2018 World Junior Allegations

[herman]

https://twitter.com/katiejstrang/status/1550450905501384704
Content and trigger warning on this very in-depth article of the details surrounding the case.

[herman]

https://twitter.com/kevin_mcgran/status/1550518430176088070

[L K]

If there isn't a 100% purge of Hockey Canada I don't think I have any appetite to support anything that comes out of their organization moving forward.

[herman]

Basically Vought and their 'heroes'

[Heroic Shrimp]

https://twitter.com/cbcalerts/status/1550525941423788032

Ugh.

[herman]

Managed to be worse than I expected. Filming a fricken pre-game interview?

[Nik]

https://twitter.com/rwesthead/status/1552318784123420673

Genuinely incredible that the people at Hockey Canada think they should stay in their jobs.

[Significantly Insignificant]

https://twitter.com/rwesthead/status/1552318784123420673

Genuinely incredible that the people at Hockey Canada think they should stay in their jobs.

In other news Jake Virtanen was found not guilty by members of a jury.  I didn't find any additional details on it so I don't know how I feel about it.

[Peter D.]

Gawd, I hope this finally upheaves the disgusting hockey "culture" that has been considered cool and normal all these years.

[Frank E]

As far as the Graham James settlements, I don't really have an issue with them settling other than the fact that it should have been announced by HC...but then maybe the victims didn't want that.

[herman]

In other news Jake Virtanen was found not guilty by members of a jury.  I didn't find any additional details on it so I don't know how I feel about it.

Crown could not demonstrate to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff committed the crime(s) he was accused of. These cases often devolve into:
1) look how good the accused person is (sometimes)
2) look how imperfect the complainant is and all these things they did that could be misconstrued or call their character into question (e.g. she helped him hold his hair while he vomited profusely from inebriation)

basically the deck is stacked against the victim(s)

[Nik]

In other news Jake Virtanen was found not guilty by members of a jury.  I didn't find any additional details on it so I don't know how I feel about it.

I didn't follow that particular case so I can't speak about it specifically but I do know that just the nature of what sexual assault is makes it very difficult to get a conviction.

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

In other news Jake Virtanen was found not guilty by members of a jury.  I didn't find any additional details on it so I don't know how I feel about it.

Crown could not demonstrate to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff committed the crime(s) he was accused of. These cases often devolve into:
1) look how good the accused person is (sometimes)
2) look how imperfect the complainant is and all these things they did that could be misconstrued or call their character into question (e.g. she helped him hold his hair while he vomited profusely from inebriation)

basically the deck is stacked against the victim(s)

I agree completely, what is the alternative though?

If you're accused of a crime you're automatically guilty?

I have been a victim of a crime like this, but I have a hard time with people on my side of the aisle willingness to ruin an accused's life based on an allegation.

[Nik]

I agree completely, what is the alternative though?

If you're accused of a crime you're automatically guilty?

I don't think there needs to be an alternative to anything. Just the recognition that at it's best the criminal justice system is imperfect at determining guilt or innocence and that, rightly or wrongly, it puts a higher burden of proof on establishing guilt than it does innocence which makes it especially bad when it comes to sexual assault.

Flawed systems will produce some flawed results. I don't think that's a particularly controversial thing to say and we all sort of have to decide for ourselves what we think about individual cases.

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

I don't think there needs to be an alternative to anything. Just the recognition that at it's best the criminal justice system is imperfect at determining guilt or innocence and that, rightly or wrongly, it puts a higher burden of proof on establishing guilt than it does innocence which makes it especially bad when it comes to sexual assault.

Flawed systems will produce some flawed results. I don't think that's a particularly controversial thing to say and we all sort of have to decide for ourselves what we think about individual cases.

That's reasonable, but the current zeitgeist seems to be that we believe all victims, which is a noble endeavor.

It does not account for the wrongly accused though, it's a tough one as I think there has been an overcorrection.