France does away with jury trials for rape cases.
(archive.ph)
Comments (38)
sorted by:
I know a guy who was accused of rape and it went to trial. He was instructed to pick a judge over jury by his lawyer because judges have a better outcome for defendants in rape cases overall. I can actually believe this tbh. Judges still have some standard of competence they are supposed to adhere to, especially if the case isn't high-profile but juries do not.
As society is increasingly becoming less white overall and more "feminine way", getting a jury on rape cases might actually work out way worse for the accused. You have black people on juries that just want to see white men go to prison, regardless of any details involved and women often simply take the woman's side just because. Juries are hardly "of your peers" anymore.
Obviously, this is a terrible change but I honestly don't think there's much difference between a judge or jury for most guys these days. You're fucked either way.
The guy who was accused of rape won his case with the judge for those that care.
You make a valid point.
Still, I think I'd take my chances with 12 jurors over a group of three judges, especially a few years after the change because we know they'll find a way to assign these cases to feminist judges eventually.
Or women will hijack the law schools to ensure no other judges exist.
Too late.
Seems like something that needs to be corrected if we're to ever have the rule of law again.
If you are Black or Muslim - Jury is over half minorities, on purpose, to prevent conviction.
If you are White? then you get a jury with very few whites to ensure conviction!
this isn't for the benefit of Frenchmen, you know...
What do you care? You don't believe in human rights,, and that includes the right to a fair trial.
You don't think rights are God-given.
You also think slavery is not a moral wrong.
I am right on all these fronts.
Why do I care? Because I am interested in what is best for myself and my people. Human rights are not in my interest or the interests of my people. Rights are not God given. Rights are human creations that are granted by humans to humans and enforced by humans that have the power to enforce them. Slavery is not morally wrong when it is myself and my people who are the slave masters.
On the matter of women and simps using an unjust justice system to penalize men. That is not in the interests of myself or my people.
As much as I disagree in principle, I have to respect the confidence it takes to state this plainly.
This is a sad, sad worldview that will leave you ugly and miserable. It's also how criminal sociopaths justify everything they do.
"Who cares?"
So when your rights are taken away, don't complain. Power.
What you don't seem to get about your worldview is that when your human rights are taken away, the fact you supported them doesn't earn you any browny points. When your rights are taken away, you'll say "hey give them back, I supported human rights so you can't take them away!" And the people who take your rights away will laugh and say they don't care. You tell me I shouldn't complain but you have the right to complain because you supported human rights. That's cool but guess what? I can still complain when my rights are taken way whether I supported them or not and I will. What difference will it make? None. No one who takes your rights away will go, hmmm you have a right to complain, let me give them back.
So in the end, your support for human rights is irrelevant in helping you keep your own human rights; however, in the meantime your support for human rights is being used against you. You can't segregate women and men in the school system because of "human rights", you can't deport non-whites from your country because human rights. You can't ban LGBTQ+ events, and it's promotion because mah human rights. Your enemies throw the concept of human rights in your face to stop you from taking action against your enemies. And when the time comes that your enemies trample on your human rights, your enemies will give you 0 credit for supporting human rights.
What good then are human rights? They are useless. They are nothing but a weakness that your enemies use against you.
Let me give you an example. You are a Russian citizen. You voted for the opposition party and don't support the war in Ukraine. You believe strongly in human rights.
Canada decides to seize your assets and gives them to Ukraine. This is a huge violation of your human rights. You cry as loud as you can "THIS IS A VIOLATION OF MY HUMAN RIGHTS" but nothing happens. Your assets are seized by a power that decided your human rights didn't matter. The end. What now?
https://www.rt.com/news/569794-sanctions-and-seizure-of-russian-property/
Meanwhile, you spend the better part of your life arguing against the Russian government's stance on LGBTQ+ because it violated human rights. Did you get any browny points for that? No. So again, what good are human rights when people with power can choose to take them away from you at any time and your previous support of human rights is irrelevant on whether or not those rights get taken away?
What you should do instead is simply believe in whatever you believe is right and wrong. The end. If you truly believe all "human rights" are right then go ahead and believe that. But you aren't anymore holier than thou simply because you believe in human rights compared to someone who doesn't believe in human rights. Human rights aren't anything special. They are just a set of values/beliefs that large groups of power have agreed to (for now), that's it.
I watched Law & Order, the original, and holy shit. There were several episodes before it lost its fucking mind (after Briscoe left) that prove how fucked up the legal system is. Even the 'good guys' were shown to be willing to bend and break the law to get 'their' just verdict. I loved those seasons because of it.
Looks like this will become the norm across Europe within a few years.
Of course a fucking woman pushed for it.
walks into court room, sees five female judges
"Well, I'm fucking guilty then."
Easy fix, get a trans-woman to accuse the judge's father/son/husband. Heck could hire a real woman for a few dollars more.
Hell hath no fury etc etc
I honestly can’t believe what I’m reading. Rape is pretty easy to define.
No no, you see, rape is only rape if the perpetrator is a straight white male. It's not really rape if a migrant did it, and it's certainly not rape if the perpetrator was a tranny, because transwomen are women and we all know women can't rape people.
Oh you are right. I’m behind a few classes at the re-education camp
Plus, it is rape even if she kept saying yes the whole time, but then regretted it a few hours (or days, weeks, months, or years) afterwards.
That's not how it goes.
This will make all accused guilty by default, like in Spain or Sweden.
Yeah it sounds like if they get their way, a woman will be able to get a man charged with rape if he had more money than her at the start of their relationship. Or if she's black and he's white because muh power dynamic. Crazy shit.
Pure insanity
There has been a push for some while to do away with mens rea in rape cases. Some countries are further along the way than others but it all comes down to redefining rape as something that doesn't need intent anymore. If a "victim" feels they were raped then they were raped (actually only female "victims" need to apply)
It's actually quite disgusting. But as society thinks rape is the worst crime that one can commit (seriously. You want to show that your villain is a monster? Have him rape a woman. Murder? I sleep. Rape? Serious buisness) we go along with it in the hope that we can prevent rapes. Even rapes that never happened. Especially rapes that never happened.
Unless we start to very seriously punish people that falsely and knowingly accuse someone of a crime (any crime) it will only get worse.
Don’t some colleges actually let a woman claim she was raped after the fact? Like if she gets drunk and has consensual sex she can turn around and say it was rape?
As far as I am aware the university cangoroo-courts were/are worse than only that. Like not accepting evidence that would help the accused to not even hearing him/his side.
But it's been some time since I read into it, so I might misremember.
In 1789 they would have killed everyone currently in charge.
The goal is to make it quietly impossible for white men to form relationships and reproduce.
Oh god...women could literally stab us in the street and people would still say crap like this.
It's the acts of a hostile group towards those that they hate. There's no conspiracy.
You speak as if that doesn't meet the same goal.
Jews.
You know better than this.
What do Jews even gain from a lower population? Banks favor a larger population due to the massive debt tradcucks put themselves in for women. Your own conspiracy theory disproves it.
More resources for themselves.
When mass automation rolls out, the working proles will become useless. Billions will be either dissuaded from reproduction, sterilized, or killed.
Pretty funny. They haven't replaced a jury verdict with a single judge's verdict as I'd expect - they've just created a jury of judges, in other words a jury from an elite, specially selected caste.
The only constant in all this is that our institutions hate us. Remember that, if you're ever hearing info based on academia, law, science, medicine or 'democratic' systems any more.
A jury is the only animal with 12 assholes and no brain.