are a human right.

Despite a strong connection between us it became clear to me that our on-and-off dating was unlikely to grow into a larger relationship and I ended things in the beginning of this year. She was upset by this and sent me messages indicating her disappointment that I would not commit to more, and her anger that I was seeing others.

After this, in the early spring there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety.

It came to light that a woman had begun anonymously reaching out to people that I had dated (via Facebook) to tell them she had been a victim of abusive relations with me. In other words, someone was reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious. I learned — through one of my friends who got in contact with this person — that someone had rifled through my phone on one occasion and taken down the names of any woman I had seemed to have been dating in recent years. This person had begun methodically contacting them to try to build a story against me. Increasingly, female friends and ex-girlfriends of mine told me about these attempts to smear me.

Someone also began colluding with a freelance writer who was known not to be a fan of mine and, together, they set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me. She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues — all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation. Everyone contacted would ask the same question, if I had engaged in non-consensual behavior why was the place to address this the media?

The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story. One assumes they recognized these attempts to recast my sexual behaviour were fabrications. Still, the spectre of mud being flung onto the Internet where online outrage can demonize someone before facts can refute false allegations has been what I’ve had to live with.

And this leads us to today and this moment. I’ve lived with the threat that this stuff would be thrown out there to defame me. And I would sue. But it would do the reputational damage to me it was intended to do (the ex has even tried to contact me to say that she now wishes to refute any of these categorically untrue allegations). But with me bringing it to light, in the coming days you will prospectively hear about how I engage in all kinds of unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom. And the implication may be made that this happens non-consensually. And that will be a lie. But it will be salacious gossip in a world driven by a hunger for “scandal”. And there will be those who choose to believe it and to hate me or to laugh at me. And there will be an attempt to pile on. And there will be the claim that there are a few women involved (those who colluded with my ex) in an attempt to show a “pattern of behaviour”. And it will be based in lies but damage will be done. But I am telling you this story in the hopes that the truth will, finally, conquer all.

I have been open with the CBC about this since these categorically untrue allegations ramped up. I have never believed it was anyone’s business what I do in my private affairs but I wanted my bosses to be aware that this attempt to smear me was out there. CBC has been part of the team of friends and lawyers assembled to deal with this for months. On Thursday I voluntarily showed evidence that everything I have done has been consensual. I did this in good faith and because I know, as I have always known, that I have nothing to hide. This when the CBC decided to fire me.

CBC execs confirmed that the information provided showed that there was consent. In fact, they later said to me and my team that there is no question in their minds that there has always been consent. They said they’re not concerned about the legal side. But then they said that this type of sexual behavior was unbecoming of a prominent host on the CBC. They said that I was being dismissed for “the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out.” To recap, I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life.

Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life.

And so, with no formal allegations, no formal complaints, no complaints, not one, to the HR department at the CBC (they told us they’d done a thorough check and were satisfied), and no charges, I have lost my job based on a campaign of vengeance. Two weeks after the death of my beautiful father I have been fired from the CBC because of what I do in my private life.

I have loved the CBC. The Q team are the best group of people in the land. My colleagues and producers and on-air talent at the CBC are unparalleled in being some of the best in the business. I have always tried to be a good soldier and do a good job for my country. I am still in shock. But I am telling this story to you so the truth is heard. And to bring an end to the nightmare.

Cue the shit-show.

The next day, the Toronto Star published an article about how three women had come forth and claimed that Jian Ghomeshi had sexually assaulted them without consent.

Less than 24 hours after people were expressing feelings of solidarity with Ghomeshi, these same people tried and convicted him in the court of public opinion.

In the next few weeks, the number of women claiming to have been sexually assaulted by Ghomeshi ramped up to almost twenty. The OPP arrested Ghomeshi on grounds of sexual assault and decided to take him to court.

