Few things are as frightening as the lack of due process. The idea that someone could be held responsible for an act they may not have done without any means of defending themselves brings up thoughts of the medieval Inquisition. One would think that as a society we would be past the point of denying someone a trial or any means of defending themselves. Yet a UK judge recently ruled that two men accused of rape are “rapists” despite neither men facing any charges or trial:
A former Scotland international footballer and his ex-teammate have been ruled to be rapists and ordered to pay £100,000 damages despite never facing a criminal trial.
Denise Clair, who was left “devastated” by a Crown decision not to prosecute, sued striker David Goodwillie.
She also sued Goodwillie’s then Dundee United colleague David Robertson.
She claimed they raped her at a flat in Armadale, in West Lothian, after a night out in Bathgate in January 2011.
It was the first civil rape case of its kind in Scotland.
The first question this raises is why the Crown chose not to prosecute. Rape cases are often difficult to prosecute due to lack of evidence or the accuser’s lack of credibility or the accused possessing an alibi. There are a number of other reasons that go into that decision. That the case was not prosecuted is not evidence of misconduct or disbelief. It may simply be a situation in there is no way to put on a winning case.
According to the article: Continue reading