Man imprisoned for not giving police password.

[Gaygle]

It's like building a fortress around your house with time delay security locks, security gatehouse, razor wire and 10 metre down underground blast fencing and then saying there is nothing out of the ordinary going on in the house.

Awesome analogy. But spot on.

 

[Pudney]

If the accused is guilty, he can either:

a) Refuse to give the password and receive a 16 week jail sentance, along with his name all over the papers as a suspected sex offender.
b) Give the password and be proven guilty, and receive a significant jail sentance and a conviction.

Step back from the moral crusade for a moment and ask yourself really, are his actions those of an innocent man?

But if you take a further step back is his actions those of a guilty man performing a serious crime? What if he has webcam pictures of his 17 yo girlfriend? End result, prison for child pornography, name all over the papers for being a paedophile all for something not actually that terrible.

He may be guilty of the crime, but the actual reality of the crime may not be that bad.

 

[Duff-Man]

At the risk of spending 16 weeks in jail which could leave you jobless and classed as a paedo when you come out and maybe having to upsticks and move to another area? You could literally lose everything...

Placing a large penalty against doing something reasonable does not automatically stop that thing from being reasonable. It simply forces you to make a hard choice.

It's like building a fortress around your house with time delay security locks, security gatehouse, razor wire and 10 metre down underground blast fencing and then saying there is nothing out of the ordinary going on in the house.

Precisely But there would still be nothing wrong with that whatsoever... The legal system must prove that you are doing something illegal - not convict based on perceived suspicious behaviour. Thankfully we live in a society where proof is valued over perceived suspicion.

 

[[TW]Fox]

But if you take a further step back is his actions those of a guilty man performing a serious crime? What if he has webcam pictures of his 17 yo girlfriend? End result, prison for child pornography, name all over the papers for being a paedophile all for something not actually that terrible.

There is absolutely no way a court in this country would send a guy to prison for having webcam pics of his 17 year old girlfriend. I know half the people in this thread watch too many movies and think we live in a police state which loves to do things like that but really, back in the real world, that simply wouldnt happen.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Precisely But there would still be nothing wrong with that whatsoever... The legal system must prove that you are doing something illegal - not convict based on perceived suspicious behaviour. Thankfully we live in a society where proof is valued over perceived suspicion.

I've no idea why you just posted that. Everyone knows that and it wasn't my point.

My point is that your actions often give away a lot.

Accepting a prison sentance and smearing as a possible child sex offender is not the actions of a reasonable, innocent guy who just wanted to encrypt his downloaded episodes of Lost.

 

[Wicksta]

Erm, no it would not be.

lol oh dear. Here's a little clue. How many characters are in the number '10'?

 

[Pudney]

There is absolutely no way a court in this country would send a guy to prison for having webcam pics of his 17 year old girlfriend. I know half the people in this thread watch too many movies and think we live in a police state which loves to do things like that but really, back in the real world, that simply wouldnt happen.

The problem is, the prison sentence is the least of the consequences. Irrespective of the nature isn't this a factual crime? Therefore, the scenario would leave you on the sex offenders register for minor-related (as in age) circumstances.

Would you really wish to live the rest of your life with damocles sword hanging over you due to the knowledge that the local media could get hold of your name, get the wrong impression and drive you out as a paedophile?

In those circumstances I could easily see why an "innocent" (in a moral sense not legal) would want to take the 16 weeks for withholding their password rather than hand it over.

Ultimately, the point I'm making is that even if guilty it's not necessarily black and white.

Edit: I've had to make some assumptions to the nature of the sex offenders register as I don't know how it works

 

[Delvis]

At the risk of spending 16 weeks in jail which could leave you jobless and classed as a paedo when you come out and maybe having to upsticks and move to another area? You could literally lose everything...

You mean because they want to give out information that isn't true I'd be classed as something I potentially wouldn't be?

Makes sense

 

[Janesy B]

Erm, no it would not be.

 

[Evilsod]

If the accused is innocent, he can either:

a) Refuse to give the password and receive a 16 week jail sentance, along with his name all over the papers as a suspected sex offender.
b) Give the password, and be proven innocent. All charges would be dropped. Sure they might find some dodgy software. Or some really rather questionable photos of his girlfriend. But what legal material could possibly be worse than a 16 week jail sentance and your name all over the press as a suspected sex offender?!

If the accused is guilty, he can either:

a) Refuse to give the password and receive a 16 week jail sentance, along with his name all over the papers as a suspected sex offender.
b) Give the password and be proven guilty, and receive a significant jail sentance and a conviction.

You're assuming that he won't be labelled as 1 anyway. He's already got his name plastered on the papers as a pedo, if he gives up his password and they don't find it, he is obviously not prosecuted. But what will that mean to the public? "He's a pedo alright, it just wasn't on his pc" or similar things. He would most certainly still have to leave the place he lived to get back to normal.

