Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,352
the same thing, innocent until proven guilty, can't prove them guilty then they're innocent.
it's not complicated.
Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??
- Thread starter Hades
- Start date
the same thing, innocent until proven guilty, can't prove them guilty then they're innocent.
it's not complicated.
tough, do better next time... If someone gets off he's innocent, again it's presumption of innocence.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Not guilty isn't the same as "proven innocent".
Judges don't judge on whether something is right or not, they judge on whether something is lawful.
The Supreme Court of the UK is the court of last appeal on UK law. The Law Lords no longer exist.
Just to add to your (very good) post, is it not normally the case that during a trial previous offences committed by the defendant are not to be taken in to account during the verdict as they may cause unfair influence?
Yet here they're willing to give someone who, as you say is managing risk, information that may not even be pertinent!
I think the whole thing stinks. By all means share convictions but not allegations. It's just far too dangerous and open to abuse.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Except when they actually did do it and now abuse children.
But we can't punish innocent people when allegations turned out to be false, or there wasn't enough evidence to back up the claims.
If someone gets found not guilty for murder do we lock them up for life anyway, just in-case?
Very strange points of view. It's like you have no personal moral guidance beyond what is in the statute book.
Weird.
What if someone didn't do it and was found not guilty? Should their lives be screwed over more than they already are?
This to me is why we do not have the death penalty. You can't undo these things. You can undo a conviction that was missed when new evidence comes along.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Correct. Previous bad character is only taken into consideration for sentencing.
That's the problem. It's either completely irrelevant or crucial information to safeguarding. Nobody knows which one it is though. That's partly why presumption of innocence exists, to prevent decisions made in this grey area, but clearly that's a qualified right.
One way I sometimes look at this is very selfishly. Am I likely to be a rapist who would want to avoid employment issues though getting off a conviction when I did it? The answer is no before anyone tries to answer for me
Is it possible that I am subject to a false allegation that ends up ruining my career? Yes, that is entirely possible. Would I want protections against that? Yes I would.Although, again on the flip side, would I want to make absolutely sure that any of my future children's teachers are protected against sexual abusers? Damn right.
Gah, that hasn't helped much.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Would you want a potential pedophile (rather than rapist) who has been found not guilty to be your children's teacher? Would you really want to take that risk?
What a bizarre thread this is...... where some people are effectively saying that they believe that someone like Ian Huntley (arrested multiple times for rape and underage sexual activity but never even charged for these matters before he went on to sexually assaulted and murders two kids) should show up 'all clear' on an enhanced check designed for people working with vulnerable adults and children?
Working on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt' when it comes to child protection and protection of vulnerable adults would be an insane idea and we know it would expose these people to predators.
There is a due process here. Decisions can be appealed and if a rape trial concluded with a verdict that the complaint had likely fabricated the account then I would suggest that a matter would not show on any furture check for the defendant or at least the would likely win an appeal as the police should have considered the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Working on the basis of 'beyond reasonable doubt' when it comes to child protection and protection of vulnerable adults would be an insane idea and we know it would expose these people to predators.
There is a due process here. Decisions can be appealed and if a rape trial concluded with a verdict that the complaint had likely fabricated the account then I would suggest that a matter would not show on any furture check for the defendant or at least the would likely win an appeal as the police should have considered the particular circumstances of the case in question.
Last edited:
The problem is the Police and the CPS clearly aren't doing their job properly in these cases. To deflect it to make everyone who has been found not guilty of a crime become under suspicion for the rest of their lives seems a reprehensible thing to do.
For every Ian Huntley there will be tens of thousands of men accused and not charged of such things who went on to live perfectly normal lives, possibly because they 'got away with it' (in which case like in Ian Huntley's case you should be questioning investigation/prosecution processes) or simply because they were falsely accused and will have to live with the consequences of a malicious accusation for the rest of their lives. Changing the entire legal system to a presumption of unproven guilt based on one or two rare and heavily publicised cases like Ian Huntley is silly.
Going forward how many teachers will be falsely accused by students and then be unable to teach because they can't pass a ECRB check?
Last edited:
I don't think some cases reported in the media can be taken to support a blanket statement such as you make.
Please point me to a jurisdiction that doesn't have issues investigating and prosecuting sexual offences, which are almost uniquely difficult to deal with as the acts involved themselves often aren't illegal and it largely rests on the mindset of thoose involved.
Last edited:
Its quite simple there is a legal standard for Criminal culpability and a lower one to assess whether someone should work with children or vulnerable adults. There is due process for the later with a right of appeal (as per the news article).
'beyond reasonable doubt' is not a sensible benchmark to assess whether someone should work with children or vulnerable adults.
False reports are made against teachers and they are investigated by police often with it being concluded that there is insufficient evidence to charge or that the allegation was likely malicious. Such a matter is unlikely to show up on an enhanced check.
Last edited:
Actually they do the only moral thing is to count it as innocent.
Otherwise you weaponise the law and hurt a lot of innocent people
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,086
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
That process of appeal isn't particularly stringent though. It's effectively if the Police think there is merit to the case, you can't work with vulnerable people again.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I disagree that you're saying that's the only moral thing to do. It's a balancing act between safeguarding vulnerable people and affecting people who have been acquitted of an offence. Both are worthy causes.
Glad we found something to agree on for a change!