Well, the court case is now over with a verdict due in about a month and a bit. Ghomeshi hired the best criminal defense lawyer in the country (Marie Henein) and she promptly tore all three of the complainants to pieces on the stand. Since the burden of proof in a criminal defense rests on the prosecution and requires Ghomeshi to be proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it is safe to say that Ghomeshi should be a free man come mid-March.

That's a pretty good synopsis of the case. Anyone want to venture out their thoughts before I do the same? This is a very high profile case in Canada so if you're American and you want to respond with "Who's that?", don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I remember reading that the Crown was going to delay the end of the case because they were flying in a fourth complainant, but I never remember checking up on that to see how it went. As far as what I do remember, I was particularly aghast at how the prosecution framed things after Ghomesi presented a hand-written letter that had been sent to him by one of the complanaints that cast doubt on her story. It was absurd to me, they were saying "Why did he save that letter for years" rather than "look at what was said in the letter". He was guilty in their minds regardless, and I guess I suppose that's the prosecutor's job, but it doesn't feel like justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought I remember reading that the Crown was going to delay the end of the case because they were flying in a fourth complainant, but I never remember checking up on that to see how it went. As far as what I do remember, I was particularly aghast at how the prosecution framed things after Ghomesi presented a hand-written letter that had been sent to him by one of the complanaints that cast doubt on her story. It was absurd to me, they were saying "Why did he save that letter for years" rather than "look at what was said in the letter". He was guilty in their minds regardless, and I guess I suppose that's the prosecutor's job, but it doesn't feel like justice.

Ghomeshi was tried and found guilty in ​the court of public opinion​. That is what is important to remember.

The law is correct. He cannot be found guilty with reasonable doubt. And there was enough of it floating around during the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if he's found to be not guilty, I'd like to see all of the accusing party trialed for false accusations. The entire case has more than likely destroyed Ghomesi's public reputation, and honestly it doesn't help real rape victims at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've followed this case to some extent, not so much because of the actual case but because of the calls it's spawned to rework the legal system for treating sexual assault cases. People have suggested changing things so that victims gain the right to not be cross-examined, similarly to how the accused doesn't have to testify either. I'm ok with that, but that probably wouldn't have changed the verdict in this case. I have a lot of sympathy for sexual assault victims, and it's probably true that we have a rape culture to some extent- but that doesn't mean that we should just mail in a guilty verdict whenever there's a sexual assault claim. Being innocent before proven guilty is what our justice system is based on.

As for whether or not he's actually guilty- shrug. I find it difficult to believe that so many women came out to make such complete fabrications. I think it's more likely that they (and the three complainants specifically) exaggerated parts to make it a stronger case, and the defence did a good job to find those falsehoods. I'm disappointed in the Crown and the complainant's lawyers, because I think they could have done a better job preparing the complainants. They could have done a better job taking the focus away from how the women understandably didn't make the most logical decisions under trauma, and towards what caused the trauma.

Edited by BBM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if he's found to be not guilty, I'd like to see all of the accusing party trialed for false accusations. The entire case has more than likely destroyed Ghomesi's public reputation, and honestly it doesn't help real rape victims at all.

Absolutely not.

I have no way to respond aside from the above two words. That would be a mockery of justice where you blame the victims.

Should we have a posthumous trial of OJ's wife because OJ was found innocent? Chris Rock said it best himself: "I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."

Edited by John Barrowman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to that- if Ghomeshi is acquitted, that means that the Crown was unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he assaulted the three complainants. Or phrased differently, Ghomeshi's lawyers were able to show that there was reasonable doubt. That's not the same as proving that the victims lied. You also can't try people criminally for lying; that would have to be a civil case. Proving specifically that they knowingly lied, and did so maliciously, is a totally different ballgame. I'd be surprised if Ghomeshi wants to take that route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly. Just because Ghomeshi cannot be found guilty ​beyond reasonable doubt ​does not mean he is innocent. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best-case scenario is everyone's reputation being ruined. Whether he's innocent or not should be decided by the justice system, and I think the media should butt out (this holds true for all other criminal cases). The peanut gallery doesn't have the same information as the lawyers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best-case scenario is everyone's reputation being ruined. Whether he's innocent or not should be decided by the justice system, and I think the media should butt out (this holds true for all other criminal cases). The peanut gallery doesn't have the same information as the lawyers!