 

[[TW]Fox]

The problem is, the prison sentence is the least of the consequences. Irrespective of the nature isn't this a factual crime? Therefore, the scenario would leave you on the sex offenders register for minor-related (as in age) circumstances.

Would you really wish to live the rest of your life with damocles sword hanging over you due to the knowledge that the local media could get hold of your name, get the wrong impression and drive you out as a paedophile?

I doubt they'd even take it any further, especially if it came up when they were really after something else anyway. It wouldnt really be in the public interest.

 

[steve-h]

Obviously guilty as hell,no teenager if innocent would want to spend 16 weeks in jail known as a paedo when all they had to do would be to give up a password.

Wrong in a few senses... first; it wouldn't just be his password he would be giving up. Secondly; I would do the same

Lets swap this round and ask do you really wish to leave in a world where dangerous criminals* can easily and foolproofly hide evidence in a place where police can never recover it, so they can remain free?

*Interesting I do not classify people like the guy in question as dangerous criminals if they merely possess stuff rather than make it, but thats a whole new argument.

Well the 2nd part would have been the answer to your question.

Nice move,you'd still end up being classed as a paedo which could leave you and your family in danger and no doubt you would lose a lot of friends.

Lettuce be reality.

I also have a 50+ character password for my PC and even some smaller individual passwords attached to certain folders. If Police suddenly came to my door falsely acusing me of being a paedophile (or of a crime I know I didn't commit) and taking possession of my PC I wouldn't tell them the password. Now forgive me for being selfish, but even if they told me that it would aid their investigation and possibly even save a life. I still wouldn't reveal my password. Instead I would simply state that I had forgotten it.

My computer contains private documents with details about my life, the life of my family and of our friends. Would I go to jail to protect their privacy and mine, stand up for my rights and risk being labeled a paedophile for the rest of m life? Yes I would. A man who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security deserves nether and will loose both. I would stand by my freedoms and my liberties long before I bowed before the whims of a corrupt and oppresive legal system that would threaten to strip me of my rights.

Now it might just be the Scottish blood that flows through my viens, but I would die a 1000 times over before I gave up my freedom and I would back any man or woman from every race, creed and religion who thought likewise.

clap.gif

 

[Deleted member 77746]

Media needs to be stopped now, they create hype.... false hype most of the time no matter what paper or online media is present.

As stated, not a problem for not giving the police the password, the papers have made it clear that it's for child porn. This is the issue, could well be a false statement and the paper could be lying, however he may just be hiding something else.

Like movies and games downloads. It's the paper that's making you beleive it's for child porn. Unless you know this person you don't no what to beleive. Even then this person may lie, so really you just can't trust no-one.

If I was caught, I would also not give them the password. However, I would tell them I will input the password for them and then they could do the searching, infact my system doesn't have a password so they can feel free to do the searching. Won't find anything at all relating to crime. That's somewhere else in the world ....

 

[[TW]Fox]

You're assuming that he won't be labelled as 1 anyway. He's already got his name plastered on the papers as a pedo, if he gives up his password and they don't find it, he is obviously not prosecuted. But what will that mean to the public? "He's a pedo alright, it just wasn't on his pc" or similar things. He would most certainly still have to leave the place he lived to get back to normal.

He's only got his name all over the papers because it's made national news as he refused to give the password up and ended up being charged with a new offence under a controversial act of parliament.

If they'd brought him in as a suspect, had a look on the PC, found nothing, he'd have been released without charge and I doubt even the local press would have got hold of it - even if they had, nothing on the scale it is now.

The general publics hysterical reaction to anything peado related is ridiculous, though. Most people seem to hold it above murder and torture which is pretty bizarre.

 

[Duff-Man]

I've no idea why you just posted that. Everyone knows that and it wasn't my point.

My point is that your actions often give away a lot.

Accepting a prison sentance and smearing as a possible child sex offender is not the actions of a reasonable, innocent guy who just wanted to encrypt his downloaded episodes of Lost.

But it's only your perception as to what those actions give away

The point is that you are choosing to interpret the actions in a way that you personally feel is 'proof' of guilt. As others are trying to highlight, there are any number of alternative reasons, not least of which is a basic principle; that I don't want the police to access to my personal stuff. Whether these are plausible or likely (in your eyes) is irrelevant.


Guilty of a crime or not, I (personally) would not aid the police in searching my house. If they had a warrant, they could break in and there is nothing I can do about it. I would not resist, but I would not assist. Similarly, if they have a warrant for access to my computer, I would not resist, but would not assist. Passive and non-violent resistance; this has never and should never be illegal.

