Process Essay: Analyzing Kant's Evidence

I accompanied Nick to the District Court this week. He was prosecuting a man charged with several counts of unlawful sexual intercourse, gross indecency, and aggravated indecent assault. The complainant was between six and sixteen years during the period that these offences allegedly occurred, and she is now twenty-seven. The accused is in his mid-thirties. I was present for the majority of the complainant’s evidence in chief, and part of the cross-examination by a barrister that I will call B.

I found B during his cross-examination to be patronizing, sarcastic, and incredulous during his cross-examination of her, raising his voice and making wild arm gesticulations. I, as well as the prosecutor, found C to be an entirely credible witness but she

It is difficult to be impartial. One of the reasons that C stated for the delay was that the accused had told her “every time” during an incident that nobody would believe her, that she would be in trouble, and she was in the wrong. He also told her that nobody would ever love her after they found out about all of the terrible things that she had

And what impact does this have on the mind of the complainant, and any potential complainant that sees this sort of conduct being permitted in court? Neither the prosecutor nor the judge made any comment about B’s conduct, which make me believe that having had limited experience in a criminal setting, this is how complainants are cross-examined. This does raise the concern that, especially when one considers that members of the public and the jury are present, complainants are effectively put on trial themselves, and the effect this has on discouraging complaints of sexual abuse from other or potential victims of sexual