Everyone but the defense lawyer. Marie Henein just cemented her legacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone but the defense lawyer. Marie Henein just cemented her legacy.

Bah, me and my awful wording. :P:

The plaintiffs/defendants, that is. The lawyers themselves have a job to do, and I'd expect nothing less than their best while doing so!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely not.

I have no way to respond aside from the above two words. That would be a mockery of justice where you blame the victims.

Should we have a posthumous trial of OJ's wife because OJ was found innocent? Chris Rock said it best himself: "I'm not saying he should have killed her... but I understand."

Posthumous trial? Oh come on, that's strawmanning my argument. My issue with this is that fake rape cases have been popping up everywhere, from Sulkowicz to the Rolling Stones scandal to Cassandra Kennedy. If there's evidence of said women having purposefully lied about being raped, they need to be trialed. If they were not raped and falsely accused an innocent man of doing so, they have a pretty clear lack of any morals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posthumous trial? Oh come on, that's strawmanning my argument. My issue with this is that fake rape cases have been popping up everywhere, from Sulkowicz to the Rolling Stones scandal to Cassandra Kennedy. If there's evidence of said women having purposefully lied about being raped, they need to be trialed. If they were not raped and falsely accused an innocent man of doing so, they have a pretty clear lack of any morals.

But they're ​not ​fake.

I'm not one to go into ad hominums when it comes to intelligent arguments but I honestly believe that you're a moron. Just because the Crown cannot prove ​beyond reasonable doubt that Jian Ghomeshi sexually abused these women does not mean that he did not. There were rumours floating around for almost a decade that Ghomeshi was a shady character when it came to his private life but people dismissed it as just rumours because whatever he did behind closed doors was his business.

Until we all found out that it was ​illegal​. But once again, this cannot be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The only person here lacking in morals is you. You are basically saying that any man who is acquitted from charges of sexual assault is blameless. That is fucked up. By your logic, OJ is blameless because he was also acquitted.

"BUT WE ALL KNOW THAT OJ KILLED HIS WIFE!"

And everyone knows that Jian Ghomeshi beat those women. But as with OJ, it cannot be proved in a court of law by the law's standards in order to convict the man.

EDIT: Your comment is making a mockery of the legal system. You clearly do not understand how it works. Do some research first before you decide to throw in your two cents.

Edited by John Barrowman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they're ​not ​fake.

Emma Sulcowicz:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/03/columbia-student-i-didn-t-rape-her.html

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/24/the-text-of-the-mattress-girl-lawsuit-will-shock-you/

I don't think even the most radical of feminists will say that there was a shred of truth to the Rolling Stones scandal

Cassandra Kennedy herself admitted that she had falsely accused her father.

When it comes to rape, there's relatively easy-to-access evidence if the rape is reported immediately. DNA on both parties, emotional and physical signs of trauma. Even when fingerprinting isn't a 100% foolproof method, there's fingerprints on the raped person's clothing and other things said person may be wearing.

I more than know that the legal system is not perfect, but it just happens to be that rape is one of the easiest crimes to prove because of the abundance of potential evidence-I haven't said anything about beating women or murder cases that remain unclear. ((EDIT: And Presumption of Innocence is something necessary to prevent witchhunts of people))

I just noticed that you mentioned sexual assault and not rape in specific, however I did mention rape specifically in my posts. I'll retract my statement that the accusers should be specifically tried for false accusations because this is sexual assault and not rape specifically, but let it be clear that this whole conversation could've been avoided if you had corrected me that the accusations weren't of rape in specific.

Edited by tuvarkz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2vn1ez7.jpg

Wow shit is way more complicated than that. What if it isn't reported immediately? Do you blame the victim for that? This doesn't seem to be a low-profile case.

Since you're bringing in other cases you deem to be fake rape cases, I don't feel it's unfair to ask: would you recommend Bill Cosby go after his 50+ accusers if he's acquitted, under the assumption that they're liars because they failed to adequately prove their case? Because that's what you seem to conclude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just noticed that you mentioned sexual assault and not rape in specific, however I did mention rape specifically in my posts. I'll retract my statement that the accusers should be specifically tried for false accusations because this is sexual assault and not rape specifically, but let it be clear that this whole conversation could've been avoided if you had corrected me that the accusations weren't of rape in specific.

This is how I know how you don't know what's going on.

Jian Ghomeshi did not rape those women. Jian Ghomeshi beat those women without consent.

Have you ever heard of BDSM? That is what this case is about. He didn't force himself on these women and none of them have claimed that. But what remains clear is that these women claim to have been beaten by Jian Ghomeshi during sex. And while it is near impossible to prove in a court of law, that doesn't make him innocent.

And another thing. I have not once used the word rape in this topic. Only you. If I meant rape, I would have said it. I said that he sexually assaulted these women because he was tried for sexual assault and not statutory rape. It is not my fault that A) your morals are still fucked up and B) your reading comprehension skills are terrible.

Even if this was a case of rape, this is ten years after the fact. Do you even understand how traumatizing it is to be raped by another human being? Here is an example from Canada. Let me list some of the more shocking statistics for you.

- 1 in 4 North American women will be sexually assaulted during their lifetime.

- Only 2~4% of sexual assault reports are false.

- Only 6% of sexual assaults are reported to the police on average.

The last statistic that I mentioned is tragic. Six fucking percent. That's 94 people out of 100 who are too emotionally scarred or scared or ashamed to report a ​criminal offense​. That is how fucking serious this is.

You need to get your head out of your ass right now.

Edited by John Barrowman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, even if he gets off his life is still effectively ruined. And yeah, Tukvarz, charging women who make rape accusations when the defendant is found not guilty is a great way to prevent even more women from coming forwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Naughx: Agreed-DNA and fingerprints only stay fresh for so long.

Well, apparently I just found a couple articles that show circumstancial evidence that the BDSM play was more than likely consensual in at least two of the cases.

Also, let's give a look at the Bureau of justice statistics on female sexual assault and rape: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf

Figure 2, taking into account the 2005 figures to set up a clear average because we're talking these values per each year of a person's life.

So, taking a 2.5 per 1000 rate of non-college age females from ages 12-17 and 25-60 (Taking into account that 0-11 probably belongs in the pedophilia general category; and 60+ value is more than likely to go down in numbers pretty fast), plus a 6 per 1000 from ages 18-24 nets up a result of 144.5 in 1000 result, which is equivalent to 1 in 7(1 in 6 if you go up to 70 years old, both values rounded up). (Which, while doesn't sound that big when compared to 1 in 4, becomes a difference of 34 million rape cases when applied to the US's 320 million people in specific)

For canada:(2008) 68 per 100,000 female rape cases reported, taking into account the stated in document only 8% of cases reported means there's 850 per hundred thousand, or 8.5 per thousand (Which apparently is significantly higher than the US rates).

Going to Table I for specifics (Assuming the ages are capped at 75)...well, apparently if we take into account year persons, 1 in 2 Canadian women will be sexually assaulted over the course of their lifetime. (Of course, then, about 90% of those are defined as assault level 1-defined as minor to no physical injuries on the victim).

And you'd do well to remember that 'sexual assault' also includes unwanted groping and similar stuff, which the victim might not even have bothered reporting because they didn't care enough about it.

EDIT: And for the 1 in 4 north american women will be raped over the course of their lifetime to be true, well of the 565 Million people north Americans, 320 are US citizens and 35 are Canada citizens, which means that Mexico and the rest of Hispanic countries well need a higher than 1 in 2 overall statistic to make the 1 in 4 value real.

