Should future employers be warned you were found not guilty in a rape trial??

[Caracus2k]

A police officer's role is not to make decisions based on the law.

OK your officially clueless (despite your father apparently being a police officer at some time?)

Police officers all around the country every day make decisions based on the law that affect peoples liberties.

Do I arrest this person, have they commited an offence (based on reasonable suspicion) ?

Do I have legal grounds to stop and search this person?

Do I have sufficient evidence to take a case to the cps?

What police don't do is find people guilty of criminal offences.

Juries and magistrates/lay benches make decisions on the evidence presented at crown and magistrates courts respectively in relation to criminal cases. (in Crown courts judges are not responsible for assessing the evidence in trials as thats the juries function in the Crown Court - judges in Crown Court trials are responsible for directions based on the law)

Matters relating to DBS are dealt with at a lower standard because they are not criminal trials!

Why? because there is a sliding scale with regards to what test we use to judge things as a society.

Generally the more severe the consequence the higher the evidential burden.

Hence potentially imprisoning someone and convicting them of a crime comes with the highest burden of proof.

But its insane to suggest this is a sensible test to assess who shoud work with children and vulnerable adults! I can't beleive I have had to point this out so many times!

 

[Hades]

OK your officially clueless. Police officers all around the country every day make decisions based on the law that affect peoples liberties.

Do I arrest this person, have they commited an offence?

Do I have legal grounds to stop and search this person?

Do I have sufficient evidence to take a case to the cps?

Juries and magistrates/lay benches make decisions on the evidence presented and crown and magistrates courts respectively about criminal cases. (in Crown courts judges are not responsible for assessing the evidence in trials as thats the juries function in the Crown Court - judges in Crown Court trials are responsible for directions based on the law)

Matters relating to DBS are dealt with at a lower standard because they are not criminal trials!

Why? because there is a sliding scale in how we judge things as a society. Generally the more severe the consequence the higher the evidential burden.

Hence potneitlaly imprisoning someone and convicting them of a crime comes with the highest burden of proof.

But its insane to suggest this is a sensible test to assess who shoud work with children and vulnerable adults! I can't beleive I have had to point this out so many times!

You are very quick to try to insult people by calling them clueless rather than rely on argument alone.

My point remains that a police officer should not be making such decisions. These decisions affect a person's livelihood and future. They are serious matters which should be taken by a judge or jury. Of the example police activities you gave they all relate to deciding whether to gather evidence before presenting it to the CPS. The police should not be judge and jury.

You may well be surprised how many times you have to keep saying it. But I'm not. My concern is of course for vulnerable people. But it is also for the rights of people who have not been found guilty of any crime. I have said I agree that in certain circumstances I can see the value of disclosing some cases. But I simply do not accept that it should be the police making that decision. So our disagreement seems to hinge on who we believe should make such a decision. I opt for a far more accountable, open and transparent process which both safeguards the vulnerable people and also the rights of people with no relevant criminal record.

Whereas, from my understanding of what you are saying, you would prefer a lower level of protection for the accused, even if they are not guilty. I think we would both agree that in an ideal world the higher level of protection for both would be preferred. So why do you want a lower level of protection? Why do you feel it is better that such decisions are taken by a single person outside of a court (possibly with the second opinion of a colleague), rather than within a court? Why do you feel it is better that a person's future could be ruined and he has to retrospectively fight to correct that, rather than a more careful decision is made before that information is made available?

Is there a reason other than simply practicality and cost? Why is it better that a policeman makes this decision rather than a court?

 

[Caracus2k]

These decisions affect a person's livelihood and future. They are serious matters which should be taken by a judge or jury.

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Employment matters, which can seriously affect a person's livelihood and future, are adjudicated at the civil burden of proof exactly like this case which relates to suitability for specific employment!

And it is clueless to state police officers don't make decisions based on the law!

