Sexual Assault & Sexual Misconduct in the CF

[FJAG]

Well, thanks for calling my defence of a legal theory that our law has upheld as fundamental for centuries as an annoying correction of a small error or caring too much about minor details. Perhaps I prefer to see evidence properly challenged in court rather than the court of public opinion before I pronounce someone guilty of a criminal (or disciplinary) offence.

Or maybe I just don't like to slander someone's name before he has had a proper opportunity to defend himself. I'm kind of funny that way. But if you have a better way of determining what the "objective truth" is - feel free to form whatever opinion floats your boat. Personally, I don't condemn people on the basis of news reports and leaked stories.

 

[btrudy]

I am not making a legal argument here. I am merely saying that's now how people commonly use the English language.

Again, if you've got a better word to use, please let us know.

But I'm absolutely not going to start refraining from forming my own opinions unless there's a court judgement that backs it up. We all know that the courts do not always get things right. People who are innocent sometimes get convicted, and people who have committed crimes often are not found guilty. Especially when we're talking sexual assault, as a good 98%+ of sexual assaults never end up leading to a conviction.

 

[FJAG]

No one is telling you how to think. You're the one that came into this conversation calling me pedantic.

My position is simply that before you slander a person by calling him guilty of a crime on a public forum maybe you should think a little about it.

Your statistics about sexual assault are meaningless? There was no charge even remotely alleging that and the complainant never alleged sexual assault. By bringing sexual assault into the discussion the way that you are you are compounding the problem by suggesting to a casual reader that he's gotten away with something; something which was never there. I find that outrageous.

Have a good day. I've wasted enough of my time on this issue.

 

[ballz]

Perhaps I prefer to see evidence properly challenged in court rather than the court of public opinion before I pronounce someone guilty of a criminal (or disciplinary) offence.

There was other evidence admitted, such as the other emails by Whalen and witness testimony, all of which the defence had a chance to challenge. Doesn't sound to me like they challenged the authenticity of Whalen's emails or his own words "I failed as a leader and as a husband."

Hell, their only argument to get what the prosecution obviously was hanging their hat on not admitted (and what I am still grappling with to understand), was that the emails that weren't allowed into Court were in fact so personally damaging that... well... not I don't even know how to end that sentence because I still don't understand.

Or maybe I just don't like to slander someone's name before he has had a proper opportunity to defend himself.

One funny thing about all this from Whalen's legal counsel (and supporters) is what a travesty it is that he didn't get to tell his side of the story.. I'm sorry, but did I miss where he had a gag order placed on him? I am sure there are plenty of news outlets that would be happy to interview him and hear his side. Like the idea that he didn't "get" to go through a trial is somehow a bad thing for him?

Personally, I don't condemn people on the basis of news reports and leaked stories.

Sure, sure, but the fact that people can openly judge the outcome of an open justice system for themselves is a feature, not a bug.

 

[btrudy]

Your statistics about sexual assault are meaningless? There was no charge even remotely alleging that and the complainant never alleged sexual assault. By bringing sexual assault into the discussion the way that you are you are compounding the problem by suggesting to a casual reader that he's gotten away with something; something which was never there. I find that outrageous.

I would refer you to the title of this thread. We've been talking about sexual assault in general this entire time. This is not a thread specifically about General Whalen.

 

[Eaglelord17]

I am not making a legal argument here. I am merely saying that's now how people commonly use the English language.

Again, if you've got a better word to use, please let us know.

But I'm absolutely not going to start refraining from forming my own opinions unless there's a court judgement that backs it up. We all know that the courts do not always get things right. People who are innocent sometimes get convicted, and people who have committed crimes often are not found guilty. Especially when we're talking sexual assault, as a good 98%+ of sexual assaults never end up leading to a conviction.

There is better words and like a lot of great historical things, it came from the Scots. Guilty, and not proven.

Not proven legally is the same as not guilty. However we don’t prove people innocent in court, we prove their guilt. Not proven makes more sense from the aspect of we did not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, however that still doesn’t mean that they are innocent.

 

[dimsum]

Ehhhh... this to me seems like an overtly pedantic argument based upon occupational specific usage of a term, while ignoring the actual common definition / usage of said term.

Whether or not someone did that thing is a matter of objective truth; did that person actually do that thing or not. Whether or not the justice system can be convinced of that, even when evidence can get tossed or trials tossed for taking too long, etc, is another matter.

If you've got a better word to replace "guilty" with in that sentence that means "totally actually did do that thing he was accused of doing" without carrying the connotation of "is / will be found culpable of doing that thing in a court of law", I'm open to suggestions, but for most people the word guilty has far more to do with whether or not someone did something, and not with whether or not they've convicted at trial.

If the evidence isn't admissible, he certainly can't be found guilty, but he can BE guilty.

You do realize you’re “arguing” with someone whose profile picture is of the Legal branch badge, right?

Pedantic is their thing.

