2 edits
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?
5 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungat present if its only your word against someone else it is not deemed strong enough to
I don't understand. Too much legal talk.
go before a judiciary, you need two sources of information which agree, or corroborate, like two witnesses.
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 carrobieIn 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.
is this the same in America, do you need two witnesses before you can go to court?
Originally posted by Bartsthis is the argument of the judiciary that many weaker applications will now be made.
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 whodeya land ruled by lawyers and politicians, makes one quiver just to think of it.
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.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere 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.
is this the same in America, do you need two witnesses before you can go to court?
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 carrobieSure, 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.
this is the argument of the judiciary that many weaker applications will now be made.
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 whodeyI'm sorry. But you are paranoid. There are VERY few socialist countries in the world. And, actually, not that many Sharia law countries either.
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?