Pregnant teens belong in jail

[Wezil]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
False report was a misstatement on my part. I was responding to Imran's posty that she hadn't recanted.

Quite frankly it is understandable. The news reports on this issue have been terrible. Significant details are omitted in the rush to talk about a pregnant teen behind bars. Sadly, it is the state of journalism these days.

I don't know if a proper statement was taken or not. I suspect if she were to land in legal difficulty herself it would be along the lines of contempt of court. She is unlikely to be very cooperative today.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious




http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/955003-1.html

You should seriously try researching Canadian law, Kid.

It's rather different from US law in the details...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Wezil


Quite frankly it is understandable. The news reports on this issue have been terrible. Significant details are omitted in the rush to talk about a pregnant teen behind bars. Sadly, it is the state of journalism these days.

I don't know if a proper statement was taken or not. I suspect if she were to land in legal difficulty herself it would be along the lines of contempt of court. She is unlikely to be very cooperative today.

As long as she keeps control of her emotions and gets some sound legal advice she can probably get away with not providing any meaningful testimony AND not getting prosecuted herself.

[Wezil]

R. v Khan is our lead case on the issue iirc.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


As long as she keeps control of her emotions and gets some sound legal advice she can probably get away with not providing any meaningful testimony AND not getting prosecuted herself.

I agree. I just can't see a Crown pursuing a charge against her in view of the backlash.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


You should seriously try researching Canadian law, Kid.

It's rather different from US law in the details...

It's vey difficult to conduct research on small countries who are so much like a big country, but from what I can tell the laws regarding this issue are very much the same.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kidicious


It's vey difficult to conduct research on small countries who are so much like a big country, but from what I can tell the laws regarding this issue are very much the same.

a) Canada is not a particularly small country. #36 in the world by population. #9 by GDP.

b) Again, the laws are pretty different in the details...

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Read the damn thing. It says that there is a domestic violence exception.

I apparently read it (or understood it) better than you... it specifically states that there are three common exceptions that apply in domestic violence cases, not that there is a domestic violence exception itself. Indeed, excited utterance can apply (particularly on 911 calls), but it often won't apply on statements taken by the police (the victim will often testify that the statement was incorrect).

It's theoretically possible to gain a conviction without the cooperation - or ever with the explicit animosity - of the victim, but it is very difficult in real life to accomplish this. Particularly when you consider the jury; it is difficult for a jury to convict someone without the victim's testimony - or often with counter-testimony by the victim stating that no abuse occurred - simply because of human nature. It's not impossible, and my mother does sometimes gain convictions this way, but it is MUCH more difficult and rather unlikely.

That said, holding the victim in prison is a really dumb move, because you nearly guarantee you will have them testify against the case rather than in support of it...

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


a) Canada is not a particularly small country. #36 in the world by population. #9 by GDP.

b) Again, the laws are pretty different in the details...

Due to the nature of information often provided in 911 communications, it is highly
recommended that all domestic violence calls be taped and disclosed to the investigating officer
and Crown prosecutor. 911 recordings will often obtain the following types of valuable evidence:
���� Spontaneous utterances made by the suspect, victim or a child witness
���� Name and address of an independent witness so police can interview and obtain a statement
���� Confession by suspect (any statement against interest)
���� Recording of crime in progress (threats, shouting, furniture breaking)
���� Evidence of victim who was strangled/choked (hoarseness, loss of voice).
45
911 audio recordings can be admissible as original evidence – simply to prove the call was made.
It discloses what was said, by whom, and the full dramatic effect of certain spoken words. It can
also be used simply to refresh the witness’ memory; in either case, the hearsay rule is not
offended.
More importantly, a 911 recording can be admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule for proof
of the truth of its content. In which case the evidence can be admitted as a spontaneous utterance
or Res Gestae – a traditional exception to the hearsay rule - as proof of the truth of the contents
(and not merely to attack the witness’ credibility), or pursuant to R. v. B. (K.G.), a principled
exception to the hearsay rule - as proof of the truth of the contents (and not merely to attack the
witness’ credibility).26
To ensure that the proper information

http://www.justice.gov.ab.ca/crimina...V_Handbook.pdf

[KrazyHorse]

Kid, you should also note that for criminal law purposes Canada is a single jurisdiction, whereas for most criminal law the US is divided up into 50 parts. Canada is certainly a larger, more important jurisdiction than New Mexico or Washington (the two states whose law you've quoted so far) are.

[snoopy369]

Okay, Kid, I give up. Keep pretending you know better than the lawyers and folks with strong knowledge and background in law and domestic violence prosecution. Clearly you know everything there is to know far better than anyone else, so there's little point in disagreeing with you.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I apparently read it (or understood it) better than you... it specifically states that there are three common exceptions that apply in domestic violence cases, not that there is a domestic violence exception itself. Indeed, excited utterance can apply (particularly on 911 calls), but it often won't apply on statements taken by the police (the victim will often testify that the statement was incorrect).

It's theoretically possible to gain a conviction without the cooperation - or ever with the explicit animosity - of the victim, but it is very difficult in real life to accomplish this. Particularly when you consider the jury; it is difficult for a jury to convict someone without the victim's testimony - or often with counter-testimony by the victim stating that no abuse occurred - simply because of human nature. It's not impossible, and my mother does sometimes gain convictions this way, but it is MUCH more difficult and rather unlikely.

This is all nonsense. Also, read the other source I provided.

That said, holding the victim in prison is a really dumb move, because you nearly guarantee you will have them testify against the case rather than in support of it...

Wha?! You are nuts!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Okay, Kid, I give up. Keep pretending you know better than the lawyers and folks with strong knowledge and background in law and domestic violence prosecution. Clearly you know everything there is to know far better than anyone else, so there's little point in disagreeing with you.

Try addressing the evidence.

[TheStinger]

There are any number of reasons why victims of domestic violence don't wish to testify which is why in the UK the prosecution can proceed even if the complainant refuse to co operate. There needs to be other evidnce photo's and initial statement etc.

However in the abscence of any suggestion that the complaint is made up the victim is not compelled to go on the witness stand.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by TheStinger
However in the abscence of any suggestion that the complaint is made up the victim is not compelled to go on the witness stand.

I have an issue with this. If you are going to demand the use of my tax money to summon the police and involve the courts b/c you have been assaulted, I damn well expect you to testify.