The word of ONE person (the victim), is enough to convict someone of a sex crime; is that right?
in the courtroom,
the word of ONE person can convict someone! No corroboration needed!
See, I wasn't lying!
Wait, what happened to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ???
the word of ONE person (often a child/minor) is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" ????
No corroboration needed?
Does that seem consistent with our constitution's guarantee of due process?
How is that constitutional?
Granted ---- if that wasn't the case ----- no one would ever be convicted of sex crimes. because there usually aren't additional witnesses.
but ---- still --- one witness is enough?
seems like an awfully low bar for "proof beyond a reasonable doubt."