Trump rape allegation
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-07-2016, 12:50 PM
RE: Trump rape allegation
(22-07-2016 11:57 AM)epronovost Wrote:  
(22-07-2016 03:57 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  This is only true in the case where the victimhood of the plaintiff is uncontested, in that case , the term "victim" is fully justified ,but in cases where plaintiff is yet to prove that he was in fact a victim of a crime this is not so and in that case the term "victim" is not justified , and like I said, and like it says in the article you provided , courts do make that distinction, for some reason you refuse to, even tho it is a matter of common sense, if there was no crime committed there can`t be a victim of said crime.

To which I reply with the paragraph bellow.

[i]Once an individual is accused
of a crime, he or she acquires the legal status of
“defendant.” Just as a jury is instructed that the
legal status of “defendant,” cannot be viewed as
evidence of defendant’s guilt, a jury can also be
instructed that the legal status of “victim” cannot
be viewed as evidence of defendant’s guilt. As
shown by the majority of the case law on the
subject, curative instructions are a simple and
effective way of allowing a victim to exercise
his or her rights in the criminal proceedings
while eliminating prejudice to the defendant.
Concealing a victim’s legal status, or making
the use of the term “victim” contingent on the
defendant’s choice of defense, is an improper
and unnecessary way to protect a defendant’s
rights; it trivializes a victim’s role in the criminal
proceedings and inappropriately renders victims’
constitutional and statutory rights dependent
on defendants’ litigation strategy
. In order to
fulfill the purpose of victims’ rights laws, courts
need to permit the use of the term “victim” as
recognition of a victim’s unique and important
position in the criminal justice system.

In other terms, no, denying that crime happen (thus that there was a victim at all) isn't a valid argument, since it infringes on the rights of the victim to be treated fairly. Of course, some jurisdiction do allow defense to use the term alledge victim when a defender's defense rely on denying any crime has been committed. One needs to remember though that this is part of a defense strategy. Considering the fact that the term «alledge victim» is pretty much only used in sexual assault/rape cases and not in cases of murder that might be suicide, robbery, insurrence reclamations, etc. one can legitimetly question such practice to be more akin to victim denying or blamming insteat of a real concern to give a fair treatment to the defender.

PS: In that case, though I would refer to this women as a victim, I don't think Trump is guilty of anything really reprehensible (maybe he made a kind of salacious advance to her at some point, but nothing criminal, far from there). Neither do I think it's a liberal plot to attack him.

Your argument is irrelevant to the subject at hand. You are still providing the arguments for justification of the term "victim" within the criminal justice system and as a legal term and my objection is to the use of the term "victim" outside of the legal system, on this forum.

Once and if this becomes the matter of a criminal investigation and the criminal charges have been made against Trump, I have no objection to the usage of the term "victim" .

You are making me defend someone I don't want to defend , but when your bias is showing ( without even a shred of evidence that Trump did anything wrong , you are assuming he did, just maybe not as bad as rape, "maybe he made salacious advance" ) even when you are trying not to be biased , I feel it's necessary.
This forum resembles an echo chamber way too much as it is.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: