• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Sexual Misconduct Allegations in The CAF

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,194
Points
1,010
So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?

Studies suggest that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.

On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.
I’d be interested to know how they come to those numbers because any file I’m aware of where it was determined the accusation was false (usually the victim later admitting it), no charges ever came out of the public mischief offence, rather the case against the original accused was simply dropped. “To not discourage real victims”… bullshit excuse.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
623
Points
840
I agree and disagree with you.
(Hey I could be a politician)

Totally agree about leveraging authority, especially in the military.

On the other hand in the current climate an accusation is handled like a guilty verdict front the start. Fotin has been sitting at home doing nothing (and so have others).

Will an innocent verdict exonerate him? I suspect not.

A publication ban on a 30+ year old accusation seems odd to me.
A innocent verdict doesn't necessarily mean he didn't do it, it can simply mean there wasn't enough evidence to convict him, a distinct difference. He isn't proving his innocence, the Crown needs to prove his guilt which 30 years after the fact only based on witness testimony is a very difficult thing to do.

I hate the guilty/innocent diametric, it isn't a accurate statement. The Scottish had it figured out with Guilty, Innocent, and not proven.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,089
Points
960
So, your friends deny they did anything, so you chalk that up as a false accusation?

Studies suggest that the rate of false accusations lands between 2-10% of accusations.

On the other hand, ~90% of assaults are not reported.
Tsk-tsk

If you're gonna bring up studies, gotta cite them properly.

Because that first number looks an awful like the numbers for judicially proven innocence, which is exceedingly harder to prove than just non-guilty.

And the second number, seems akin to that ''study'' which claimed that virtually everyone on school campuses is sexually assaulted. Well of course that becomes ''true'' when you count jokes - amongst other such items - as sexual violence, which is what they did.
 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,212
Points
1,010
"Not proven" is f*cked up. Either the case is made or it's not. There are enough misconducted trials and faulty verdicts and reputations lost to mere allegations without adding one more tar brush to the tool box.

Allegations of sexual impropriety are among the hardest to recover from, and therefore people are tempted to use them as smears. (Ask Brett Kavanaugh.) I suppose that if false allegations are easier to make, more of them will be made.
 

Eaglelord17

Sr. Member
Reaction score
623
Points
840
"Not proven" is f*cked up. Either the case is made or it's not. There are enough misconducted trials and faulty verdicts and reputations lost to mere allegations without adding one more tar brush to the tool box.

Allegations of sexual impropriety are among the hardest to recover from, and therefore people are tempted to use them as smears. (Ask Brett Kavanaugh.) I suppose that if false allegations are easier to make, more of them will be made.
Declaring someone "Innocent" is messed up, when you haven't actually proven they are innocent. There are plenty of things which have happened in this world where the evidence to convict someone of that offence doesn't exist even though it did happen.

People who want complete exoneration should have to prove they didn't commit the offence (i.e. solid alibi, etc.), a much higher burden than simply the crown failing to prove they did it. For those that fall in the middle 'not proven' is a fair way to go. Legally it has the same effect as 'not guilty'.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1,089
Points
960
Declaring someone "Innocent" is messed up, when you haven't actually proven they are innocent. There are plenty of things which have happened in this world where the evidence to convict someone of that offence doesn't exist even though it did happen.

People who want complete exoneration should have to prove they didn't commit the offence (i.e. solid alibi, etc.), a much higher burden than simply the crown failing to prove they did it. For those that fall in the middle 'not proven' is a fair way to go. Legally it has the same effect as 'not guilty'.
Legally... to a certain extent.

Factually, your reputation is still ruined, you've still lost your job, friends, been made a pariah, descended into a chasm of degraded mental health, and who knows where THAT leads. I've seen it time and again.

Hence the need for confidentiality. What I've just described amounts in my mind to ''extremely grave injury to an individual'', as in the phrase ''Applies to information or assets that, if compromised, could cause extremely grave injury to an individual, organization or government.''... the standard for...

Confidentiality would not affect victims in any way whatsoever, nor the judicial process, provided that it is voluntary.
 

btrudy

Full Member
Reaction score
260
Points
810
Luckily criminal standards for conviction are not based on proportional standards but based on the evidence of each particular case and the judge's evaluation of that evidence.

There are a non-zero number of false accusations. In a criminal context that's a large enough number to guard against. The old saying that "better that a hundred guilty men are set free than one innocent man convicted" still applies. This is why the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" rather than "a balance of probabilities".

🍻
This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system.

Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
4,329
Points
1,090
This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system.

Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.

Plenty of awesome places like China, North Korea, Russia, Afghanistan etc where the system is inherently stacked in favour of the prosecution.
 

Kilted

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
626
Points
990
Is that worse than being disbelieved, despite evidence and/or witnesses that corroborate your complaint? Or, maybe the victim just experienced the event differently.
Based on what she said, even if we go beyond all the inconsistencies, is there not the possibility that this occurred and she simply misidentified him?
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,867
Points
1,140
Based on what she said, even if we go beyond all the inconsistencies, is there not the possibility that this occurred and she simply misidentified him?
Of course it is. Which is why I postulated in an earlier post that the victim and witness testimony heard to date (yesterday) would tend to exonerate Fortin.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
551
Points
1,090
Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
7,378
Points
1,110
Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?
A few weeks to a couple months probably? Likely on the lower end, it was not a complex case.


In other news, CAF is revisiting whether serving members may wear uniform to civil trials as the accused.

 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
15,188
Points
1,160
Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?

Robot Reaction GIF
 

kev994

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
972
Points
1,260
Is there someone at NDHQ whose entire job is to read this forum?
They were arguing about it on Reddit too and we know at least one 2-star reads that because he made a comment about it on his AMA.
 

kev994

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
972
Points
1,260
Alright so, back on actual topic, the trial was supposed to be 2 days long. I believe those 2 days have passed. Since it is a Judge only trial, how long until we can expect a verdict?
I thought I saw an article that said Oct 15th but I can’t find it now.
He’s in court to appeal his removal from the vaccine thing on Oct 5, that’s probably what I was thinking about.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
6,279
Points
1,010
A few weeks to a couple months probably? Likely on the lower end, it was not a complex case.


In other news, CAF is revisiting whether serving members may wear uniform to civil trials as the accused.

Here is the thing:

A deliberate decision was made to move all military sexual assault cases downtown.

In the past, many of those cases would have been heard in a Court Martial setting, wearing uniforms.

Is this an unintended consequence?
 

Furniture

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,990
Points
1,110
This is indeed true, from the perspective of how people need to be treated by the criminal justice system.

Those of us who aren't the criminal justice system incarnate are, of course, allowed to make their own judgement calls, to account for the fact that said system is inherently stacked in favour of the defendants.
Yes... because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.

I guess we could throw away hundreds of years of wisdom to appease the Twitter crowd, but I'm not sure I want to be a part of a society that does that.
 
Top