Puffer Fish wrote:
Do you think the other side will not ask the plaintiff why she didn't file a police report?
Even after she wins the civil case it could still go to appeal, which is probably going to happen 2 years later.
The defendant has a right to appeal the case. The court gives the defendant or plaintiff the right to appeal. It's not really important to ask why a woman didn't file a police report. Victims get scared and their thoughts get jumbled. The event is traumatic and under those conditions, they are not thinking calmly at all. If I was freaking out, I doubt I'd be thinking "Oh, I need to file a police report now!" I would be agitated, confused, hurt, and probably wanting to see my mother or someone else who could hold me.
The information about a criminal case (or lack thereof) is not kept totally secret from the court in a civil case.
Because the court system is interconnected online. The court is one branch of the government. However, the judge of the civil case should NOT let the criminal case proceedings prejudice him/her in any way against the defendant or plaintiff. The judge is supposed to be impartial and make a fair assessment of the case based on the evidence and testimony from witnesses, and looking at precedents.
The court is divided into divisions. It is like how a company has the HR department, R&D department, legal department, advertising department...each department or division has its own purpose and it would not make sense if advertising kept on messing around with legal, it would be messy and insane.
Do you remember that story I posted (in a different topic) that involved a prosecutor pressing the supposed victim (who had just won a civil case) to testify in a criminal case? (The civil case was against a drug rehab facility over an alleged rape supposedly committed by a man who did not even know that the civil case was happening at the time)
Man falsely accused of rape
Not every rape case involves a false accusation. I am unsure why you take one false rape accusation case and then try to transpose it onto all the HW cases? It is just not logical. Each case is different. This is what I learned as a law student. Judges and juries look at each case as if it is different and there is no cutting and pasting because past or other present cases. They look at what is in front of them. They use their own judgment based on facts and testimony.
(In that story, the woman had apparently been assigned a free rape crisis counselor by the state, which she used for emotional support. But the counselor pushed her to file criminal charges. Probably the young women knew if she did not go along with that, the counselor might have reported her and raised suspicions. Someone might then put 2 and 2 together.)
That is atypical. Not all state professionals act in ethical ways. Again, that case is not representative of all rape cases.
And usually the required burden of evidence is much lower for a civil case, which in this situation makes things worse and leads to a big problem.
It does not "makes things worse" or "leads to a big problem". A civil case is a civil case. You cannot drag a civil case into a criminal court. The courts are separated into different divisions. It would be like dragging a guardianship case into a criminal court, that just doesn't happen. That would be messy, confusing and very illogical. Besides as stated before, a judge on a civil case only presides over civil cases. A judge who presides over criminal cases only presides over criminal cases. There are different standards and different punishments/penalties and therefore different results. Plus, a criminal case is for the state and a citizen and civil cases are between private individuals or businesses.
Again, your argument is mostly besides the point.
I could say the same for your argument as you seem to be saying that it shouldn't be this way because YOU don't like it or agree with it.
Maybe you don't understand what I was saying, or don't understand the inherent connection that exists between the two?
Perhaps you should study a law book and tell me if you can find a section where it says this. I read some legal books and never came across anything like this.
I am not sure what you mean. Did you make an error in word choice? Could you please explain?
You are saying a civil suit will be brought forward regardless of whether the woman making the accusation wants to??
That is not what I wrote. You misunderstand. I meant that regardless of the woman's reason for bringing the civil suit against the defendant, the court will see her claim and decide if she has a valid claim. If it is valid, how much should she be able to recover from the defendant? The court is not there to ask if she is only suing for the money, they are not going to find out about her motives. Criminal cases look at motives, there you go again confusing criminal and civil. A civil case is about complaint and recovery of damages, once the judge believes that the plaintiff is honest and there is a clear case of harm. Oh actually, the judge does decide if the defendant intended to harm the plaintiff, there is that.