Make it so that, unless indisputable evidence is provided by the accuser, they run the risk of serving the sentence which the accused would have served if found guilty.

The justice of Solomon!

And do away with compensation.

PaulB wrote:
serving the sentence which the accused would have served if found guilty.


Fuck that.

Scaphism should be the penalty.


DO NOT GOOGLE IT

PaulB wrote:
Make it so that, unless indisputable evidence is provided by the accuser, they run the risk of serving the sentence which the accused would have served if found guilty.

The justice of Solomon!

What false allegations?, these are just allegations, we don't yet know that they are true or false. Keven Spacey hasn't actually denied any of the allegations. I admit that one of the Rolf allegations has proven to be unsafe, because the eye witness was lying, but most of the others remain under investigation. Many of the stories are storms in a teacup (knee touching, writing letters stating that women are attractive), but there is no indication that these are false.

What do you call indisputable evidence? high definition video. In your world, everyone would be afraid to report it if they were robbed, raped, or attacked because if they couldn't prove it, they would be criminalised themselves. Off course there is a very small risk of false imprisonment, but this is far better than living in a world where crime is allowed to flourish and people live in fear.

Just have a blanket trial that finds every man guilty and send them to jail.

It's the quicker option! lol

Under the presumption of innocence Robbie we must assume all allegations are false until or unless (and sadly even after) they are found to be true. There is no sitting on the fence about this unless you accept the presumption of guilt.

JK2006 wrote:
Under the presumption of innocence Robbie we must assume all allegations are false until or unless (and sadly even after) they are found to be true. There is no sitting on the fence about this unless you accept the presumption of guilt.


Why cant we assume both parties are telling the truth unless or until it is proven?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Under the presumption of innocence Robbie we must assume all allegations are false until or unless (and sadly even after) they are found to be true. There is no sitting on the fence about this unless you accept the presumption of guilt.


Why cant we assume both parties are telling the truth unless or until it is proven?

Absolutely, you can't just assume that they are lying.

No and if police and CPS stop calling complainants "victims" I'll stop calling them "false accusers" and just call them "accusers". But as long as the most important examiners of the allegations side always with those making claims, be they for greed, cash, compensation, revenge, sympathy, divorce or even genuine delusion, I shall continue to redress the balance by assuming those accused to be innocent and not guilty.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Under the presumption of innocence Robbie we must assume all allegations are false until or unless (and sadly even after) they are found to be true. There is no sitting on the fence about this unless you accept the presumption of guilt.


Why cant we assume both parties are telling the truth unless or until it is proven?


Because under British Law, when it's properly applied, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

And reality dictates that if (for example) one party says a box is black but another says the box is white, they cannot both be correct.

PaulB wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
Under the presumption of innocence Robbie we must assume all allegations are false until or unless (and sadly even after) they are found to be true. There is no sitting on the fence about this unless you accept the presumption of guilt.


Why cant we assume both parties are telling the truth unless or until it is proven?


Because under British Law, when it's properly applied, the burden of proof is on the prosecution.

And reality dictates that if (for example) one party says a box is black but another says the box is white, they cannot both be correct.

The box is likely to be grey.