I was totally fooled by your thumbnail. I really thought that you guys had a shiny new set! My missus looked over my shoulder and asked: "Is that AI?" And it was. Thanks for your hard work. I really appreciate the expertise you bring to the subject.
Years ago I was in a relationship with someone who looked a lot like my ex. Same height, hair style, body type. While downtown, a friend saw me, and her from behind. He proceeded to give her a hug. Not knowing it was someone he never met. Fortunately, everything was good. No charges. But that scenario is very possible.
So here is a question with this new law/ case law: This regime seems to force the defendant onto the stand. Should no evidence other than accusation exist, the defendant is forced to take the stand as long as the accuser can tell a coherent story. This seems to rub against the defendants rights, so how does the law deal with this?
@Taoscape I strongly believe a judge or jury wants to hear from the client. I have called clients in 90% of my cases and many times the client was in fact believed and I some found factually innocent. I think it is vital for an accused to rebut the allegations.
1:30 When Canadians say "evidence" they often mean "testimony". The word can mean both testimony and physical evidence in Canda (and UK and maybe other places).
Do these cases go to trial based on the Crown, or is there an advocate on the side of the complainant? I base this on my experience on a jury for an SA trial. "No-one would believe me, I'm a man". The truth comes out at the very end...
Nobody advocates for the accused. Defence counsel are highly skilled professionals who will explain the legal process to an accused and this is very important
There are no complainants involved in a criminal trial. A complainant initiates a court action against another party in a civil action, whereas a Crown Attorney will attempt to convict an individual who’s been charged with a criminal offence by trial if the accused claims they’re innocent of the charge.
No one should ever be ARRESTED, let alone trialed and convicted of SA over a case of mistaken identity like that. Yes, it is VERY SAD that a poor girl was scared by a doofus drunk guy. But we should not be putting people in jail for that.
While I was acquitted based on W.(D)., the prosecutor, in closing, tried to argue that W.(D). did not apply, but did not give reasons. Also, the judge, as a trier of fact, found that the 'corroborating witness' did not corroborate any actus reas. The bottom line is, in Canada, we have a legal regime that invites false allegations of sexual assault, where women have no liability of false allegations. When I made a formal complaint of a Section 140 offense, the police refused to take it seriously, and made manifestly false statements in a VPB meeting about my complaint. People should know, in Canada, police and prosecutors do not care about your charter rights and freedoms wrt sexual assault. The police will lie about facts to cover their ass.
I must strongly disagree with this idea that the historical requirement for corroborating evidence, or any historical definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that required it, created a problem for SAs that took place entirely behind closed doors. If anyone, child or adult, tells you that they saw a ghost, do you then become a believer in the idea that ghosts exist and walk among us? If you don't, i.e. you continue to doubt that there are ghosts among us even after someone tells you that they saw one, then you concede that the testimony of a single witness isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt, since there's always a reasonable possibility that a witness could be lying or delusional no matter how straightforward they might seem. If an actual SA occurs behind closed doors, such that the only initial evidence is the victim's word, the victim can go to the police and the police can use all kinds of investigative techniques to gather corroborating evidence that wasn't available initially. They can try to trick the suspect into talking about it when they think they aren't being recorded, they can conduct some kind of sting operation with a decoy victim, they can get a search warrant for the suspect's electronic devices and look for incriminating emails and text messages, etc. This is actually much easier to do now, in the twenty-first century, than it was back when the corroboration requirement was in vogue. Charging someone, let alone convicting, on as much evidence as a ghost sighting is lackadaisical and reprehensible. It makes a mockery of the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and puts the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of those who care about objective truth.
0:00 I would like to compliment Diana and Joseph on the new water-based podcast format. Really glad to see that. Kudos to everyone!!
@@kirdref9431 thank you. Too tied for Scotch
I was totally fooled by your thumbnail. I really thought that you guys had a shiny new set! My missus looked over my shoulder and asked: "Is that AI?" And it was.
Thanks for your hard work. I really appreciate the expertise you bring to the subject.
Years ago I was in a relationship with someone who looked a lot like my ex. Same height, hair style, body type. While downtown, a friend saw me, and her from behind. He proceeded to give her a hug. Not knowing it was someone he never met.
Fortunately, everything was good. No charges. But that scenario is very possible.