 

[captloadie]

I'm curious as to why this case was lumped into the sexual harassment/sexual assault category. From what I have read, and even if it isn't 100% accurate, what he was alleged to have done was change an individuals personnel evaluation to avoid it coming out that he had had a previous personal relationship with the individual. It was never insinuated that the individual was a direct subordinate at the time of the relationship, just that he was personally engaging with someone junior to him, when it may not have been appropriate due to his marital status (but once again, that is a morals issue being applied to him, not a legal one).

I also think in that case though that if the above is true, does the other individual involved not receive some sort of disciplinary/administrative action if they were indeed blackmailing him?

 

[Haggis]

just that he was personally engaging with someone junior to him, when it may not have been appropriate due to his marital status (but once again, that is a morals issue being applied to him, not a legal one).

That's far more than a morals issue. There are personal security and reliability concerns as well. Those, too, can be career ending events.

 

[btrudy]

You do realize you’re “arguing” with someone whose profile picture is of the Legal branch badge, right?

Pedantic is their thing.

Sure. And said pedanticism should be limited to occasions where it's appropriate. This isn't a courthouse. There's no reason to limit ourselves solely to the technical definitions of words as used therein. It's a message board on the internet; the common parlance is perfectly suitable here.

Otherwise it's like some naval folk insisting that it's a galley not a kitchen, even if said kitchen is located no where near a ship. Context determines whether or not usage is appropriate.

The thing about being pedantic is that the person you're correct should actually be wrong; that's not the case here.

 

[Blackadder1916]

Sure. And said pedanticism should be limited to occasions where it's appropriate. This isn't a courthouse. There's no reason to limit ourselves solely to the technical definitions of words as used therein. It's a message board on the internet; the common parlance is perfectly suitable here.

Otherwise it's like some naval folk insisting that it's a galley not a kitchen, even if said kitchen is located no where near a ship. Context determines whether or not usage is appropriate.

The thing about being pedantic is that the person you're correct should actually be wrong; that's not the case here.

Why should we limit ourselves to narrow technical definitions and what is the context? Where does can it lead us?

The simple answer is this "message board" does not belong to "us". Labeling an individual according to the "common parlance" (whatever that is) can sometimes bite one in the ass. Having an opinion about someone is one thing, publicly expressing it is another. The consequences of such does not always land solely on the individual using the common parlance. That is one reason that the owner of this site has published "guidelines". And on at least one occasion, the open discussion about an individual who subsequently took exception to how he was judged on these means led to expense to the site owner and continuing restrictions on further discussion.

 

[KevinB]

Sure. And said pedanticism should be limited to occasions where it's appropriate. This isn't a courthouse. There's no reason to limit ourselves solely to the technical definitions of words as used therein. It's a message board on the internet; the common parlance is perfectly suitable here.

Otherwise it's like some naval folk insisting that it's a galley not a kitchen, even if said kitchen is located no where near a ship. Context determines whether or not usage is appropriate.

The thing about being pedantic is that the person you're correct should actually be wrong; that's not the case here.

I don’t often agree with you, but I do in this case.

 

[lenaitch]

There is better words and like a lot of great historical things, it came from the Scots. Guilty, and not proven.

Not proven legally is the same as not guilty. However we don’t prove people innocent in court, we prove their guilt. Not proven makes more sense from the aspect of we did not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard, however that still doesn’t mean that they are innocent.

The option of a 'not proven' verdict has a historical background in Scotland and there have been on and off efforts to get rid of it. In a modern context, it is the same outcome as 'not guilty' and strikes me as rather pointless. It is the role of the judiciary in a liberal democracy to sanction actions, behavior (and sometimes expressions) - or not. There is no value in this sort of under-the-breath verdict that implies that we still think you did it.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The option of a 'not proven' verdict has a historical background in Scotland and there have been on and off efforts to get rid of it. In a modern context, it is the same outcome as 'not guilty' and strikes me as rather pointless. It is the role of the judiciary in a liberal democracy to sanction actions, behavior (and sometimes expressions) - or not. There is no value in this sort of under-the-breath verdict that implies that we still think you did it.

There is no value in declaring someone innocent even though that has not been proven.

Not Proven is the most accurate description of a result in our legal system as we don’t prove innocence. I would be much happier with a innocent verdict if we used the 17th century French law of guilty until proven innocent.

Our court system relies on beyond a reasonable doubt. That means we favour letting the guilty off for the slightest chance they didn’t do it. Not Proven reflects that reality. It also tends to be a lot better statement to make in terms of sexual assault as many times it comes down to ‘he said she said’ as opposed to hard evidence.

 

[TacticalTea]

I am not making a legal argument here. I am merely saying that's now how people commonly use the English language.

Again, if you've got a better word to use, please let us know.

But I'm absolutely not going to start refraining from forming my own opinions unless there's a court judgement that backs it up. We all know that the courts do not always get things right. People who are innocent sometimes get convicted, and people who have committed crimes often are not found guilty. Especially when we're talking sexual assault, as a good 98%+ of sexual assaults never end up leading to a conviction.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

It should be clear, by now - 6 years after the MeToo witch hunt / circus -, that feelings of regret and microaggressions do not constitute sex assault. You can't just use a survey on how people felt about previous sexual experiences as proof that sex assaults occurred.

