Your own country has a history of wrongful convictions which relied on DNA, expert evidence, confessions, eyewitnesses, etc. You're not going to find certainty in criminal law, whether sex offences or any other area. A Sharia-style requirement of four respectable male witnesses to a rape may give you something closer to the certainty you want, but is that fair? Is that a better society in which to live? The system is a balancing act, properly weighted in favour of the accused, but not entirely so.
Again, I'm speaking strictly about sex assault cases between adults in which there is no evidence other than one person's word against another. I'm not talking about "certainty in criminal law" here, I'm talking about moving closer to to it than we are today. In a system that allows prosecution and conviction based on nothing more than one person's word provides too large a margin for error, especially when the consequences of being found guilty can result in a lengthy prison sentence and having to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.
A prosecutor's belief that the majority of these verdicts correct and fair certainly is not the most objective measurement and simply isn't good enough. And then following that up with a suggestion that if the verdict is unfair, an appeals court will straighten it out really ignores the fact that at this point a person's life is likely already ruined.
As long as the trial is run according to law and it is left to the jury to find the elements proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'm satisfied it is fair. I certainly think 12 people randomly selected from the community who hear the evidence are in a better position to decide whether they can reach that standard than someone who does some reading about criminal law on the internet.
But we aren't talking about a robbery here or a shooting, we are talking about sex, possibly illegal sex, which is a whole different beast. People don't ever agree to be robbed or shot, but sometimes people do agree to have sex which muddies the water considerably when one of them says they didn't agree. And in these situations where no evidence exists except the accuser's word, a jury's decision can become too reliant on intangibles because there really isn't much else. An older man who "looks" like a predator versus a young pretty girl, or a good looking young man versus an older "creepy" looking guy or woman etc. In sex assault cases these issues get magnified.
On the one hand you complain about a system which "would allow a person to be charged, tried and convicted based solely on one person's word", and on the other you propose an alternative which would still allow a person to be convicted (just not punished), and for it then to be used as rank propensity for future allegations - something which legal systems avoid precisely because of the unfairness to the accused.
You're absolutely right. This is almost exactly what I am proposing. Treating the type of sex assault cases I'm talking about like they are the same as other criminal matters has not worked. I'm proposing that these types of cases be dealt with in a different way. Don't know of any way to "fix" the problem on the front end. We can't legislate away a person's right to complain that they were assaulted, even if the only evidence is their word against the accused.
What I'm proposing, I believe, leaves intact the right of the victim to complain, be believed, and to have action taken. There would be a trial and possible conviction. By the same token the possibility that the accused may not have actually committed the crime would also be taken into account. Again, I'm speaking strictly about sex assault cases between adults with no evidence except an accuser's word. And yes, I'm proposing throwing out the rules or laws concerning the introduction of previous convictions ONLY for these types of sex assault cases.
You get one of these convictions and there is no punishment. The conviction doesn't even show up on background checks. But if you get accused and charged a second time, that prior conviction can then be used as possible evidence in the current case.
I'm sure there are flaws in this plan, I know it isn't perfect, but I think it is a step in the right direction. Right now the criminal justice system's way of dealing with sex assault has swung from one extreme to the current extreme. There needs to be some realistic balance.