You and anyone else who think only a conviction or a special judicial decision when found not guilty at court should bar someone from working with kids or vulnerable adult has to accept that someone with the below history should be able to apply for a job in a school with a 'clean sheet'

You may notice that a lot of the cases didn't proceed not as a result of obvious police failures in the individual cases but due to evidential decisions based on the individual cases alone or the lack of support/corroboration from the underage girls Huntley was obviously (in retrospect) having sex with.

August 1995: Underage sex
A joint investigation by police and social services takes place following a complaint that Huntley was having sex with a 15-year-old-girl. The girl admits she was having sex with Huntley. Police decide not to pursue the matter in accordance with her wishes.

15 November 1995: Burglary
Huntley is alleged to have broken into a house in Grimsby via the loft of the next door house. He and an accomplice are said to have stolen electrical goods, jewellery and a small amount of cash. Huntley is arrested and charged with burglary in March 1996 which he admits. The case goes to court and is ordered to lie on file.

March 1996: Underage sex
Another complaint to social services that Huntley is having a sexual relationship with an underage girl. The girl denies the allegation. Social services say this was the only case in which the police are not involved.

April 1996: Underage sex
Another 15-year-old, another alleged underage sexual relationship. The mother of the girl brings the matter to the attention of her school and social services are alerted. Social services exchange information with the police, but the family does not wish to involve the police and no further action is taken.

May 1996: Underage sex
Another joint police and social services investigation, this time into allegations that Huntley had had sex with a 13-year-old girl. The girl denies sex had taken place. Supported by her mother she refuses to have a medical examination. In spite of the previous incident with the 15-year-old the police do not interview Huntley.

April 1998: Rape
Huntley is arrested after a woman claimed he had raped her. She met Huntley at a nightclub, they shared a taxi home and went back to her house. The alleged victim did have a medical examination. Huntley admits they had sex but claimed it was consensual. The police took the view there was not enough evidence to take the matter any further.

May 1998: Rape charge
Another woman claims Huntley raped her while she was walking home from a nightclub. She said Huntley attacked her in an isolated spot and threatened to kill her. Huntley again claims the sex was consensual. Huntley is charged with rape. After viewing CCTV footage from the nightclub, the Crown Prosecution Service decided there was no chance of a conviction and dropped the case.

July 1998: Indecent assault
A young girl claims she was subject to a serious indecent assault by a man called Ian 10 months before, when she was 12 years old. Huntley, who was living in her street at the time is arrested and denies the allegation.

Huntley had been living in a caravan with his then 15-year-old girlfriend - she was away that day. The 10-year-old told police he threatened her with pressure points saying he was an expert in martial arts, he had his hands round her neck and told her if she told anybody he would kill her.

She was interviewed but Humberside Police decided not to proceed with the case. The girl has suffered psychologically since that time. Social services are also involved in this case.

February 1999: Rape
A 17-year-old girl alleges that Huntley had raped her in February after meeting him at a night club. She had met him before and Huntley claimed the sex was consensual. The police decided there was not enough evidence to proceed.

July 1999: Rape
A woman is raped and Huntley was interviewed because of his previous behaviour. He was by this time using the name Nixon. He supplied a DNA sample and had an alibi provided by Maxine Carr. The woman subsequently said Huntley was not the rapist. This case was different in that in all the others the victims named or identified Huntley.

 

[Hades]

And as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. Employment matters, which can seriously affect a person's livelihood and future, are adjudicated at the civil burden of proof exactly like this case which relates to suitability for specific employment!

And it is clueless to state police officers don't make decisions based on the law!

You and anyone else who think only a conviction should bar someone from working with kids or vulnerable adult has to accept that someone with the below history should be able to apply for a job in a school with a 'clean sheet'

You may notice that a lot of the cases didn't proceed not as a result of obvious police failures in the individual cases but due to evidential decisions based on the individual cases alone or the lack of support/corroboration from the underage girls Huntley was obviously (in retrospect) having sex with.

You are very confrontational aren't you, with sentences like "pointed out to you". Language is a very interesting subject. Nothing has been "pointed out to me". We are having a debate upon which we disagree. So what has actually been done is that opinions have been given rather than things "pointed out"

Yes I know how the current process seemingly works and the current process decides things at a civil burden of proof. It obviously works that way because the decision went to court after the fact and was found to be lawful. Its pretty obvious and is simply how the process works right now. But it is why I started the thread; I disagree that this is the correct level of proof required to ruin a person's future.

Again I will say that the Ian Huntley example given is just using a very emotive case to influence a decision. As a society we should not be allowing such cases to influence the principle of law. Inevitably there will be wrong decisions made, either affecting future victims or affecting the accused. No system is perfect. Mistakes are always possible. But as a society we should seek to find the best process possible which protects both sides.

Again I say we agree on the end goal of protecting the vulnerable and also protecting the rights of genuinely innocent people (because some not guilty people will actually be guilty and some will be genuinely innocent). But that we disagree on who should be making the decision.

In the very emotive example above the CPS were involved. If there was the option of not prosecuting him, but of still escalating concerns to a judge for a decision on the information being included in a CRB / DBS check, then your desired result would have been achieved but at the higher level of protection that I desire.

Ultimately, as I have said several times, I am not disagreeable to certain cases being included. But I believe the decision should be made by a judge and/or jury to protect the rights of the genuinely innocent. You can state again that it is not how it works. That is correct, it is not how it works. But in my opinion that is wrong.

Why do you feel it is correct for the police to make such a decision but incorrect for a judge/jury to make the decision?

 

[mmj_uk]

Again though the Huntley case is an extreme example and is being used as a basis to effectively criminalise anyone who has any spurious accusation made against them, even if there is zero evidence. In the Huntley case I would be asking why so many of the young girls wouldn't take matters further and/or why the police didn't push more for them to but then given recent events the police seem to be rather dismissive of child grooming/rape - maybe look into police attitudes instead? given some of the stories coming out of Rotherham the police probably talked the parents out of complaining.... they were just slags and happy in a relationship afterall...

How about this, imagine you go out drinking one night, meet a nice woman, get drunk, do the deed and then the next morning she starts talking about marriage and how many kids she wants, you run for the hills and a few days later you have the plod knocking on your door saying that an accusation of rape has made against you. In the trial you are found not guilty but as we all know from reading this thread you were probably guilty and it was just a lack of evidence. Would you be happy carrying around an accusation of rape for the rest of your life? with people like yourself judging you as a rapist.

 

[dowie]

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/10/14/10-myths-busted-about-the-ched-evans-case/

ah the old SJW Barrister she just can't help herself, doesn't really acknowledge the presumption of innocence, places plenty of emphasis on burden of proof and how Jury could still find him not guilty even if they think he probably didn't reasonably believe she was capable of consenting (despite new evidence to apparently corroborate Evan's account of the sex where she was seemingly enjoying it and voicing encouragement) and then throws in this gem at the end:

10. What does this whole affair say about our society?
Christ knows. Nothing good.

Now I guess she might be making a moral judgement about causal sex, drunk sex, two guys sharing a girl on a night out etc... But it seems that she's indicating still that this footballer is a wrongun in spite of the acquittal.

oh and this gem:

Whether, given that Evans had already served his sentence (and therefore would not have served any more time if re-convicted) it was wise to put the complainant through a retrial is arguable, but that’s a fight for another day.

I think given the resulting not guilty verdict and the effect the previous guilty verdict had had on him in terms of career, loss of earnings etc.. I'm not sure it is particularly "arguable".

 

[FoxEye]

Again though the Huntley case is an extreme example and is being used as a basis to effectively criminalise anyone who has any spurious accusation made against them, even if there is zero evidence. In the Huntley case I would be asking why so many of the young girls wouldn't take matters further and/or why the police didn't push more for them to but then given recent events the police seem to be rather dismissive of child grooming/rape - maybe look into police attitudes instead? given some of the stories coming out of Rotherham the police probably talked the parents out of complaining.... they were just slags and happy in a relationship afterall...

How about this, imagine you go out drinking one night, meet a nice woman, get drunk, do the deed and then the next morning she starts talking about marriage and how many kids she wants, you run for the hills and a few days later you have the plod knocking on your door saying that an accusation of rape has made against you. In the trial you are found not guilty but as we all know from reading this thread you were probably guilty and it was just a lack of evidence. Would you be happy carrying around an accusation of rape for the rest of your life? with people like yourself judging you as a rapist.

Yeah apparently that's fine, because the "balance of probabilities" means there's no smoke without fire! You just got away with it is all.

Also the police think you look like the shifty rapist type, so it's all going on file and they'll tell anyone who'll listen what a horrible rapist you are.

This is what justice looks like

But don't be too depressed that you can't get a job. "Think of the children" hard enough and it will all make perfect sense.

 

[adolf hamster]

"think of the children", like the kids of the poor sod who's out of work thanks to a false allegation made by some previous scorned lover.

 

[PaulCa]

enkoda is perfectly valid in what he is saying regarding the law. What he is saying makes complete sense. He is not expressing a personal opinion either way but still gets pathetic dismissive attacks like this.

I beg to differ. I understand you are using the premise that the courts do not work in truth but only in what is provable.

However one of the core values of our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty. That makes his statement at odds with our society values.

If we were to change that premise, such as is the case in, say, airports, then it would have significant ramifications to our way of life and bring us much closer to countries with more draconian legal systems. You could be imprisoned as guilty until you could prove your innocence, for example.

 

[PaulCa]

Wow this is orwellian stuff. So if you are charged with an offence, found not guilty, you are still guilty!

Indeed. It also seems to fail in understanding how things are meant to work. The prosecution is not there to decide guilt, they are there to decide is someone should be brought in front of the courts and nothing more. If there is enough suspicion the prosecution will bring a case, but the prosecution will probably not have the full information of the case at that stage. To say that by the prosecution having enough suspicion to raise the case to the courts is enough to say the person was guilty is a complete reversal of the actual responsibilities. "We think guilt is plausible, so you decide.", "Well since you think it's plausible enough to bring to court, the defendant must be guilty.", that's not how it works.

It is similar to cries from people to give the police more and more power. They then seem to forget that it is not the polices job to judge or punish. It is the polices job to prevent and solve crime by bringing people to justice and nothing more. They are not educated or paid well enough to judge or to punish and typically speaking police make very, very bad judges and even worse punishers.

It is better than 100 guilty people walk free than one innocent's freedom removed unjustly.

 

[PaulCa]

Very strange points of view. It's like you have no personal moral guidance beyond what is in the statute book.

Weird.

Yes and why we don't have kangeroo courts in town squares anymore.

The other weird thing about this case, as remarked by the judge in question is that the law gives protection to actual offenders through the rehabilitation of offenders act. However it gives no similar protection to those with "not guilty" verdicts. So actual offenders have more protection in law than though aquited. I believe the judge remarked that this needs reviewed.

This loops back to the comments about judges only working based on what is lawful. In this case the judge did was he believes the law says to do and allow putting the aquital on the persons record. However he states (if the BBC version was to be believed) that he thinks this needs review.

I don't think everyone will see eye to eye on this at this stage. The only way for that to happen is if we return to the courts of old and have town square witch hunt style justice and kangeroo courts. It would take only a few short years of that before people are out on the streets screaming for justice and mother, father, sons and daughters are tried, convicted and punished by meer suggestion or accusation. Our law is the way it is for a reason. It's just that the public have a very short memory and romanticise the past.

 

[enkoda]

I beg to differ. I understand you are using the premise that the courts do not work in truth but only in what is provable.

