Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Muliaina Arrested
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TRF_heineken" data-source="post: 722789" data-attributes="member: 40658"><p>Actually, the Westminster system of the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is a process that Defense and Prosecution tries to follow to win their case, and to uphold their ethics (which are dwindling more and more). In South Africa for example, you get 2 kinds of Rape, the normal Rape Crime, where the heinous act was done as we all know. And then we also have Statutory Rape, which is used in many other countries too. With Statutory Rape the accused just had to have sex with someone younger than 16 years to be convicted. If the Man for example had no idea that the girl was younger than 16, and that she consented to having sex with him, he'd still get a conviction against even though he's innocent of commiting the crime of Rape.</p><p></p><p>The term innocent isn't used that much by people in the law proffession. At least not here in SA. I think it's because it sort of has an absolute value connected to it, yet we all know not every person is completely innocent.</p><p></p><p>Also when trying to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't always result in getting off scott free. Look at Oscar Pistorius' trial as an example. The Defense proved beyond reasonable doubt that Oscar wasn't guilty of the act of Murder, yet the Judge ruled that he was guilty of Manslaughter, which wasn't an original count of what he was accused of. There are 2 factors to consider, a rule of law and a rule of fact, and sometimes the considerations brings out other penalties or crimes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TRF_heineken, post: 722789, member: 40658"] Actually, the Westminster system of the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is a process that Defense and Prosecution tries to follow to win their case, and to uphold their ethics (which are dwindling more and more). In South Africa for example, you get 2 kinds of Rape, the normal Rape Crime, where the heinous act was done as we all know. And then we also have Statutory Rape, which is used in many other countries too. With Statutory Rape the accused just had to have sex with someone younger than 16 years to be convicted. If the Man for example had no idea that the girl was younger than 16, and that she consented to having sex with him, he'd still get a conviction against even though he's innocent of commiting the crime of Rape. The term innocent isn't used that much by people in the law proffession. At least not here in SA. I think it's because it sort of has an absolute value connected to it, yet we all know not every person is completely innocent. Also when trying to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't always result in getting off scott free. Look at Oscar Pistorius' trial as an example. The Defense proved beyond reasonable doubt that Oscar wasn't guilty of the act of Murder, yet the Judge ruled that he was guilty of Manslaughter, which wasn't an original count of what he was accused of. There are 2 factors to consider, a rule of law and a rule of fact, and sometimes the considerations brings out other penalties or crimes. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rugby Union
General Rugby Union
Muliaina Arrested
Top