Scots Law, corroboration

The Scottish parliament is undergoing a review of an aspect of Scots Law know as
corroboration. What it essentially means is that for a case to be deemed worthy of
presentation before a judiciary, there must be two sources of corroborating evidence.
Victims groups have welcomed the review stating that the balance of the law at present
rests with the accused, the judiciary have stated that it will lead to the presentation
of weaker cases and fewer convictions and serves as a protection against false
accusation. Who feels that corroboration serves the principles of justice and who feels
that its archaic remnant from a bygone era? Who feels nothing and is simply numbed
by life?

I don't understand. Too much legal talk.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't understand. Too much legal talk.

at present if its only your word against someone else it is not deemed strong enough to
go before a judiciary, you need two sources of information which agree, or corroborate, like two witnesses.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I don't understand. Too much legal talk.

In other words, if you are going to wrongly accuse someone of something you now need to pay someone off as a witness.

Geesh!! 😛

Originally posted by whodey
In other words, if you are going to wrongly accuse someone of something you now need to pay someone off as a witness.

Geesh!! 😛

is this the same in America, do you need two witnesses before you can go to court?

Will prosecutors start bringing cases to court based on one shaky testimony ? Of course they won't, they like to win if they go into a courtroom. However, if there is only one, but very strong, source of evidence, it can now actually be used in a court, instead of being disqualified out of hand.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this the same in America, do you need two witnesses before you can go to court?

In America the sky is the limit. In fact, you can sue yourself and then counter sue yourself for sueing yourself. It's the land ruled by lawyers/politicians. Anything goes here.

Originally posted by Barts
Will prosecutors start bringing cases to court based on one shaky testimony ? Of course they won't, they like to win if they go into a courtroom. However, if there is only one, but very strong, source of evidence, it can now actually be used in a court, instead of being disqualified out of hand.

this is the argument of the judiciary that many weaker applications will now be made.

Originally posted by whodey
In America the sky is the limit. In fact, you can sue yourself and then counter sue yourself for sueing yourself. It's the land ruled by lawyers/politicians. Anything goes here.

a land ruled by lawyers and politicians, makes one quiver just to think of it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
a land ruled by lawyers and politicians, makes one quiver just to think of it.

In short, it is the most letigious society the world has ever produced. They can't so much as sneeze without fear of a lawsuit.

Originally posted by whodey
In short, it is the most letigious society the world has ever produced. They can't so much as sneeze without fear of a lawsuit.

If you hate the US so much, why are you still there?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
is this the same in America, do you need two witnesses before you can go to court?

There is a difference between civil and criminal actions. I am definitely an amateur but in the US you can sue anyone for anything without corroboration if you can convince a lawyer (or in small claims court without a lawyer) but you stand the risk of countersuits and/or having to pay court costs and for your opponent's legal fees if you lose. The standard is preponderance of evidence which would imply more than one piece of evidence.

In criminal law a public jurisdiction (state DA or Federal) has to decide if the complaint is a criminal act and if there is enough evidence to go to trial. Just about anything can be corroborating, it doesn't have to be a second witness, it can be video footage, fingerprints, DNA, bruises on the victim, finding the stolen goods at the accused's house etc. The standard is beyond a reasonable doubt which implies even more than in a civil case.

Courts can throw out or refuse to hear cases they deem frivolous.Look into "frivolous litigation." Of course appeals can be pursued.

I wonder if your post here is related to some similar discussions on Spirituality. I suggest that you search on "mandated (or mandatory) reporter." In certain situations a "mandated reporter" is legally required to report his suspicion of a crime to the police even if no one else suspects it. It is then up to the police to determine if an arrest and trial is warranted. They would certainly want some corroborating evidence. Clearly in the case of child abuse, if a mandated reporter made a report, the alleged victim would be interviewed and would serve as corroboration.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is the argument of the judiciary that many weaker applications will now be made.

Sure, it will have an effect in that direction as well, but for the reason I gave above I don't think it'll be too bad. As long as they don't require cases to go to court as soon as there is one testimony and let a competent prosecutor decide which cases have a chance and which don't.

I'd be interested to know if they did an actual study on it. There have to be similar justice systems that don't have this particular law (England/Wales/N Ireland ?). What if they took a sample of cases that went to trial there, but would have been rejected under the Scottish law, that would be a decent indicator for the effect of the repeal.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
If you hate the US so much, why are you still there?

Where is Whodey to go? I am surrounded by Sharia law and socialists!!

Then again, the socialists have more or less taken over, have they not?

Originally posted by whodey
Where is Whodey to go? I am surrounded by Sharia law and socialists!!

Then again, the socialists have more or less taken over, have they not?

I'm sorry. But you are paranoid. There are VERY few socialist countries in the world. And, actually, not that many Sharia law countries either.