Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/jian-ghomeshi-judge-ruling-1.3504250




Coulda called this one, never a good thing to lie or omit information to the police/crown/judge. Especially in a case that relies so heavily on testimony. Gotta love the protestor interrupting the lawyer FOR THE PROSECUTION.... does she not whant them to appeal?

So instead of just lying, she chose to lie badly? Yeah...that turnout wasn't a big surprise then.

 Sigvatr wrote:
So instead of just lying, she chose to lie badly? Yeah...that turnout wasn't a big surprise then.

All three witnesses lied/omitted. Some worse than others it would seem. He probably is guilty of striking/chocking them, just not sure I trust anyone involved to comment on consent.

Disappointing all around. This could have been a flagship case to move forwards the discussion around consent and power structures. Instead we get more anger and ammunition for both sides to continue shouting past each other and further the divide.

 feeder wrote:
Disappointing all around. This could have been a flagship case to move forwards the discussion around consent and power structures. Instead we get more anger and ammunition for both sides to continue shouting past each other and further the divide.

If it serves as a warning to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then it will hopefully be positive. My issue is articles like this http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/24/jian_ghomeshi_found_not_guilty_of_sexual_assault_in_shocking_proclamation.html. The system is apparently terrible, but there is little the article can offer when it comes to ways to fix the system. Simply trusting allegations is insane, that's just a witch hunt. The best advice for victims of violence, sexual or other, is to contact police asap and be truthful, withhold nothing.

Not surprising given the quality of the testimony.

Exactly. Bad testimony and lies on the stand hurt not only this case but all cases. It's a damn shame.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 feeder wrote:
Disappointing all around. This could have been a flagship case to move forwards the discussion around consent and power structures. Instead we get more anger and ammunition for both sides to continue shouting past each other and further the divide.

If it serves as a warning to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then it will hopefully be positive. My issue is articles like this http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2016/03/24/jian_ghomeshi_found_not_guilty_of_sexual_assault_in_shocking_proclamation.html. The system is apparently terrible, but there is little the article can offer when it comes to ways to fix the system. Simply trusting allegations is insane, that's just a witch hunt. The best advice for victims of violence, sexual or other, is to contact police asap and be truthful, withhold nothing.

As soon as I saw your link I wondered if it was a Christina Cauterucci piece and, yep, it is!

Her pieces tend to exhibit a bias towards men that takes an absurd turn at times.

Like so:

Christina Cauterucci wrote:But the judge’s most repulsive statement came when he proclaimed that believing alleged sexual assault victims are telling the truth is “equally dangerous” as assuming alleged rapists are innocent. The odds are stacked against sexual assault survivors, who must fight consistent blame, suspicion, and accusations of malice when they are brave enough to report the violence perpetrated against them. There is no comparison to the plight of alleged rapists, the vast majority of whom walk free.

Sure, there is NO stigma associated with being accused of rape. Sure, Ms. Cauterucci. Sure.

Not a surprise at all given what I read while the trail was going on.
Incredibly charged discussion. "Victim blaming" in public dialogue is one thing but advocating for an assumption of belief of either the accused or the accuser from a legal perspective seems dangerously delusional.
The defense seemed to do a very good job of putting the accusers testimony on trial without putting the accusers themselves on trail, at least from the coverage I read.

The judges comments are quite good. Innocent until proven guilty and all that, eh.

So... will he be back on Q?

I think he still has a harassment suit from a former CBC intern coming up?
Given that his successful verdict here and whatever happens with the harassment suit will likely determine how much he sues the CBC for...I don't they will be knocking on his door any time soon.

 plastictrees wrote:
I think he still has a harassment suit from a former CBC intern coming up?
Given that his successful verdict here and whatever happens with the harassment suit will likely determine how much he sues the Canadian Taxpayers for...I don't they will be knocking on his door any time soon.

Fixed that for you!

The guy is a scumbag.
I don't think there's any actual doubt he's guilty, however the prosecution did a fantastically abysmal job of preparing their case & prepping their witnesses, (without properly fact-checking their past actions), while the defense did exactly what they had to by making the trial all about the three women & turning it into a case of victim blaming and shaming.

The women should have been fully honest about their subsequent actions. (maintaining contact, continuing an abusive relationship, etc...)
At least that way, if the prosecution does it's own job properly, it can point out the fact that it's entirely common for women to return to their abusers. Instead, they got caught flatfooted and made to look like high school level chumps.

Experiment 626 wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
I think he still has a harassment suit from a former CBC intern coming up?
Given that his successful verdict here and whatever happens with the harassment suit will likely determine how much he sues the Canadian Taxpayers for...I don't they will be knocking on his door any time soon.

Fixed that for you!

The guy is a scumbag.
I don't think there's any actual doubt he's guilty, however the prosecution did a fantastically abysmal job of preparing their case & prepping their witnesses, (without properly fact-checking their past actions), while the defense did exactly what they had to by making the trial all about the three women & turning it into a case of victim blaming and shaming.

The women should have been fully honest about their subsequent actions. (maintaining contact, continuing an abusive relationship, etc...)
At least that way, if the prosecution does it's own job properly, it can point out the fact that it's entirely common for women to return to their abusers. Instead, they got caught flatfooted and made to look like high school level chumps.

While I'm not familiar with this case specifically, statements like these baffle me. We don't have any special information or perspective the jury didn't. Therefore if it's reasonable for us to say there is no doubt, it should only have been reasonable for the Jury to say the same and convict. For the jury to not convict means one of two things:

A) Given the sum of publicly available evidence, there is at least some reasonable (if not great), doubt.
B) The jury is incapable of observing and understanding basic facts.

It'd be fine to call this out as a case "B" but it seems strange to say that there couldn't be any doubt and in the same breath say the lack of conviction came from poor preparation and witnesses as though those evidence exists independently of those things. It would be fair to say that it seems extremely probable he's guilty of the crime and that's enough to condemn him in your mind. However, it's another thing to say that given the information available there isn't any doubt and yet it's understandable that given the same information the jury concluded there was doubt with no error on their part.

Experiment 626 wrote:

I don't think there's any actual doubt he's guilty,.

Yeah...no. He is not guilty. 100%. Says it right in the article.

 Chongara wrote:
While I'm not familiar with this case specifically, statements like these baffle me. We don't have any special information or perspective the jury didn't. Therefore if it's reasonable for us to say there is no doubt, it should only have been reasonable for the Jury to say the same and convict. For the jury to not convict means one of two things:

A) Given the sum of publicly available evidence, there is at least some reasonable (if not great), doubt.
B) The jury is incapable of observing and understanding basic facts.

It'd be fine to call this out as a case "B" but it seems strange to say that there couldn't be any doubt and in the same breath say the lack of conviction came from poor preparation and witnesses as though those evidence exists independently of those things. It would be fair to say that it seems extremely probable he's guilty of the crime and that's enough to condemn him in your mind. However, it's another thing to say that given the information available there isn't any doubt and yet it's understandable that given the same information the jury concluded there was doubt with no error on their part.

You seem to be conflating moral innocence and legal innocence, and those are not necessarily the same thing. Not having enough evidence, or having bad evidence, can easily make a person who did something bad not criminally liable. I have no idea what happened in the case I just take umbrage with the idea that the Jury only has the option of, essentially, Jury Nullification or being idiots. It is possible that they believed he had performed some act but that there was not enough evidence to actually prove it.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Chongara wrote:
While I'm not familiar with this case specifically, statements like these baffle me. We don't have any special information or perspective the jury didn't. Therefore if it's reasonable for us to say there is no doubt, it should only have been reasonable for the Jury to say the same and convict. For the jury to not convict means one of two things:

A) Given the sum of publicly available evidence, there is at least some reasonable (if not great), doubt.
B) The jury is incapable of observing and understanding basic facts.

It'd be fine to call this out as a case "B" but it seems strange to say that there couldn't be any doubt and in the same breath say the lack of conviction came from poor preparation and witnesses as though those evidence exists independently of those things. It would be fair to say that it seems extremely probable he's guilty of the crime and that's enough to condemn him in your mind. However, it's another thing to say that given the information available there isn't any doubt and yet it's understandable that given the same information the jury concluded there was doubt with no error on their part.

You seem to be conflating moral innocence and legal innocence, and those are not necessarily the same thing. Not having enough evidence, or having bad evidence, can easily make a person who did something bad not criminally liable. I have no idea what happened in the case I just take umbrage with the idea that the Jury only has the option of, essentially, Jury Nullification or being idiots. It is possible that they believed he had performed some act but that there was not enough evidence to actually prove it.

That really isn't my intent. What I'm saying is that what is or isn't reasonable to have doubt about exists separate from the legal mandate to meet that standard for conviction. We can talk about what things are proven, what things aren't and how much ambiguity exists for a given set of evidence and those conclusions shouldn't change in or out court on or off jury. The certainty or doubt with regards to a set of facts and evidence is a property of that evidence itself. This isn't untrue simply because we set a single the legal bar for conviction at a certain threshold of certainty. It's fine to hold personal or moral standard less than legal definition. It's just really odd to literally describe the fact the legal standard has been met "No doubt" and to say at the same time not fault the jury for failing to convict.

"I really think this guy is guilty, but I can see how there is room for doubt. It sucks but I can see how the Jury might not have been able to convict:" - Fair statement.
"I can't see any room for doubt on this. Jury made a bad call" - Fair Statement.
"I can't see any room for doubt on this. <Proceed to not call out the jury for messing up the conviction>" - Just kind of weird and inconsistent.

It wasn't a jury trial, just a judge. Even the judge in his final statements made it clear that being found not guilty is not the same as being innocent, it just means the allegations didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt, and most of that was because the witnesses all lied. If the entirety of the case rests of testimony and three witnesses perjure themselves, judge is left with few options. Even if he followed the idiocy of the day and "listened and believed" the women, it would still all get overturned on appeal and he knows that. The judge is now the target of every butthurt feminist in the country it seems.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ghomeshi-verdict-judge-neil-macdonald-1.3506958

 Chongara wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

 plastictrees wrote:
I think he still has a harassment suit from a former CBC intern coming up?
Given that his successful verdict here and whatever happens with the harassment suit will likely determine how much he sues the Canadian Taxpayers for...I don't they will be knocking on his door any time soon.

Fixed that for you!

The guy is a scumbag.
I don't think there's any actual doubt he's guilty, however the prosecution did a fantastically abysmal job of preparing their case & prepping their witnesses, (without properly fact-checking their past actions), while the defense did exactly what they had to by making the trial all about the three women & turning it into a case of victim blaming and shaming.

The women should have been fully honest about their subsequent actions. (maintaining contact, continuing an abusive relationship, etc...)
At least that way, if the prosecution does it's own job properly, it can point out the fact that it's entirely common for women to return to their abusers. Instead, they got caught flatfooted and made to look like high school level chumps.

While I'm not familiar with this case specifically, statements like these baffle me. We don't have any special information or perspective the jury didn't. Therefore if it's reasonable for us to say there is no doubt, it should only have been reasonable for the Jury to say the same and convict. For the jury to not convict means one of two things:

A) Given the sum of publicly available evidence, there is at least some reasonable (if not great), doubt.
B) The jury is incapable of observing and understanding basic facts.

It'd be fine to call this out as a case "B" but it seems strange to say that there couldn't be any doubt and in the same breath say the lack of conviction came from poor preparation and witnesses as though those evidence exists independently of those things. It would be fair to say that it seems extremely probable he's guilty of the crime and that's enough to condemn him in your mind. However, it's another thing to say that given the information available there isn't any doubt and yet it's understandable that given the same information the jury concluded there was doubt with no error on their part.

He's only 'legally innocent' essentially because;
1. The three women who came forward were dishonest with both the police & afterwards, the Crown's prosecutors. They never revealed key facts about how they continued to have contact with and/or continued to seek & stay in a relationship with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults took place.
Had they been more forthcoming & truthful with their own actions, then the prosecution team could have better prepared for the defense eventually playing the age old "blame the victim for deserving it/asking for it" game.

2. The prosecution did a completely **** job of preparing both their case AND fact checking/preparing all their witnesses. Had they done their damn job properly, they would not have been so badly prepped and left their witnesses to be torn to shreds by the defense.

The Judge basically had no choice but to find the scum innocent.

Victim blaming & shaming is always the only tactic a defense has in sexual assault cases. Hence why most women (and men) won't come forwards, because who the hell wants to have every last detail of their personal life turned upside down for public spectacle, and/or portrayed as a filthy slut who just asked for it?
The system in this case is set up entirely against victims of sexual harassments/assault/rape, as everything inevitably always circles back to, 'he/she wanted it/liked it/came back for more/never said no/etc...'

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

I don't think there's any actual doubt he's guilty,.

Yeah...no. He is not guilty. 100%. Says it right in the article.

He's not legally guilty because of a combination of a horrible system, poor witnesses, and abysmal prosecution.

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
There've also been others who've come forwards with similar claims of being harassed/mistreated by this d-bag, however with nowhere near enough evidence to even think of going to trial.

The guy is a creepy d-bag.

Experiment 626 wrote:
[
He's not legally guilty because of a combination of a horrible system, poor witnesses, and abysmal prosecution.

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
There've also been others who've come forwards with similar claims of being harassed/mistreated by this d-bag, however with nowhere near enough evidence to even think of going to trial.

The guy is a creepy d-bag.

If there exists enough evidence to know with absolute certainty he has done what he has been accused of but there is nowhere near enough evidence to go to trial, does this indicate a problem with the standards of evidence we demand for trials?

Experiment 626 wrote:
Victim blaming & shaming is always the only tactic a defense has in sexual assault cases. Hence why most women (and men) won't come forwards, because who the hell wants to have every last detail of their personal life turned upside down for public spectacle, and/or portrayed as a filthy slut who just asked for it?
The system in this case is set up entirely against victims of sexual harassments/assault/rape, as everything inevitably always circles back to, 'he/she wanted it/liked it/came back for more/never said no/etc...'

I'm sorry but that's total horsegak, for one, we only know the identity of one of the 3 witnesses who themselves chose to waive anonymity. Perjury isn't victim blaming, it's indicative of the downside of just "listening and believing" without scrutiny or skepticism. Had the police or the crown showed the slightest bit of suspicion and skepticism maybe their narratives wouldn't have fallen apart in court because they would have coaxed the whole truth from the witnesses. Righteousness and coddling isn't case prep.

The reason it often circles back to the witness is because they're the sole source of evidence, their testimony is 100% the trial. And again, no one who waits years can expect an easy prosecution.

I was the victim of attempted murder, the idea that someone is espousing that victim shouldn't bother going to police because they can't be assured of a prosecution is insane and dangerous. The only reason the perpetrators were arrested and tried in my case was because police were contacted immediately and managed to arrest the assailant fleeing the scene.


So, as victim of violence myself, had police not been called, I wouldn't have much I could say to convict someone a decade after the incident when all physical evidence is gone. In my case, the weapon was recovered, with prints. I'm not sure a canvas of the area would have found much a decade later.


Presumption of innocence isn't victim blaming, without it, all you have is a witch hunt. Or to quote the modern parlance of the day "restorative justice".

Experiment 626 wrote:

He's only 'legally innocent' essentially because;
1. The three women who came forward were dishonest with both the police & afterwards, the Crown's prosecutors. They never revealed key facts about how they continued to have contact with and/or continued to seek & stay in a relationship with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults took place.
Had they been more forthcoming & truthful with their own actions, then the prosecution team could have better prepared for the defense eventually playing the age old "blame the victim for deserving it/asking for it" game.

So you admit that the woman are dishonest. Fore complainants 1&3, this is literally all we know about them. Why, then, do you believe them to any extent?

Experiment 626 wrote:

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
.

So you claim to have superior knowledge of what actually happened compared to the judge / jury in question? That's a pretty far stretch and I wonder why you didn't show up in court having such knowledge.

Snarkiness left aside - that's my point. If you believe in a state of law, then he is not guilty. If you assume him to be guilty, then you can't believe in the concept of a state of law. The state deciding whether someone is guilty or not is one of the best things there are because it takes that responsibility away from individuals who are easily influenced by personal experience / subjective opinions that might then cause tons of innocents to suffer / be on trial.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
.

So you claim to have superior knowledge of what actually happened compared to the judge / jury in question? That's a pretty far stretch and I wonder why you didn't show up in court having such knowledge.

Snarkiness left aside - that's my point. If you believe in a state of law, then he is not guilty. If you assume him to be guilty, then you can't believe in the concept of a state of law. The state deciding whether someone is guilty or not is one of the best things there are because it takes that responsibility away from individuals who are easily influenced by personal experience / subjective opinions that might then cause tons of innocents to suffer / be on trial.

And exalted, text book good sir

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
.

So you claim to have superior knowledge of what actually happened compared to the judge / jury in question? That's a pretty far stretch and I wonder why you didn't show up in court having such knowledge.

Snarkiness left aside - that's my point. If you believe in a state of law, then he is not guilty. If you assume him to be guilty, then you can't believe in the concept of a state of law. The state deciding whether someone is guilty or not is one of the best things there are because it takes that responsibility away from individuals who are easily influenced by personal experience / subjective opinions that might then cause tons of innocents to suffer / be on trial.

You can still believe him to be guilty even after him being declared not guilty and still believe in the concept of the rule of law/Rechtsstaat, assuming that you accept that the person in question has the right to not be treated negatively because of your own convictions of guilt until such a time that the person in question is declared guilty in a court of law.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

I've no doubt however that he actually committed the acts. Keep in mind he also has another sexual harassment case still before the courts.
.

So you claim to have superior knowledge of what actually happened compared to the judge / jury in question? That's a pretty far stretch and I wonder why you didn't show up in court having such knowledge.

Snarkiness left aside - that's my point. If you believe in a state of law, then he is not guilty. If you assume him to be guilty, then you can't believe in the concept of a state of law. The state deciding whether someone is guilty or not is one of the best things there are because it takes that responsibility away from individuals who are easily influenced by personal experience / subjective opinions that might then cause tons of innocents to suffer / be on trial.

And exalted, text book good sir

I never said I assumed him to be guilty or that he should be thrown in jail on a case of hearsay, but thanks for putting words in my mouth...

I only said I have no doubt that he's guilty, as in, it's my own personal opinion, based on the fact that beyond these 3 women, he's facing another trial for the exact same thing, alongside numerous other CBC employees who've also filed complaints against him, which CBC higher ups had covered up, due to Ghomeshi's fame & standing within the broadcaster.

Where there's smoke there's fire... He's no more a saint that the likes of Bill Cosby.
Literally, if the 3 women in question had been upfront with investigators & the Crown about their conduct following the alleged assaults, it would have been a lot harder for him to walk. That was their biggest mistake, claiming in court & under oath that they had ended and/or had no further contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, when in fact they'd either stayed in contact via e-mails (including sexually explicit content), and/or continued on in a relationship with him.

The only huge mistake at that point that would have let him get off, was that the women had contact with each other during the legal proceedings. (which is primarily the Crown's fault for being so dumb and letting it happen in the first place.)

And yes, like it or not, victim shaming & blaming is the name of the game in any case involving sexual harassment/assault/rape. A good defense will always put the victim on trail in order to discredit their accusations and/or testimony.
Hence why victims of sexually based crimes only rarely come forwards.

Experiment 626 wrote:

Where there's smoke there's fire... He's no more a saint that the likes of Bill Cosby.
Literally, if the 3 women in question had been upfront with investigators & the Crown about their conduct following the alleged assaults, it would have been a lot harder for him to walk. That was their biggest mistake, claiming in court & under oath that they had ended and/or had no further contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, when in fact they'd either stayed in contact via e-mails (including sexually explicit content), and/or continued on in a relationship with him.

The only huge mistake at that point that would have let him get off, was that the women had contact with each other during the legal proceedings. (which is primarily the Crown's fault for being so dumb and letting it happen in the first place.)

And yes, like it or not, victim shaming & blaming is the name of the game in any case involving sexual harassment/assault/rape. A good defense will always put the victim on trail in order to discredit their accusations and/or testimony.
Hence why victims of sexually based crimes only rarely come forwards.

Since you have the same information as the court and your opinion differs strongly from the court's do you feel as though the court came to the conclusion properly? I'm not asking if the courts properly followed their own rules. Rather I'm asking in your opinion would we be better served with courts with rules such that if presented with this same case and evidence, they would have come to a different decision?

In other words: In an ideal world should the courts methods of coming to conclusions more closely reflect your own, why or why not?

Some of these comments showcase why a jury is always the worst choice if you need to rely on actual information and legal rules.

This entire trial was a gak show; it started on social media, 10 years after the alleged rape. The first witness misremembered such an important fact that her reliability about anything else in that series of events was never 100%.

Lucy sent him messages about how much it turned her on, suppressed that information and then colluded with another witness. When information you attempt to hide contradicts your current narrative it hurts, but especially when the past information has you giving consent to and stalking your alleged rapist.

The third colluded and gave him a consensual hand job after the fact.

If this was three men accusing a woman of sexual and normal assault, the same series of information came out in the same manner, but the woman was convicted there would be even more outrage. Misandry and ignorance of the law is most certainly a factor

 Chongara wrote:

Experiment 626 wrote:

Where there's smoke there's fire... He's no more a saint that the likes of Bill Cosby.
Literally, if the 3 women in question had been upfront with investigators & the Crown about their conduct following the alleged assaults, it would have been a lot harder for him to walk. That was their biggest mistake, claiming in court & under oath that they had ended and/or had no further contact with Ghomeshi after the alleged assaults, when in fact they'd either stayed in contact via e-mails (including sexually explicit content), and/or continued on in a relationship with him.

The only huge mistake at that point that would have let him get off, was that the women had contact with each other during the legal proceedings. (which is primarily the Crown's fault for being so dumb and letting it happen in the first place.)

And yes, like it or not, victim shaming & blaming is the name of the game in any case involving sexual harassment/assault/rape. A good defense will always put the victim on trail in order to discredit their accusations and/or testimony.
Hence why victims of sexually based crimes only rarely come forwards.

Since you have the same information as the court and your opinion differs strongly from the court's do you feel as though the court came to the conclusion properly? I'm not asking if the courts properly followed their own rules. Rather I'm asking in your opinion would we be better served with courts with rules such that if presented with this same case and evidence, they would have come to a different decision?

In other words: In an ideal world should the courts methods of coming to conclusions more closely reflect your own, why or why not?

No they shouldn't.
It may suck royally that the current system is set-up against the victim in this type of case, but if we play devil's advocate for a moment, it's pretty obvious that to go the other way and lean the system in favour of victims in this instance is simply asking for even more trouble.

Legally, the judge made the only decision he could. If we honestly were to allow personal opinion into the equation, then things become too much of witch hunt based entirely upon individual beliefs. If all that would be needed was personal opinion, then we're simply opening the door to allowing people to cry abuse/rape because they don't like an individual, or perhaps feel personally slighted in some way. (ie: a women could claim an employer is guilty of sexual abuse because a male counterpart got promoted over her)

Personally, I believe Ghomeshi is guilty of being a creepy abusive gak.
HOWEVER!
That said, I honestly don't really believe he belongs in jail specifically... I think it's obvious that the man has his own serious issues, and if he's found guilty at his next trial, I'd rather see him go into a psychiatric hospital where he can get the proper help he obviously needs.
Who the hell really knows? Maybe he is a sexual deviant who does get off on hurting women? Or maybe he himself was victimised in at some point in his past, and his abusive actions towards women are a result of him not getting the help he needed?
Either way, jail at this point doesn't seem like the best the place for him.

Experiment 626 wrote:

It may suck royally that the current system is set-up against the victim in this type of case,

Eh....what?! Innocent until proven guilty is "set-up against the victim"? So in your opinion, in such a case, it should be up to the accused to prove that he's innocent?