If they find anything in my home or on my computer that a court of law considers a criminal offence, I can be convicted of it. But my non-violent and passive resistance should not be in itself a crime. It is ALWAYS up to the state to prove guilt, and for you or anyone else to say "well a reasonable man would assume he has something to hide, therefore he should get a jail term for not co-operating" is absolutely abhorrent. Our legal system is NOT set up in that way, and we can all be thankful for that.

What you ASSUME should NEVER have a bearing on a conviction. Only what can be PROVEN beyond reasonable doubt.


You are arguing here from a position of pragmatism, I (as with others) are arguing from a position of idealism. In principle there is nothing wrong with either standpoint, but you are suggesting that in this instance, someone taking an idealistic standpoint should be convicted because they refuse to bow down to the pragmatic realities of the case (i.e. assist the police to read your personal data, or go to prison).

 

[LordSplodge]

I can't see why you wouldn't give away the password unless you've really got something to hide.

I now need the Mega RollEyes. Did you just say that?

 

[Deleted member 77746]

I recon the story is eitha fake, or miss-lead a lot. Don't believe it kidz.

 

[Janesy B]

I also have a 50+ character password for my PC and even some smaller individual passwords attached to certain folders. If Police suddenly came to my door falsely acusing me of being a paedophile (or of a crime I know I didn't commit) and taking possession of my PC I wouldn't tell them the password. Now forgive me for being selfish, but even if they told me that it would aid their investigation and possibly even save a life. I still wouldn't reveal my password. Instead I would simply state that I had forgotten it.

My computer contains private documents with details about my life, the life of my family and of our friends. Would I go to jail to protect their privacy and mine, stand up for my rights and risk being labeled a paedophile for the rest of m life? Yes I would. A man who sacrifices a little freedom for a little security deserves nether and will loose both. I would stand by my freedoms and my liberties long before I bowed before the whims of a corrupt and oppresive legal system that would threaten to strip me of my rights.

Now it might just be the Scottish blood that flows through my viens, but I would die a 1000 times over before I gave up my freedom and I would back any man or woman from every race, creed and religion who thought likewise.

All the 'private' information on your PC could be found out by other means, this is a rare occurrence and if you are suspected of something and they request the password, if you are innocent you would be a complete moron not to comply and clear your name with the most ease.

It really is akin to not letting the police in your house because they might find a couple of pirated DVDs, a stash of porn and might flick through your phone book.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

But it's only your perception as to what those actions give away

The point is that you are choosing to interpret the actions in a way that you personally feel is 'proof' of guilt. As others are trying to highlight, there are any number of alternative reasons, not least of which is a basic principle; that I don't want the police to access to my personal stuff. Whether these are plausible or likely (in your eyes) is irrelevant.


Guilty of a crime or not, I (personally) would not aid the police in searching my house. If they had a warrant, they could break in and there is nothing I can do about it. I would not resist, but I would not assist. Similarly, if they have a warrant for access to my computer, I would not resist, but would not assist. Passive and non-violent resistance; this has never and should never be illegal.

If they find anything in my home or on my computer that a court of law considers a criminal offence, I can be convicted of it. But my non-violent and passive resistance should not be in itself a crime. It is ALWAYS up to the state to prove guilt, and for you or anyone else to say "well a reasonable man would assume he has something to hide, therefore he should get a jail term for not co-operating" is absolutely abhorrent. Our legal system is NOT set up in that way, and we can all be thankful for that.

What you ASSUME should NEVER have a bearing on a conviction. Only what can be PROVEN beyond reasonable doubt.


You are arguing here from a position of pragmatism, I (as with others) are arguing from a position of idealism. In principle there is nothing wrong with either standpoint, but you are suggesting that in this instance, someone taking an idealistic standpoint should be convicted because they refuse to bow down to the pragmatic realities of the case (i.e. assist the police to read your personal data, or go to prison).

Proven beyond reasonable doubt is all it needs. If 10 out of 12 jurors think you've done something wrong, you're convicted.

 

[Evilsod]

He's only got his name all over the papers because it's made national news as he refused to give the password up and ended up being charged with a new offence under a controversial act of parliament.

If they'd brought him in as a suspect, had a look on the PC, found nothing, he'd have been released without charge and I doubt even the local press would have got hold of it - even if they had, nothing on the scale it is now.

The general publics hysterical reaction to anything peado related is ridiculous, though. Most people seem to hold it above murder and torture which is pretty bizarre.

Its a fair point, though why there was even a need to name the other crime is beyond me. I suppose the word paedophile just sells more newspapers.

Yeah the whole seriousness of it is completely offbase. There is this massive hypocrisy about the value of life... its inhuman for capital punishment to take a mans life after he kills 20 children but had he instead just touched 1 child in the naughty place there'd be a lynch mob.