That would amount to an absolute abuse of statistics.

It is certainly not 98%. Based on your source, it is at most 1 in 13, yet we know that some people regularly level frivolous accusations. Simple game theory. Absence of negative consequences + presence of positive consequences = unchecked increase in behaviour.

People have kind of wised up after the whole Depp/Heard affair.

 

[Furniture]

There is no value in declaring someone innocent even though that has not been proven.

Not Proven is the most accurate description of a result in our legal system as we don’t prove innocence. I would be much happier with a innocent verdict if we used the 17th century French law of guilty until proven innocent.

Our court system relies on beyond a reasonable doubt. That means we favour letting the guilty off for the slightest chance they didn’t do it. Not Proven reflects that reality. It also tends to be a lot better statement to make in terms of sexual assault as many times it comes down to ‘he said she said’ as opposed to hard evidence.

We don't declare people innocent though, we declare them "not guilty"... Given the finding is made in a court, and the legal definition of guilty is well established, there is no point in changing the wording.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I'm curious as to why this case was lumped into the sexual harassment/sexual assault category. From what I have read, and even if it isn't 100% accurate, what he was alleged to have done was change an individuals personnel evaluation to avoid it coming out that he had had a previous personal relationship with the individual. It was never insinuated that the individual was a direct subordinate at the time of the relationship, just that he was personally engaging with someone junior to him, when it may not have been appropriate due to his marital status (but once again, that is a morals issue being applied to him, not a legal one).

I also think in that case though that if the above is true, does the other individual involved not receive some sort of disciplinary/administrative action if they were indeed blackmailing him?

From what they've actually said on the trial, it wasn't even an actual relationship, just more of flirting. Inappropriate, sure. Chargeable, sure, under conduct unbecoming or something similar, but even then, their 'proof' seemed pretty flimsy.

The whole thing sounds a bit off really (maybe on both sides) but would be at most, a messy HR issue, not a chargeable offense if they were civilians.

I think lumping this under 'sexual assault' actually undermines actual sexual assaults, so was more to push outrage/click bait then actual honest journalism.

 

[TacticalTea]

I think lumping this under 'sexual assault' actually undermines actual sexual assaults, so was more to push outrage/click bait then actual honest journalism.

100%.

Funny thing in all this is that the allegedly feminist people are actually the same ones pushing for reduced sentences, commutations, affirmative action for criminals, no mandatory minimums, luxurious jails, etc.

It's all a complete charade, from top to bottom.

 

[Haggis]

Not Proven is the most accurate description of a result in our legal system as we don’t prove innocence. I would be much happier with a innocent verdict if we used the 17th century French law of guilty until proven innocent.

You mean like the court of public opinion, wherein, regardless of the outcome of a judicial trial, the accused remains guilty?.

Our court system relies on beyond a reasonable doubt. That means we favour letting the guilty off for the slightest chance they didn’t do it. Not Proven reflects that reality. It also tends to be a lot better statement to make in terms of sexual assault as many times it comes down to ‘he said she said’ as opposed to hard evidence.

I know of one particular case, close to me, where the some have suggested the accused be killed to save the expense of a trial because "they charged them, so they are obviously guilty". Others have suggested that the accused spouse should be charged as an accessory and fired from their job for supporting the accused, and that their children should be denied schooling - all this before the trial. So far, no one has taken any action against the accused or their family, but the possibility exists that some vigilante could visit violence upon them. This in addition to the pre-trial conditions imposed on the accused, adds a significant stress on the entire family and would continue, post-trial, in the case of a Not Proven verdict as you propose.

Is this what you want?

So, no, I don't support this one bit.

 

[Eaglelord17]

You mean like the court of public opinion, wherein, regardless of the outcome of a judicial trial, the accused remains guilty?.

I know of one particular case, close to me, where the some have suggested the accused be killed to save the expense of a trial because "they charged them, so they are obviously guilty". Others have suggested that the accused spouse should be charged as an accessory and fired from their job for supporting the accused, and that their children should be denied schooling - all this before the trial. So far, no one has taken any action against the accused or their family, but the possibility exists that some vigilante could visit violence upon them. This in addition to the pre-trial conditions imposed on the accused, adds a significant stress on the entire family and would continue, post-trial, in the case of a Not Proven verdict as you propose.

Is this what you want?

So, no, I don't support this one bit.

Heres a real life example. I had a case happen to me that was assault but bordered sexual assault with three other people involved. It took years for me to come forward but I did eventually. No alcohol involved on my part and I was actually on duty when it happened, they had been drinking.

Going through the court system, witness statements, etc. was a miserable experience. Finally went to summary trial for one of them (the other two would have been CMs). At trial they lied on the stand, stated what happened didn’t and actually made up some story about some other event which never happened. For the made up event they were found guilty of disgraceful conduct, and for the actual event they found them not guilty.

They are however guilty, I know this for a fact. There just wasn’t enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. I wish there was some magical way to show exactly what happened but there isn’t.

The crown also decided to drop the CMs based off the results of the summary trial.

Not proven is a much more accurate statement to make than not guilty as if I had more proof they would have been found guilty for their actions.