Well it can't be proven otherwise (obviously). So how do we know.
Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
Well it can't be proven otherwise (obviously). So how do we know.
He hasn't raped an adult.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
To quote my post earlier:
It comes down to the presumption of innocence. He may have raped an adult, we don't know. Should that affect decision making though?
I'm genuinely torn on this.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,181
Because I know 9/10 women aren't man-hating liars?
Well, we can't say that for certain, can we?
We can say that he wasn't convicted of rape. We can also say that the victim felt raped. And we can say that there was enough evidence of a rape that it was one of the only 1 in 10 reported rape cases that actually make it to court. From that, we could perhaps suggest that there may have been enough evidence to prove in a civil case that on the balance of probabilities he did rape her - though we can't be sure. And since we're unsure on that, perhaps it would be better that we don't stick such a person in charge of children. It's a shame for him, if indeed he did not rape the victim, but it would probably be more of a shame to put someone dangerous in a position of responsibility around children.
I read your post earlier and what I took away from it was essentially because the cps decide to prosecute they basically think the person is guilty. They're already operating on a presumption of guilt. That's fundamentally wrong when it comes to our justice system.
I've given the example on here before of my dad being charged for using a mobile phone whilst driving. The outcome of that event was the magistrate stopping just short of calling the police officer involved a liar (which she was) and bring utterly stumped as to why the cps had allowed it to go so far when the only evidence at hand was a single statement by this wpc that upon simple cross-examination was shown to be factually incorrect and partially fabricated.
Are we now to accept the cps as the arbiters of justice? Screw that.
Fundamental error. You're assuming the 'victim' is telling the truth.
Want me to cite the slew of cases recently of men found guilty of rape where they were later proven to be completely innocent? The cps choosing to prosecute means nothing. They've been consistently shown to be incompetent buffoons.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,181
Yes there have been a few cases recently where false accusations were made.
It doesn't mean all rape victims are liars.
The CPS weigh up evidence and decide whether the police have enough to warrant a prosecution, it's up to the judiciary in a court of law to decide guilt or innocence.
It doesn't mean all rape victims are liars.
The CPS weigh up evidence and decide whether the police have enough to warrant a prosecution, it's up to the judiciary in a court of law to decide guilt or innocence.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
So, like I said, I'm undecided on where I stand on this, but what about the flip side?
What if that person then goes to rape or sexually assault a child under their care as a teacher, because perhaps they were actually guilty when they were aquitted. Should the parents be told that there was information that could have prevented little Chloe's life being ruined but it wasn't disclosed?
That could apply to anyone though. Her life can equally be ruined by someone who hasn't been implemented beforehand.
If we're assuming previous criminal history is an indicator then why the heck are we ever letting dangerous people out of prison?!
All it takes is one spiteful individual to ruin someone's life because of this judgement. Even when that person is completely innocent.
If that woman entered your life with you not knowing her history, and she accused you. You were charged, as what happened in the other cases, and then it went to court and you were found not guilty.
Then later on you applied for a job covered by the CRB. It read you was charged with rape and found not guility. Do you really think you have an equal chance of getting that job over someone who has no history of crime? Your job prospectives just went down over no fault of your own.
I think the conviction rate is another debate. We're talking about someone being formally accused of something they didn't do and are being repeatedly punished for it.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,181
Wouldn't touch it with a barge-pole, therefore wouldn't happen 
I overtook a line of traffic on the A66 doing about 80 by the end of the queue. Little did I know that everyone was going slowly due to a cop car parked up on the side. So he pulls me over and gives me a ticket... I decide to go to court as I was in a low down car and I didn't think he could get a sufficient view of my vehicle to judge my speed.
I argued that everyone else in the line was doing 40mph which made me look like I was travelling much faster than the limit.
I was found not guilty.
Innocent or not??
I argued that everyone else in the line was doing 40mph which made me look like I was travelling much faster than the limit.
I was found not guilty.
Innocent or not??
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
That's not exactly the same is it? People with previous convictions wouldn't pass the DBS check to be a teacher and have that close contact with someone who is a risk.
Exactly and he may not pass the check either and according to the courts he's not done anything wrong yet is being judged as a risk.
No we're not.
We're talking about someone who wasn't convicted. We don't know if he did it or not. The conviction rate is utterly relevant.
Either you think that fewer than 1 in 10 reported rapes are genuine (I mean, really!?), or you concede that a CRB check that ignores rape accusations (and in this case rape charges) will allow unconvicted rapists to work with kids.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
This really is the crux of the matter. How important is the presumption of innocence on an acquittal? There are people who are acquitted who in all likelihood did commit the offence for which they were accused. What do we do with that possibility and the risk of offending in the future? @Dis86 is suggesting that we should do nothing with this. The judged rule the other end of the spectrum saying it should be disclosed for certain occupations as this could be key to safeguarding children.
The issue is that the information disclosed is nuanced and the people receiving the disclosure are not likely to understand or have access to everything to make an informed decision, or perhaps even have the appetite to have any level of risk in that decision making process.
It all comes down to who manages that risk. At the moment it's down to employers who have no inclination to manage a risk and would prefer to avoid it. This clearly does disadvantage someone who could be totally innocent. The police don't want to not disclose the information in case it does prevent harm to vulnerable people (children).
So what's the answer? I haven't a clue. This is a difficult ethical question.
It doesn't now matter if he did anything now as he was found not guilty.
Reading into the case it looks like the police really thought he did it and in spite added the information to the database - dick move right there.. With this ruling all police can now do the same, tarnish people with proven false allegations for the rest of their lives.
If someone is found not guilty there should be no record of anything about the alleged rape on the CRB, not the arrest, charge or not guilty finding. All record of the not guilty offense should be removed from the record as he was found not guilty - it's not hard to see why, I don't get why the judges feel differntly.
I know there is a concerted effort to increase the conviction rate for rape, as tpab think it's too low, as can be seen this year with all the late acquittals for rape because the CPS, and police, have been withholding information that, had it'd been known, wouldn't have even gone to trial.
So I suspect interference with the judicial process, along with all the tools that they have(CRB database), to try and reduce the numbers of rape. To the point now that even if you are cleared, having your name released before trial as a rapist, you have to live with the stain of it on your character for life - not even the 'Right to be forgotten' law will help you.
Presumption of innocence my arse. If I was this guy I would take this to the house of lords.
Reading into the case it looks like the police really thought he did it and in spite added the information to the database - dick move right there.. With this ruling all police can now do the same, tarnish people with proven false allegations for the rest of their lives.
If someone is found not guilty there should be no record of anything about the alleged rape on the CRB, not the arrest, charge or not guilty finding. All record of the not guilty offense should be removed from the record as he was found not guilty - it's not hard to see why, I don't get why the judges feel differntly.
I know there is a concerted effort to increase the conviction rate for rape, as tpab think it's too low, as can be seen this year with all the late acquittals for rape because the CPS, and police, have been withholding information that, had it'd been known, wouldn't have even gone to trial.
So I suspect interference with the judicial process, along with all the tools that they have(CRB database), to try and reduce the numbers of rape. To the point now that even if you are cleared, having your name released before trial as a rapist, you have to live with the stain of it on your character for life - not even the 'Right to be forgotten' law will help you.
Presumption of innocence my arse. If I was this guy I would take this to the house of lords.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,181
What is a rapist definitely did do it, but was found not guilty due to a technicality?