Scots Law, corroboration

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
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 ...[text shortened]...
that its archaic remnant from a bygone era? Who feels nothing and is simply numbed
by life?

Is it not so that the two sources need not be witnesses?
For example, a positive rape kit with an allegation of rape can be entertained in court.

If you lose corroboration, does it mean that a pure allegation (without a secondary source as a rape kit) can bring about a court case?

If that is the case, then it is madness.

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.

why dont you simply liquidate all the lawyers, problem solved, then the politicians,
problem solved, crisis over.

Originally posted by JS357
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 ...[text shortened]... ade a report, the alleged victim would be interviewed and would serve as corroboration.

The main thrust in Scotland are with rape cases, for there were some 150 cases last
year which did not make it before a judiciary because of the lack of corroboration. I
suspect we are not talking of an arbitrary attack on a random victim, but of some other
circumstance where force and coercion was used without consent between persons
who knew each other. How can one make a judgement if its one persons word against
another, party A saying it was consensual, party B saying it was not. I suspect that in
the former scenario, two corroborating factors might be CCTV images of the accused
near the scene, or DNA evidence and the victims own testimony.

Originally posted by Barts
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 ...[text shortened]... ted under the Scottish law, that would be a decent indicator for the effect of the repeal.

yes this is a great idea, i suspect that the review findings will have made similar
studies and comparisons but as i am a peasant farmer and not a member of the
Scottish parliament i have no access to it, or even if i had, i may not even be able to
understand it.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Is it not so that the two sources need not be witnesses?
For example, a positive rape kit with an allegation of rape can be entertained in court.

If you lose corroboration, does it mean that a pure allegation (without a secondary source as a rape kit) can bring about a court case?

If that is the case, then it is madness.

yes the two sources can be anything, for example the victim and DNA evidence. I
suspect its only a matter of time before its repealed. I am not sure what the
implications might be, but as it stands its only a review and the law remains as it is.

anyhow thanks to all who commented.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
why dont you simply liquidate all the lawyers, problem solved, then the politicians,
problem solved, crisis over.

Don't I need some kind of permit, especially if they are fur bearing?

Originally posted by shavixmir
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.

I wouldn't be paranoid if everyone was not after me. :'(

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?

How about South Africa? They have a small government and extremely high income inequality.

Originally posted by whodey
Don't I need some kind of permit, especially if they are fur bearing?

the only fur bearing critter i can think of is Donald Trump, but he regularly moults his
fur, so it could prove to be tricky. Speak to your solicitor if hes not already been killed
and if not, why not 🙂