Skip to main content

View Diary: Victim Presumed Guilty or Why Generals Should Not Decide Rape Cases (34 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Military Justice" is an oxymoron. (6+ / 0-)

    In the courts, the judge and/or jury are the sole triers of fact.  Appellate courts cannot weigh the evidence, evaluate the credibility of witnesses, or second guess factual determinations.  The sole function of an appellate court is to determine whether the findings of the trier of fact are supported by sufficient evidence. In doing so, the appellate court must review the record in the light most favorable to the judgment.  It may not overturn the judgment merely because the evidence might have supported a different conclusion, and this is true even where the appellate court judges are convinced they would have decided the case differently had they been the triers of fact.

    What happened here is the opposite of what is normally considered appropriate appellate review. The general reweighed the evidence, disregarded the credibility determinations of the actual triers of fact, and incredibly, considered the views of non-witnesses on the issue of guilt or innocence. Perhaps worst of all, the general speculated about the victim and the perpetrator, and he allowed his hypotheses about them and their behavior to influence the result.

    As you say, this system is medieval.  It bears no relationship to what we ordinarily view as a fair manner of administering justice.  

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Sat Apr 27, 2013 at 01:05:50 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site