Created with the aid of Gemini AI
In the news this week: a medical practitioner in Ontario was acquitted on 48 charges of sexual interference for doing excess torso inspections for neurological purposes. This reveals a gaping hole in our legal system. Time and again, perpetrators of multiple offences go free because they have perfected their crime, and prosecutors can’t quite prove they are guilty.
Medical offenses
In this case, justice was partially served by the existence of a professional association, which has banned him from ever working as a neurologist again. This is cold comfort to the 41 victims who put themselves through the horrors of a sexual assault trial and came out with nothing.
Justice of the Powerful, by the Powerful, for the Powerful
At present, anyone who goes up against the system loses. The whole Epstein saga is a perfect example: nameless young women used as toys by the political elite of several countries. We need change.
Change the Nature of “Proof”
Presently, conviction depends on “proof beyond the shadow of a doubt” in each individual charge. We have developed the science of statistics since the days that concept was created. There needs to be a verdict that reads, “Not quite guilty too many times for it to be a coincidence.” The Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons obviously works that way. Why not the courts?
Change the Nature of the Trial
The first and simplest solution is to adjust the format of the trial. In sexual abuse cases, the victim needs the protection of the court. As things stand, the conflict in the trial is between the prosecution and the defense, and the victim is often collateral damage. And when politics and social media come into play, it just gets worse.
I have second-hand information on one of these trials during the Me Too movement, and my takeaway is that the victim may have the support of a lot of people, but each one of those players has their own agenda. In that case, the victim can even win the case but lose the race, because the trial scars them for life.
The solution is cases such as this is a third legal team: that of the victim. If it’s an adult, it needs to be a government-funded lawyer. In a child abuse case, perhaps a child psychologist or social worker would be more appropriate. A well-meaning friend is good, but not enough.
Cross-Examination
Having to face an experienced, hostile lawyer in a public arena is the victim’s worst nightmare. It’s just another opportunity for the system to bully the victim.
So solve the problem. Have the questions submitted ahead of time, to be vetted by the victim’s legal team approved by the judge, to be read aloud in court by the victim’s lawyer. Find more ways to make it easier on the victim.
Possible Results:
If trials were not such ordeals, more victims would come forward.
More victims with good legal teams mean more convictions.
More convictions mean more prevention, which should result in less offenses.
The Bottom Line
Yes, I know this is bending some of the principles of our legal system. The offender has the right to a fair trial. However, when only 2% of assaults end up in convictions, it ought to tell us something about the balance of justice. The lady holding it is definitely blind.