Such an immensely informative and fun channel! Keep up the great content 👍
@@purplezoid1 thank you
So here is a question with this new law/ case law: This regime seems to force the defendant onto the stand. Should no evidence other than accusation exist, the defendant is forced to take the stand as long as the accuser can tell a coherent story. This seems to rub against the defendants rights, so how does the law deal with this?
@Taoscape I strongly believe a judge or jury wants to hear from the client. I have called clients in 90% of my cases and many times the client was in fact believed and I some found factually innocent. I think it is vital for an accused to rebut the allegations.
@@josephneuberger4166 Yes of course. However, it still seems to be taking a pretty big option off the table for the defendant.
@Taoscape I understand the concern but if well prepared, I don't see the downside.
I've been watching Diana Davison since she was in Vancouver. It would be interesting to know her story and how she has come to her beliefs.
Is this Diana Davison from men's rights/Paul elam era?
Feminism lol- my my how I've found you again.
1:30 When Canadians say "evidence" they often mean "testimony". The word can mean both testimony and physical evidence in Canda (and UK and maybe other places).
@kirdref9431 testimony is evidence and you are correct other forms of evidence is present so we can delineate a bit more in our discussions.
there are instances where people have been convicted of murder despite the victim's body never being found.
💔
Do these cases go to trial based on the Crown, or is there an advocate on the side of the complainant? I base this on my experience on a jury for an SA trial.
"No-one would believe me, I'm a man". The truth comes out at the very end...
Crown discretion to proceed
Nobody advocates for the accused.
Defence counsel are highly skilled professionals who will explain the legal process to an accused and this is very important
@Talksin403 Yes and thank you.
There are no complainants involved in a criminal trial. A complainant initiates a court action against another party in a civil action, whereas a Crown Attorney will attempt to convict an individual who’s been charged with a criminal offence by trial if the accused claims they’re innocent of the charge.
@@Talksin403The accused can hire an attorney to advocate for them.
4:50 JDRD (2006) is another case that created case law.
JJRD?
No one should ever be ARRESTED, let alone trialed and convicted of SA over a case of mistaken identity like that. Yes, it is VERY SAD that a poor girl was scared by a doofus drunk guy. But we should not be putting people in jail for that.
While I was acquitted based on W.(D)., the prosecutor, in closing, tried to argue that W.(D). did not apply, but did not give reasons. Also, the judge, as a trier of fact, found that the 'corroborating witness' did not corroborate any actus reas. The bottom line is, in Canada, we have a legal regime that invites false allegations of sexual assault, where women have no liability of false allegations. When I made a formal complaint of a Section 140 offense, the police refused to take it seriously, and made manifestly false statements in a VPB meeting about my complaint. People should know, in Canada, police and prosecutors do not care about your charter rights and freedoms wrt sexual assault. The police will lie about facts to cover their ass.
What does WD stand for? 3:50 Oh, it is the initials of an accused in a 1994 case.
@@kirdref9431 the case Regina v W..D. Supreme Court of Canada case on how to assess testimony.
I must strongly disagree with this idea that the historical requirement for corroborating evidence, or any historical definition of "beyond a reasonable doubt" that required it, created a problem for SAs that took place entirely behind closed doors.
If anyone, child or adult, tells you that they saw a ghost, do you then become a believer in the idea that ghosts exist and walk among us? If you don't, i.e. you continue to doubt that there are ghosts among us even after someone tells you that they saw one, then you concede that the testimony of a single witness isn't enough to overcome reasonable doubt, since there's always a reasonable possibility that a witness could be lying or delusional no matter how straightforward they might seem.
If an actual SA occurs behind closed doors, such that the only initial evidence is the victim's word, the victim can go to the police and the police can use all kinds of investigative techniques to gather corroborating evidence that wasn't available initially. They can try to trick the suspect into talking about it when they think they aren't being recorded, they can conduct some kind of sting operation with a decoy victim, they can get a search warrant for the suspect's electronic devices and look for incriminating emails and text messages, etc. This is actually much easier to do now, in the twenty-first century, than it was back when the corroboration requirement was in vogue.
Charging someone, let alone convicting, on as much evidence as a ghost sighting is lackadaisical and reprehensible. It makes a mockery of the idea of "beyond a reasonable doubt" and puts the administration of justice into disrepute in the eyes of those who care about objective truth.