Hacker News Reader

Comment by laurent92 | Hacker News Reader

And this is why the trend is to remove factual information from trials rather than add some. For example, in many Western countries, it is now forbidden to present during a trial the SMS exchanged with a “victim of rape” before meeting, and to seize the messages between her and her friends, because it would cause psychological harm to this person. So the only remaining evidence is he-said-she-said, which is prone for interpretation.

It is also forbidden to take notes as a member of a jury. If a member is not sure, he should ask again. Which opens the way for rhetoric tricks, not factual information.

View on HN

> For example, in many Western countries, it is now forbidden to present during a trial the SMS exchanged with a “victim of rape” before meeting, and to seize the messages between her and her friends, because it would cause psychological harm to this person.

In which western country is this forbidden, and what is the legal basis for it, do you have more information about this?

> It is also forbidden to take notes as a member of a jury. If a member is not sure, he should ask again. Which opens the way for rhetoric tricks, not factual information.

My quick googling shows that it is legal in many places in America [0], and encouraged by some judges.

[0]: https://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/issues-pertaining-to-...

I'm happy i'm too old for this s*t.

So what happens now? If some guys ends up on the receiving end of regret charges, what can they do to defend themselves? Wear body cams to record all intercourse and save as a proof of consent?

Have you confirmed that what the other poster said is true, and that text messages are not admissible evidence in a court of law?

Ok, you are suggesting what I said was false, so I am researching sources:

== UK

Search for “New NPCC consent form”. Since 2020, seizing texts can only happen with the complainant’s consent, and the form highlights that there should be no repercussion if consent is not given. Therefore, it doesn’t alleviate the main criticism of false accusations: The ability for the accused to prove his innocence.

Link to the consent guidance: https://cdn.prgloo.com/media/download/a9b9b561b88b45c78772fb...

== Other countries

I didn’t immediately find proof (searched Australia, US and Canada) but the general narrative that having her phone searched is a trauma for the victim, and therefore her phone should only be searched with her consent.

> Ok, you are suggesting what I said was false, so I am researching sources:

Not really, just before jumping to FUD it's good to take a step back and research.

> Search for “New NPCC consent form”. Since 2020, seizing texts can only happen with the complainant’s consent, and the form highlights that there should be no repercussion if consent is not given. Therefore, it doesn’t alleviate the main criticism of false accusations: The ability for the accused to prove his innocence.

Right, so if you're the defendant you can provide your own evidence because its YOUR content. Obviously there should be consent involved if you as the defendant say "go search the complaint's device"

There are preventive measures - stay away from women and avoid hiring them.

This is not the world we want, but a hopefully temporary workaround.

The solution to that is to have multiple passports, and have a relatively location-independent lifestyle. Not ideal, but given many Western countries are now classified as failing democracies, it's getting increasingly less optional.

Jurors can take notes in the UK but it seems like you need to bring your own writing material.

https://news.liverpool.ac.uk/2016/06/21/taking-notes-boosts-...

Quite the opposite at least where I did it a few years ago. Your notes are not allowed to leave the court. If you use your own notebook then you will have to say goodbye to it after the trial. Our court provided writing material to all jurors, we didn't have to ask for it, and we were encouraged to take notes.

All notes have to stay in the court room or deliberation room, this is to protect the privacy of the jury deliberations - jurors are sworn to a lifetime of secrecy over deliberations, and are not allowed to discuss the case outside of court while it is ongoing.

Uh where is this happening? Definitely not in CH...

In that case the accused should be freed since there isn't any evidence that suggest otherwise, no?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com