Not true.
Not all witness testimony under oath is admissible.
Just because someone is under oath doesn’t mean their testimony is automatically allowed in court. There are rules of evidence (like hearsay, relevance, competence, etc.) that still apply.
Testimony under oath can be evidence, but it’s not automatically admissible. Courts have strict filters for what testimony gets presented to a jury. Being under oath isn’t a magic pass.
Rooskie91@discuss.online 1 day ago
Stop litigating definitions to avoid confronting your misogyny. I’m not talking about hypothetical scenarios. I’m talking about real court cases in which the judge accepted women’s testimony as admissible.
Zozano@aussie.zone 1 day ago
Accusing me of misogyny because I pointed out a basic legal fact is a cheap dodge. You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re hiding behind identity politics to avoid admitting you’re wrong.
My point was clear: not all sworn testimony is admissible by default. That’s a factual statement about how evidence works in court. It’s completely independent of gender.
Saying “I’m talking about real cases” doesn’t change anything. Of course some testimony gets admitted. That’s not the issue. The issue is that being sworn in doesn’t bypass evidentiary rules. Judges evaluate relevance, hearsay, and competence. Period.
If you want to talk law, then talk law. If you want to talk ideology, then you’re changing the subject.
3abas@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Name your court cases where the women’s testimony was solid and was admitted as evidence and the perpetrator got away because we don’t believe women, those real cases.