FREEDOM!!!! [2]

i didn't mean the victim i meant the perpetrator

Petty bugs Obama?

i was comparing the perpetrators not the victims ugh

Now Im totally lost. Who is Obama bugging again?

you but that's not relevant you're bugging Eldo so yoy are both bugging

Are you bugging out cc

yeah petty

What?!

There was a by-election in Aberdeen yesterday- was an SNP seat and they comfortably won it again, despite a concerted campaign by Labour and Conservative to try to nick the seat.
Best thing about it though was Nigel Farage sneering about how UKIP is popular in Scotland and a by-election, with the people given a chance to vote, would prove it- they not only lost they got so little of the vote they didnt even get their deposit back. 

 I wonder how Farage tries to spin this.

I looked at some news reports and Labour seemed to be trying to make this out to be a victory since the SNP won by a significantly smaller majority, but a decrease in their minority seems inevitable given that they have a new candidate in the district and it's a by-election with lower turnout than a general one.

Yes, the usual Labour response- truth is the SNP are the government in power during times of severe cuts and austerity and they are winning seats still.
Its also worth noting the previous victory was part of an unprecedented landslide general election victory, only a fool would expect it to be replicated midterm in a by-election in the present financial circumstances.
There will be worried grumblings behind the scenes at Scottish Labour HQ.

Have you watched the Scottish Secretary vid yet Eldo?- just to bug you as promised about it. 

Nah, I have to head out momentarily but I'll try to remember to watch it when I get home tonight.

Dont you worry Eldo- I'll be sure to bug you about it then too. 

Changes are afoot in Scottish Law- and I dont like the main one which is to get rid of the need for coroboration.

This is how the BBC Home Affairs editor put it-

Corroboration is where you have two pieces of evidence, backing each other up, to put before a jury or a sheriff.In some cases that may be two eye-witnesses speaking to the same event. That is actually one of the reasons police officers in Scotland patrol in pairs rather than singularly, as in England. You can also bring forward forensic evidence which can prove that an event took place.
But there have been difficulties in rape cases because in most serious sexual assaults there are probably only two people present - the accuser and the accused.
That has led, it is argued, to a low level of conviction for rape, and that's why they want to change it.


Now whilst I sympathise with the problems it causes in rape cases it seems wrong to change ever other law where it is effective just to solve ne problem.

the Law Society of Scotland described corroboration as a "fundamental principle" of the justice system.
Removing it would lead to a greater risk of miscarriages of justice, it said.

'Raymond McMenamin, from the society's criminal law committee, said: "We believe that removing the requirement for corroborated evidence, without including sufficiently strong safeguards in the bill, could simply result in a contest between two competing statements on oath and, as a result, bring increased risk of miscarriages of justice.
"The requirement for corroborated evidence is not an antiquated, outmoded legal notion but is a fundamental principle of our justice system.
"It's clear that the concerns expressed by the society and others about juries have been recognised as the bill proposes a move to a weighted majority from a simple majority, but we don't believe this is sufficient to remove the risks created by abolishing corroboration."


I am with the lawyers on this one, I dont get to say that often!

I don't entirely understand.  Is the law in Scotland such that if you have forensic evidence implicating a person in a rape, that's not enough to convict unless you also have a witness?  Or does there always have to be two human witnesses?

No the forensic would count as the second evidence. So an eyewitness and forensic is enough.
It could be two eye-wtinesses, an eyewitness plus forensics, a cctv camera plus forensic- but there needs to be a second piece of evidence backing up the first.
Its not enough for someone to just accuse and say 'I saw them do it'- there has to be further proof.

Hence the reason womens groups have been campaigning for its removal- as in rape cases it is often just one persons word against the other.
Now understand a change is needed there- but I dont see why that change has to be getting rid of a fundemental principle across all our law- I dont see why a special dispensation of some sort cannot be made in rape cases.

I agree about not making broad sweeping changes when a narrow exception would do. But I'm curious. In the case of premeditated murder there are rarely witnesses or security cameras. Isn't it possible to make a case, like all the classic detectives, on motive, opportunity, and forensics alone?

If there is no corroborating evidence then it would not get as far as a jury in the first place.
If it did it almost certainly end up with that other peculiarity of Scottish Justice, a Not Proven Verdict.

Our legal system would rather on balance a potential criminal go free than an innocent person lose their rights.
Up until politicians started mucking about with it that was.

The trouble is, if witnesses are necessary to prove a crime, it creates a strong incentive to eliminate witnesses, even in the case of lesser crimes.   It also seems to give an automatic pass to people who are....in a hurry to inherit shall we say?

You dont need witnesses at all. And very few crimes dont have secondary evidence these days- there is usually some forensic evidence at the very least- or it could be a suspicious series of bank transactions or a dodgy will, its actually very rare for a case to be brought with only one piece of evidence.

what is corroborated evidence exactly?

It just means there has to be more than one piece of evidence.
So if I stole your handbag there would have to be more evidence than just you saying I did- like a witness, or cctv footage, or my dna on your handbag, or me using your credit card or something- anything that corroborates the crime.

Hold on, the victim reporting the crime counts as one of the two required witnesses?  They don't have to be independent witnesses? If so, how is that different from any other legal system on Earth?

Its not two required witnesses- its more than one piece of evidence required. That evidence can be anything, doesnt have to be witnesses- just so long as there is at least two pieces of evidence supporting the claim a crime has been committed.

is medical evidence corroborating evidence then?