Victims bill of rights would see spouses compelled to testify

Nice to see the victims getting something for a change.

I'm kind of torn on this. I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to testify, but since it's only in the case of sexual assault . . .

Yeah, I think the wife-beating could go up dramatically....plus the number of spouses going to jail who are to scared to testify about their partner's drug/theft activites.

And proportional decrease in the right to be presumed innocent.

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense. The guy is going to be OK with her reporting him in the first place, but will go postal when she testifies? What is the woman thinking that she reports but won't testify - that's the best way to have the guy be let off for lack of evidence. I doubt he'll be all forgiving and sweet after she got him arrested in the first place, nor will he feel scared of the law, since he knows she won't testify next time either.

Also, women are just going to have to stop wanting it both ways. IF they want help with an abuser, they're going to have to do their bit as well. Same applies to abused men, actually.

You can't make the spouse tell the truth but if it is found out later that they lied on the stand, then there will be consequences. Wouldn't charges of threatening a witness also then apply?

The current law allows a spouse to refuse to testify except in certain specific cases, like sexual assault.

The new law would require a spouse to testify in all cases. Or rather that just being married to someone doesn't exempt them from having to testify for the prosecution.


No, because the legal obligation to act isn't an attempt to 'obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding'.

Yes it would. How could it not be an attempt to obstruct.......not to mention threats made. Bikers gangs try it all the time and it's illegal.

Because taking part in a legally obligated action as part of a judicial proceeding is by definition helpful to the judicial proceeding.


Just to come back to this point. Yes clearly physically you can not force someone to tell the truth. However legally obligate someone to do so, and as part of any reasonable law it must include punishment for non compliance.

What it seems like you are suggesting is that any non voluntary testimony is an obstruction of justice. It would cause a total breakdown of the system of witnesses. A friendly witness on one side could just refuse to answer questions on a cross examination. The police would never say anything other than whatever story they worked up with the prosecution.

Unless I have somehow failed to understand your point, I just can't see how laws that prohibit lying could be viewed as equal to a criminal organization threatening a witness.

An act which is a crime even if the person being threatened isn't a witness.

Taken to the next level all laws that carry punishment could be classed as uttering threats.

What I'm saying is if you lie on the stand under oath it is called perjury.