I know... innocent people shouldn't even be able to walk free in light of this damning evidence that they might have done it and gotten away with it, they should just get reduced sentences just incase!!!
Kevin Webster not a paedo
- Thread starter estebanrey
- Start date
I know... innocent people shouldn't even be able to walk free in light of this damning evidence that they might have done it and gotten away with it, they should just get reduced sentences just incase!!!
I have a big problem with the legal system allowing the names of those accused to be freely available. Cases like this highlight it's stupidity. His career is now most likely ruined, and as others have said he'll never be seen in the same light, even though he's probably innocent.
If he's guilty then fair enough, release the details after the case is closed, but until then, keep at least the names annonymous.
If he's guilty then fair enough, release the details after the case is closed, but until then, keep at least the names annonymous.
Do you fail to understand that the world isn't fair and bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people?
Or that guilty people sometimes don't get prosecuted, and some times innocent people go to jail?
It is herpderp, normal white British male is walking devil incarnate and at any time only a moment from taping a child while gunning down a room of poor put upon *insert generic minority herpderp is championing this werk* whilst also beating his wife and destroying that shining beacon that is the equal rights movement.
At times I really wonder how we keep it up but being so dastardly clearly brings with it the ability to multi task.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
The problem with this case was the timing. This would never have normally got this far but the press have gone to town owing to other cases around. It's a disgrace. The news papers and the accuser have to be held accountable for wasting both police time and juridical systems resources. The whole system needs to be reviewed otherwise it is indeed a system you're guilty until proven Innocent. It's wrong. the fact the accused has been found not guilty doesn't mean he's innocent. I'm unsure how anyone could reclaim their life after something like this.
You fail to understand that a justice system's remit isn't to constantly second guess every decision, big & small, it ever makes, otherwise what's the point of having it?
It doesn't claim nor pretend to have a 100% success rate, but as a society you can only place your trust within it or we have nothing.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
.
LOL didn't he claim he had a drink problem?
i think it just resurfaced....
If he genuinely didn't do anything wrong then I really sympathise, because his life and reputation has been irreparably tainted. I'm sure he'll be able to get a load of cash out of the people/papers that have made things worse for him though, even if his career has been ruined.
"Sure" vs "beyond all reasonable doubt"?
In the past, a juror had to be satisfied "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the accused was guilty before they could return a guilty verdict. This was viewed as being 91% certain. Current advice to jurors is that they must be "sure" that the accused did what he or she is accused of. This suggests 100% certain to me.
I think that as a juror, it must be almost impossible to be "sure" in the case of contested, unsupported claims. As a result, I suspect that a greater number of guilty persons are acquitted nowadays than in the past.
In the past, a juror had to be satisfied "beyond all reasonable doubt" that the accused was guilty before they could return a guilty verdict. This was viewed as being 91% certain. Current advice to jurors is that they must be "sure" that the accused did what he or she is accused of. This suggests 100% certain to me.
I think that as a juror, it must be almost impossible to be "sure" in the case of contested, unsupported claims. As a result, I suspect that a greater number of guilty persons are acquitted nowadays than in the past.
Don't forget that the girl has already been named and it will become common knowledge around the people that know her. In years to come this will haunt her also - imagine being the one who lied to get a man locked up for rape of a minor / failed to get a conviction on a child rapist, depending on which you believe. I suspect the former but who knows, I can imagine lads not wanting to risk it with a lying nut job....
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 4,503
- Location
- Darkest Worcestershire
not that far in advance
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sses-look-forward-discussing-return-show.html
Totally agree - I can't understand why this hasn't been made law...
bitslice said:
I don't know for sure - but wouldn't she be able to get compensation for grief caused or something?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
So he's guilty then despite being found innocent?
Though that attitude sums up the general street idiot and media approach so can't be too shocked it is echoed in GD.
He's not been proved innocent, he just hasn't been found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It's a subtle but important distinction. The court aren't proving the negative - that being that he didn't do it.
Did he do it? There's simply not enough evidence to know either way.
Court will always need to be an open process so he'll always be named in the public domain during the trial.
Some people are just wired very very badly, and there's no way a normal thinking person can explain it.
So he's guilty then despite being found innocent?
Though that attitude sums up the general street idiot and media approach so can't be too shocked it is echoed in GD.
This +1
It's a ignorant, utterly stupid and bigoted point of view. So i'm not surprised that the knuckle draggers of society that perpetuate this myth.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I think it also needs to be made clear that we don't know if she is indeed lying or not. That was never subject of investigation for the jury. She was however, inconsistent and lacked clarity and depth in her testimony which is why the jury didn't convict. That may be because she is lying or it may be just because she doesn't come across well enough in court.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 2,545
- Location
- Leyland
OMG some of you guys do really miss the point,
"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power.
They can only find them "not guilty." A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things.
It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different.
A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the prosecution has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty.""
"The jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence."
Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent.
It is one of analyzing what evidence the prosectution has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt. It is the jury's job to sniff out the reasonable possibility that the defendant may not be guilty.""
Its the same for when somebody is acquitted, it doesn't mean they are innocent.
"Juries never find defendants innocent. They cannot. Not only is it not their job, it is not within their power.
They can only find them "not guilty." A verdict of "not guilty" can mean two entirely different things.
It can, of course, mean that you believe the defendant is innocent. However, it can mean something entirely different.
A verdict of "not guilty" can mean a verdict of "not proven." Even if you are very sure the defendant is guilty, but the prosecution has not proven it "beyond a reasonable doubt," then it is your sworn duty to return a verdict of "not guilty.""
"The jury's job has very little to do with the concept of "innocence."
Its job is not a bipolar one of convicting the guilty and vindicating the innocent.
It is one of analyzing what evidence the prosectution has presented and determining whether it is enough to satisfy the jury that there is no reason to doubt the defendant's guilt. It is the jury's job to sniff out the reasonable possibility that the defendant may not be guilty.""
Its the same for when somebody is acquitted, it doesn't mean they are innocent.