However one of the core values of our law is that you are innocent until proven guilty. That makes his statement at odds with our society values.

If we were to change that premise, such as is the case in, say, airports, then it would have significant ramifications to our way of life and bring us much closer to countries with more draconian legal systems. You could be imprisoned as guilty until you could prove your innocence, for example.

No, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, then the claim of guilt is later addressed in court, not innocence. This isn't rocket science.
If you can't understand why a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" instead of "innocent" then we've reached an impasse.

Maybe you could explain exactly why I need a ticket to Russia or China?

 

[Nasher]

But EVERYONE is presumed innocent until they are guilty of something...

 

[PaulCa]

No, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, then the claim of guilt is later addressed in court, not innocence. This isn't rocket science.
If you can't understand why a jury returns a verdict of "not guilty" instead of "innocent" then we've reached an impasse.

You are mixing concepts and potentially looping back on those concepts.

You are consider/presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court/jury has the job to prove you are guilty. If they cannot do that they return a verdict of "not guilty". This is BECAUSE they are not tasked with proving you are innocent as that is already assumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If we flip this thing around to where you are guilty until proven innocent we end up in the same situation but with much worse consequences to freedom. While there are situations where a court cannot, with the available evidence, prove guilt, there are also situations where a court cannot prove innocence. If you were to be presumed guilty until proven innocent you would effectively have to serve an jail sentence as guilty until you can prove you are innocent. Do YOU want to live in that world? Have you ever been accused of something you didn't do? Ever felt what that is like?

 

[cheesyboy]

You are mixing concepts and potentially looping back on those concepts.

You are consider/presumed innocent until proven guilty. The court/jury has the job to prove you are guilty. If they cannot do that they return a verdict of "not guilty". This is BECAUSE they are not tasked with proving you are innocent as that is already assumed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence

If we flip this thing around to where you are guilty until proven innocent we end up in the same situation but with much worse consequences to freedom. While there are situations where a court cannot, with the available evidence, prove guilt, there are also situations where a court cannot prove innocence. If you were to be presumed guilty until proven innocent you would effectively have to serve an jail sentence as guilty until you can prove you are innocent. Do YOU want to live in that world? Have you ever been accused of something you didn't do? Ever felt what that is like?

This isn't correct.

Courts are judging whether, on the evidence presented, a person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It leaves room for people to be guilty on the balance of probabilities (the civil case benchmark : some not-guilty criminal proceedings are later 'guilty' under civil law), to possibly be guilty, or to be innocent beyond reasonable doubt - but all of those are swept up into 'not-guilty'.

You are presumed innocent, and you cannot be criminally punished if found not-guilty. That doesn't mean you are exempt from civil issues.

 

[aardvark]

and he hasn't been found guilty in a civil case either, so he's still innocent.

 

[Caracus2k]

You are very confrontational aren't you, with sentences like "pointed out to you". Language is a very interesting subject. Nothing has been "pointed out to me". We are having a debate upon which we disagree. So what has actually been done is that opinions have been given rather than things "pointed out"

Yes I know how the current process seemingly works and the current process decides things at a civil burden of proof. It obviously works that way because the decision went to court after the fact and was found to be lawful. Its pretty obvious and is simply how the process works right now. But it is why I started the thread; I disagree that this is the correct level of proof required to ruin a person's future.

So you are not just disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with the entire western legal system, present in multiple countries, where the majority of matters are decided at the civil burden of proof including thoose decision with ample capability to 'ruin' a person's future.

I want to sue you - with potentially very serious effects for you if you lose - case decided on balance of probabilities.

You want to sue your former employer for wrongful dismissal (including a scenario where you where charged but not convicted for an offence not directly relating to work and your employer refused to reinstate you after the trial- see my previous posted link to the HR site) - case decided on balance of probabilities.

The police want to discipline/ dismiss a police officer - case decided on balance of probabilities.

A family court wants to investigate allegations of child abuse to decide who gets full custody of a child? - case decided on balance of probabilities.

So basically Hades knows best and everyone else is wrong?


You are guilty in my opinion for what I would call the appeal to perfection or at least unworkable standards.

In an abstract sense would it be 'fairer' or 'better' if every decision about a future theoretical DBS application by any given individual was considered by a panel of expert judges in an adversarial court hearing with a raft of skilled (and expensive) legal representatives for all concerned parties?

Well yes. Is this a practical or an achievable outcome?

Absolutely not. You may find my tone a bit abrubt but I don't have that much patience for people who support courses of action that we know would put children at far greater risk of serious physical and sexual abuse.

Its good that we have an extremely high standard for finding someone guilty in a criminal court. A commonly used phrase to describe this is that its better that nine guilty people go free then one innocent person be convicted of course even then some innocent people will be convicted in criminal courts because no human system is or can be perfect.

However its totally insane to apply the same logic to who gets to work with children.

Is it better that nine people with a violent and/ or sexual offending past get to work with children then one falsely accused person doesn't?

As I have pointed out in this post your view is contrary not just to my view but to a justice system that has been developed over hundreds of years. An imperfect system but one that acknowledges that different burdens of proof are appropriate for different circumstances.

 

[Caracus2k]

But EVERYONE is presumed innocent until they are guilty of something...

But this is only in criminal cases. The vast majority of decisions all courts collectively adjudicate are decided on the balance of probabilities in the UK and plenty of places abroad.

 

[Caracus2k]

and he hasn't been found guilty in a civil case either, so he's still innocent.

He has had his appeal heard at a court on the basis of that burden of proof. The court upheld the police decision. He is presumed innocent to the criminal standard. This doesn't (and shouldn't) mean that no further action can be taken on information available.

 

[Hades]

So you are not just disagreeing with me you are disagreeing with the entire western legal system, present in multiple countries, where the majority of matters are decided at the civil burden of proof including thoose decision with ample capability to 'ruin' a person's future.

I want to sue you - with potentially very serious effects for you if you lose - case decided on balance of probabilities.

You want to sue your former employer for wrongful dismissal (including a scenario where you where charged but not convicted for an offence not directly relating to work and your employer refused to reinstate you after the trial- see my previous posted link to the HR site) - case decided on balance of probabilities.

The police want to discipline/ dismiss a police officer - case decided on balance of probabilities.

A family court wants to investigate allegations of child abuse to decide who gets full custody of a child? - case decided on balance of probabilities.

So basically Hades knows best and everyone else is wrong?


You are guilty in my opinion for what I would call the appeal to perfection or at least unworkable standards.

In an abstract sense would it be 'fairer' or 'better' if every decision about a future theoretical DBS application by any given individual was considered by a panel of expert judges in an adversarial court hearing with a raft of skilled (and expensive) legal representatives for all concerned parties?

Well yes. Is this a practical or an achievable outcome?

Absolutely not. You may find my tone a bit abrubt but I don't have that much patience for people who support courses of action that we know would put children at far greater risk of serious physical and sexual abuse.

Its good that we have an extremely high standard for finding someone guilty in a criminal court. A commonly used phrase to describe this is that its better that nine guilty people go free then one innocent person be convicted of course even then some innocent people will be convicted in criminal courts because no human system is or can be perfect.

However its totally insane to apply the same logic to who gets to work with children.

Is it better that nine people with a violent and/ or sexual offending past get to work with children then one falsely accused person doesn't?

As I have pointed out in this post your view is contrary not just to my view but to a justice system that has been developed over hundreds of years. An imperfect system but one that acknowledges that different burdens of proof are appropriate for different circumstances.

That's quite a rant. But the examples given are different to the case in hand here. The person had been to trial and been found not guilty. Yet the affect of being on the report is to wreck his life... despite being found not guilty.