Edited by tuvarkz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This still doesn't explain why you are going out of your way to blame the victims. As it has been mentioned, the Crown failing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi abused these women does not mean that they are lying about it simply to slander him. I attribute it more to the Crown failing to prepare their witnesses properly considering they were going to suffer rigorous cross-examinations.

And you're also not considering the psychological effect that sexual abuse has. Sexual abuse isn't measured by the amount of bruises on the face. And yet, it seems the point of your argument is that "well, they're mostly liars".

Edited by John Barrowman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some thoughts I want to share on this issue. I do not have any opinion one way or another as to whether or not Jian Ghomeshin is guilty, and I do not know as much about forensics as tuvarsk seems to. But, what I DO know is Psychology. I already completed my Bachelor's in it, actually, so here's what I want to say. It is perfectly reasonable for women to go 10 years without ever bringing any charges against their rapist. I don't mean "reasonable" in the sense that it's logical, of course. I'm saying it's reasonable because of how a victim's mind works.

First of all, denial is a powerful thing. Many people do not have a strong enough mind to comprehend being assaulted by someone all while being violated at the exact same time. Oftentimes they will enter a stage of dissociation and denial. Dissociation, by the way, is the act of trying to separate yourself from reality. This, for example, often happens with children from abusive families. They fool themselves into thinking that they are outside observers into what's happening to their own bodies.

And with denial, they try to find all sorts of ways to get control of their situation. They'll think "maybe if I hadn't been wearing this or that, this wouldn't have happened to me". Or, "hey, that wasn't non consensual, I TOTALLY wanted that.". They do this because they do not want to believe that horrible things can happen to them no matter what they do. They'll fool themselves into thinking they somehow "prevented" what happened to them, even if it means tanking their own self-image in the process.

And speaking of shame, that's yet another barrier as well. Sex is, by itself, an inherently pleasurable act. Oftentimes you'll have orgasms even as you're being assaulted. If you're a typical female, who's been taught to prize their own purity and to avoid being a "slut", you're going to go "WHY THE HELL AM I FEELING THIS WAY?!? Why is my body getting PLEASURE from this?! Only SLUTS are supposed to enjoy being assaulted!! Does that make me some kind of freak?! And if I am, does that mean I somehow could have avoided this by being a more pure-hearted' woman?"

So now, in addition to everything else, the woman (and man) is now starting to question their own self-worth. For many, it gets to the point where they start entering the prostitution trade. "I'm already damaged goods, may as well go and get some money while I'm at it."

All of these issues can take months, even YEARS for a woman to work through. By the time they're finally ready to bring charges against the person who assaulted them, all the evidence that made rape "one of the most easily provable crimes" (as tuvarsk said) is long gone. Now, all you have left is your personal testimony. If you're trying to sue, say, Bill Cosby (and I don't know if he's guilty or not), you have to face this harsh reality. It is your word against someone who has way more money than you, and way better lawyers than you. AND, in addition to that, you're going to be required to look at the man who assaulted you for each and every day that you're in court.

Oh, and here's the kicker. If you lose your case, and your rapist and his lawyers manage to turn public opinion against you? That's it, you lose. Now, in ADDITION to the trauma that you already suffered all those years ago, you now get to be PUNISHED for trying to bring any charges against the man who raped you. You get to become a running punch line! You get to have tabloid articles written about you! You get to have people call you a money-grubbing skank!

So if it seems weird that women will only hop on the "he assaulted me!" bandwagon after several years of saying nothing? Well, that's why. It's a chain-reaction effect. These women see "oh, someone else is challenging this guy, and it looks like they might win! Now's my chance to FINALLY have justice done for me!". Now all of a sudden, that guy who seemed so scary and untouchable...doesn't seem so scary and untouchable anymore.

Does this make sense to everyone? All these 50+ who are accusing Ghomeshi could very well be lying. But on the other hand, it also makes complete sense that they would wait as long as they did. So really, unless we happen to actually be close to these events, none of us should presume to know a blasted thing about what happened. That's not the most satisfying thing to say, I know, but it's the truth :/ ...

