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

I'm still confused about the whole guilty, not guilty, innocent debacle because so many people seem to have their own ideas.
And then some idiot will accuse me of trolling because he thinks his version is the proper one.
 
SexyGreyFox said:
I'm still confused about the whole guilty, not guilty, innocent debacle because so many people seem to have their own ideas.
And then some idiot will accuse me of trolling because he thinks his version is the proper one.
Click to expand...

Not guilty=/=innocent

Guilty might be innocent, depends on how the cards fall and how good the prosecution is :p
 
d_brennen said:
Not guilty=/=innocent
Click to expand...

To me it absolutely does equal. To believe anything else makes a mockery of our "innocent until proven guilty" stance in this country. You are innocent until found guilty, if you're found Not guilty then your innocent status doesn't change one iota. To think otherwise is the whole smoke without fire premise which means we might as well throw all suspected people into jail just because they're suspected.

It's a slippery slope into an Orwellian society
 
VincentHanna said:
Was OJ Simpson innocent?

I mean, he was found not guilty in a court of law....and the wrote a book about how he would have killed his wife.
Click to expand...
Should we suspect that everyone found "not guilty" actually "got away with it", then?

Are there any cases where you'd say a person found not guilty should be treated as totally innocent, or not? Or should lingering doubt fall on everyone found "not guilty"?
 
d_brennen said:
Not guilty=/=innocent

Guilty might be innocent, depends on how the cards fall and how good the prosecution is :p
Click to expand...

I found an old thread of mine where i asked the same question and there is a good case of Jill Dando's killer.
He was found Not Guilty but can't claim compensation because he hasn't proved he is innocent.

Mind blown.
 
VincentHanna said:
No, of course not.

But his case clearly diminishes the "not guilty absolutely does equal innocent" statement made by the previous poster.

Dolph said the most sane thing on the previous page.
Click to expand...
So you would agree with Dolph then, that someone having been charged with an offence is likely/does constitute a greater risk than someone who wasn't charged with an offence, regardless of the result of the charge.

Which effectively *does* place anyone found not guilty in some kind of limbo, between guilty and innocent, for the rest of their lives.
 
robgmun said:
To me it absolutely does equal. To believe anything else makes a mockery of our "innocent until proven guilty" stance in this country. You are innocent until found guilty, if you're found Not guilty then your innocent status doesn't change one iota. To think otherwise is the whole smoke without fire premise which means we might as well throw all suspected people into jail just because they're suspected.

It's a slippery slope into an Orwellian society
Click to expand...
Presumed innocent until proven guilty. There's a very subtle shift in context compared with just "innocent".

This was explained way back - innocent people aren't charged with crimes, only those suspected of being guilty.
 
An early post in this thread said that "He can't be named for legal reasons".

I'm afraid that just isn't true. There are no restrictions on the media naming this man, or referring to the allegation unless doing so would also identify the alleged victim. The only requirement is that they need to report that he was found innocent or they could face libel charges.

In my opinion, the accused in such cases should be granted the same legal right to anonymity as the victim until and unless they are found guilty. There are a limited number of cases where naming a suspect can encourage others to come forward with relevant evidence, so there may be an argument that the police can argue before the high court for dispensation for a suspect's identity to be revealed.
 
enkoda said:
People presumed innocent aren't, those suspected of being guilty are. Better?
Click to expand...

The foundation of our justice system is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So no, your statement is still stupid.
 
Dis86 said:
The foundation of our justice system is that you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. So no, your statement is still stupid.
Click to expand...
A crime is committed - do the police go around arresting people they know didn't do it and have them sent to trial to prove their innocence, or do they assess the evidence, arrest a suspect and get the prosecution to try and prove guilt? If everybody is presumed innocent then no one would ever be arrested for a crime - there has to be an initial suspicion of guilt. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?
PaulCa said:
You should be a politician, that is a fantastic bit of double think BS.
Click to expand...
Aren't you the one who trolled me over this last time? Do you honestly not understand how this works? Do the police arrest people they know are innocent, or do they arrest a suspect, someone they believe the evidence points to having committed the crime?
 
enkoda said:
A crime is committed - do the police go around arresting people they know didn't do it and have them sent to trial to prove their innocence, or do they assess the evidence, arrest a suspect and get the prosecution to try and prove guilt? If everybody is presumed innocent then no one would ever be arrested for a crime - there has to be an initial suspicion of guilt. Why are you having so much trouble understanding this?

Aren't you the one who trolled me over this last time? Do you honestly not understand how this works? Do the police arrest people they know are innocent, or do they arrest a suspect, someone they believe the evidence points to having committed the crime?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence other than the statement of a woman. I've posted here previously, several times, about my father being taken to court over use of his phone whilst driving. There was not one shred of evidence other than the statement of a single wpc. Which was patently proven in court to be false with the magistrate not quite going so far as calling her a liar.
You cannot trust people. People lie.
 
The police arrest to gain evidence and question suspects so there could be no evidence to suggest a crime has been committed other than someone reporting a crime and giving your name as the perpetrator. They would be then later released without charge, or convince the person to accept a caution to avoid it going to court because the person doesn't know any better or the police can't be bothered to gain enough evidence for the CPS to prosecute but then that person has it on their record for the rest of their life.

Given now you can be arrested and released and the police now have TWO whole years to investigate and bring charges, because the old rules were release under bail and bring charges within 31 days or drop them, means you can easily have something hanging over your head until the police sort themselves out.

It's very easy to say that innocent people don't end up on the wrong side of the law, and have the view that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to hide but in reality it's a different story.

There are examples of rape trials ongoing where text messages or facebook messages that prove consent were ignored or not collected as evidence until they're brought in front of the judge as part of the defence.

I don't even have a problem of these things being kept on record, but as usual data is always misused, and used as a way of discriminating against people when that data should only be kept for police use only.
 
Dis86 said:
There is no evidence other than the statement of a woman. I've posted here previously, several times, about my father being taken to court over use of his phone whilst driving. There was not one shred of evidence other than the statement of a single wpc. Which was patently proven in court to be false with the magistrate not quite going so far as calling her a liar.
You cannot trust people. People lie.
Click to expand...

You've just made his point for him :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom