FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 11,449
- Points
- 1,160
I've been following the Kavanaugh hearings for a seat on the USSC and have been noting various senators comments respecting the lack of corroboration respecting Professor Ford's allegations. Usually these come with comments that she was a credible witness.
This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont
My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles
That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?
Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.
http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
Thoughts?
:cheers:
This made me wonder about the requirement for corroborative evidence (or even "recent complaint) in sexual assault (or rape) allegations in the US because that doesn't exist in Canada anymore.
Corroboration not required
274 If an accused is charged with an offence under section 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155, 159, 160, 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272, 273, 286.1, 286.2 or 286.3, no corroboration is required for a conviction and the judge shall not instruct the jury that it is unsafe to find the accused guilty in the absence of corroboration.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 274; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12; 2014, c. 25, s. 16.
Previous Version
Marginal note:Rules respecting recent complaint abrogated
275 The rules relating to evidence of recent complaint are hereby abrogated with respect to offences under sections 151, 152, 153, 153.1, 155 and 159, subsections 160(2) and (3) and sections 170, 171, 172, 173, 271, 272 and 273.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 275; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 11; 2002, c. 13, s. 12.
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-64.html#docCont
My research brought me to this article in the US and the following quotation:
Today, the corroboration requirement has virtually disappeared from the modern
rape law. According to George Fisher, “No American jurisdiction retains a general
corroboration requirement in rape cases. Georgia abolished the last remaining
statutory rule in 1978 . . . and, Nebraska the last remaining common law rule in
1989.”46 As recently as 2004, Michelle Anderson reported that Ohio is one of only
three jurisdictions retaining the corroboration requirement in any of its sexual offense
provisions.47 Deborah Denno noted that even the drafters of the Model Penal Code
“acknowledged the controversy surrounding the rule in the 1970s and stressed that
attitudes toward the doctrine were increasingly in a state of flux.”48 Many legal
scholars have credited feminist critiques of the corroboration requirement as being
largely responsible for its demise. These critics emphasized that no other crime
required the victim to meet special credibility standards, 49 that the corroboration
requirement operated as a barrier to the successful prosecution of sexual offenses,50
and, finally, that no empirical evidence existed to support the notion that women make
a large number of false rape accusations (i.e., that “ladies lie”).51
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1786&context=fac_articles
That begs the question why Republican senators feel that believing Dr Ford isn't sufficient and that there needs to be something more in the way of corroboration when the law doesn't require it?
Maybe Kavanaugh's express lies about his "legal drinking age" and the meaning of "boofing" and "devil's triangle" while under oath will be sufficient to make them doubt his character.
http://time.com/5409564/brett-kavanaugh-drinking-age-maryland/
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-fact-check.html
Thoughts?
:cheers: