Les criminalistes disent non à un tribunal spécialisé!

Co-fondatrice, Québec contre les violences sexuelles
Depuis quand est-ce qu'avoir des décideurs spécialisés et mieux formés dans une discipline est un problème?

Ne trouve-t-on pas que dans le cas de la Jeunesse, du TAT ou de la Régie du Logement, c'est une bonne chose?

Les preuves et les chiffres sont là:
1) Les cas de violences sexuelles ne se soldent presque jamais par des condamnations. comparativement aux autres crimes.
2) Les décideurs ont trop souvent émis des jugements et biais discriminatoires insultants à l'égard des femmes et minorités victimes, plus que n'importe où ailleurs.

Enfin, Boudreau place un commentaire qui n'a pas rapport et qui porte de mauvaises intentions à notre cause.
Pourquoi dit-il qu'il a "le sentiment" que le but est d'inverser le fardeau de preuve? C'est sa propre perception sortie de nulle part, ce n'est pas du tout ce que nous, groupes contre les violences sexuelles, avons demandé!

Kimberley
Écoutez Kimberley, ma petite madame, vous faites une longue diatribe pour la justice sociale, mais au final les lecteurs de ce site préfèrent l'avis de criminalistes au votre.

Interesting
The difference is, in the cases of alleged sexual crimes, we're in the realm of crimes that allow the state to wield its most powerful weapon of deterrence, in the event there is a conviction: taking away someone's liberty. In light of this, we must remember that the presumption of innocence upon which all criminal systems in the Anglo common law tradition are founded, is based upon the following principle: it is better to let 100 guilty men go free then to wrongly convict a single innocent man.

In light of only one out of 14 women who alleged to have been sexually assaulted by Gilbert Rozon seeing the circumstances of the crimes she alleged to have suffered brought to trial by prosecutors, certain victim groups and media personalities have catastrophized the situation. Some of "Les Courageuses" even went on radio and TV afterward and denounced the criminal system, and asserted that sexual crimes should have the same proof standards as civil matters. This is asinine.

If the prosecutors decided, after analyzing the proof, that 13 out of the 14 cases would not be able to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in court, then it is there ethical obligation not to waste public funds pursuing a lost cause. The fact is, it is extremely difficult to prove that a sexual crime has occurred, especially if the victim does not file a police report and/or complete a rape kit in the immediate aftermath of the crime. If you, as a victim, decide to declare to the media that Gilbert Rozon assaulted you 25 years ago, and you have no police report or rape kit as support, what do you expect the police to collect as proof today? They aren't wizards! That doesn't mean that the system is broken, or that this crime did not occur to you. It simply means that a prosecutor won't be able to prove it in criminal court. And, quite frankly, this standard is appropriate. Imagine if simple, unsubstantiated verbal allegations were enough to convict someone of a serious crime like sexual assault? Our system would be a mockery. But the 13 women who claim to have been "left out" are mistaken in their disappointment, in my view. They're missing the fact that the case that is being brought to trial by the prosecutors concerns events that occurred 40 years ago. 40 years! They're accusing him of rape...imagine how strong their proof must be, how substantial it must be, for the prosecutors to be confident that they can make it stick? And if he's convicted, Rozon is looking at serious jail time. All the alleged victims should celebrate this...the goal of the criminal system is for future would-be criminals to be deterred from committing similar behavior, and to punish the wrongdoer in question...it's not for each individual alleged victim to "personally obtain justice" by seeing their personal circumstances be chosen to prosecute and convict the criminal. It's not a quest for personal vengeance. If he goes to jail, they, and all of us, should be happy, because it means a bad person is getting their comeuppance.

Furthermore, Les Courageuses made a terrible mistake by conducting several media interviews and discussing the intimate details of their personal stories with each other. Since these alleged events occurred quite a long time ago in some of their cases, a defense attorney could easily create a reasonable doubt to the effect that their stories and the associated proof have been contaminated and intermingled. Nobody wants to see these victims made to look like fools under cross-examination in open court. Remember, during Jian Ghomeshi's trial, how stupid and childish Marie Henein made the alleged victims look? I wouldn't want that for these women!