Edited by FionordeQuester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, if he's found to be not guilty, I'd like to see all of the accusing party trialed for false accusations. The entire case has more than likely destroyed Ghomesi's public reputation, and honestly it doesn't help real rape victims at all.

It's very hard to convict someone of false accusations, because you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi didn't rape them, something that is likely not possible.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very hard to convict someone of false accusations, because you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Ghomeshi didn't rape them, something that is likely not possible.

Proving someone didn't do it is rarely possible because we're talking about negative proof. Proof is supposed to make a truth evident, how do you make something that didn't happen evident? Hence why presumption of innocence exists and why the burden of proof is always on s/he who accuses, while the defense has no obligation to show proof that the defendant didn't do it. Their job is debunking the accusations by showing its inconsistencies.

Honestly, if he's found to be not guilty, I'd like to see all of the accusing party trialed for false accusations. The entire case has more than likely destroyed Ghomesi's public reputation, and honestly it doesn't help real rape victims at all.

The non-sequitur aside (I'd be repeating what others have already said), I'm also concerned by false rape accusations (and I'm not claiming this is such a case). It's one of these accusations that can ruin someone's life, even when the defendant is considered not guilty or when the case and evidences seem too flimsy and it all seems to be a lie. Because of the unevitable high damage that such charges deal, I think that lies should be especially taken more seriously and those who do should be punished accordingly.

Rape cases seem absolutely horrible to deal with, because in the end of the day, if it isn't as explicit and "straightforward" as taking someone and forcefully abusing them, it opens a lot of doors to subjectivity and controversy, and these opportunities will be exploited by a cunning lawyer to distort the truth. Evidences also tend to disappear with time, and usually victims do not report abuses as soon as they're made. It is also difficult to prove that it wasn't done, so even defendants who were declared not guilty will not be able to erase that doubt from public and they might as well be seen as acquitted criminals (see the people from this thread that are saying "It's obvious X did that, even though they were declared innocent by Court...". 'Common sense' can be a really shitty field of knowledge sometimes). It's a double edge that can easily be used for difamatory purposes by opportunists and, on the other hand, exploited by rapists. Thus, I share that member's sentiment, even if I disagree with his argument.

Edited by Rapier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, the public will forgive an accused rapist if they want to. I'd argue this works in their favor more often than not - Kobe Bryant's rape accusation is all but an afterthought now because he has fans. It's when you get the mountains and mountains of accusers and evidence begins to crop up when doubt finally begins to really set in. Bill Cosby is actually a good example of this: rumors had been flitting about in the shadows for a LONG time before someone brought it up again (strangely enough a comedian) and accusers began finally sharing the full extent of their stories with the public and with each other. This case sounds like it has far more in common with the latter than the former.

If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you have to have much more than just your word versus theirs. Reasonable doubt is NOT that difficult to prove at all unless your lawyers suck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Generally speaking, the public will forgive an accused rapist if they want to. I'd argue this works in their favor more often than not - Kobe Bryant's rape accusation is all but an afterthought now because he has fans. It's when you get the mountains and mountains of accusers and evidence begins to crop up when doubt finally begins to really set in. Bill Cosby is actually a good example of this: rumors had been flitting about in the shadows for a LONG time before someone brought it up again (strangely enough a comedian) and accusers began finally sharing the full extent of their stories with the public and with each other. This case sounds like it has far more in common with the latter than the former.

If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you have to have much more than just your word versus theirs. Reasonable doubt is NOT that difficult to prove at all unless your lawyers suck.

Exactly. Calling out anyone with any kind of fame to them is a definite gamble, so it's no surprise that the victims would only wait till years after the fact. On the flip side though, there's always that chance that the accused is innocent, and you certainly don't want to take any chances of giving someone life without parole for something they didn't do.

Edited by FionordeQuester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...