Also, you claim that most cases of sexual violence don't end with convictions, compared to other crimes. I have three issues with this. 1) That's because too many women either don't report the crimes to the police soon after they occur (which makes collection of proof really difficult), or don't report them at all. This needs to change. Society doesn't blame sexual assault victims anymore...quite the opposite. We celebrate their bravery. 2) You speak as if an increase in the number of convictions should be the goal in and of itself. That's not the case. We need to make sure that the real criminals do get convicted. But we need to ensure the constitutional protections and rights of the accused, in order to prevent wrongfully accused people from being convicted of crimes they didn't commit. Racking up the score just for the sake of it is not a laudable goal. 3) Who told you that sexual assault trials don't frequently end in conviction? I urge you to go to the Montreal courthouse any day of the week. The trials are public. You will see that people accused of sexual crimes are convicted constantly. Our prosecutors are highly skilled...because they make sure that when they go to trial, the evidence is solid.

You also state that the judges and decisions are often based on biases, stereotypes, victim-blaming, etc. I disagree. While this may have once been the case, our magistrates have become incredibly reflective and rigorous in this field, and the system itself has evolved to reflect our society's attitudes toward sex and sexuality. Can more continuing education for criminal judges in the field of sexual crimes be a bad thing? Of course not. But it's unfair to pretend that the judges are importing attitudes from the 1800s into their judgements in this field. Such misconduct is incredibly rare, and always overturned by appellate courts, who don't hesitate to lambaste the rare judge who bases their judgement on stupidity.For example, the judge in Western Canada who recently asked why an alleged victim "didnt just close her legs" was the subject of an investigation by the Canadian Judicial Council and lost his job!

But it seems that the media is driving this narrative that the system is inadequate, that nobody cares about victims, and that hardened sexual criminals are being allowed to commit crimes as they please. This is false. Our system works. It's the best of its kind on Earth. Does that mean it cannot be improved, or that victims cannot be better supported with increased financing for legal, psychological and social support during the entire process of reporting a sexual crime all the way until a possible trial? Or that police, prosecutors and the judiciary cannot be provided with even better training on these issues? Of course not. No one is saying that. But let's stop pretending that the system is on fire and that we need a complete revolution. We have a fine system, with dedicated professionals who staff it.

avocate à la retraite
Des affirmations erronées circulent sur le nombre d'agression sexuelle -vs- le nombre de condamnations. À mon avis, ces affirmations erronées jouent beaucoup dans la perception que la population se fait de notre système de justice, ce qui me désole. Voici le lien pour mon article :

https://quebec.huffingtonpost.ca/huguette-gagnon/agressions-sexuelles-condamnation_b_14635884.html

Merci à ceux et celles qui défendent les faits
Merci Mme Gagnon pour votre excellent article sur le nombre réel de condamnations d'agression sexuelle. Votre article basé sur l'analyse des faits me rassure sur la qualité de notre système de justice.

Je trouve de plus en plus alarment de constater que le message dominant sur la place publique et dans les médias, même officiels, n'est plus basé sur des faits bien analysés et nuancés. On voit malheureusement trop souvent aujourd'hui une sorte de "propagande" qui ne propage que les chiffres qui renforcent l'opinion d'un groupe ou un autre, sans se soucier de la validité de cette information et donc sans se socier de la vérité.

Ce qui est le plus inquiétant dans tout ça, c'est que nos politiciens semblent plus sensibles que jamais à cette "propagande". J'ai peur qu'un jour, sous cette influence, on se retrouve avec un système basé sur le principe de vangeance, où l'accusation a plus de poids que la défence et où la présomption d'innocence n'existe plus pour certains crimes.

Merci encore à vous et à tous les autres qui défendent la validité des faits.