barleycorn Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Finding a defendant not-guilty does not automatically make an accusation 'false'. By the same rule then someone found guilty, can be innocent? A not guilty verdict simply means there wasn't enough evidence to find someone guilty. It doesn't mean they are innocent, hence the prevalence of further civil claims against the accused, particularly if they are rich, for compensation, MJ in the state springs to mind. jb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 No I'm against anonymity - those who falsely allege rape form a tiny minority. Yes it has a devastating impact on the lives of those who are wrongly accused. However people need to remember that people are innocent until proven guilty; and maybe the media particularly the tabloids need to be more responsible when reporting on these matters. How about anonymity until proven guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 How about anonymity until proven guilty? Do you mean UNLESS proven guilty ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetJ123 Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 A not guilty verdict simply means there wasn't enough evidence to find someone guilty. It doesn't mean they are innocent, hence the prevalence of further civil claims against the accused, particularly if they are rich, for compensation, MJ in the state springs to mind. jb That's not really right. Or fair. Are you saying that all people who are brought before the courts must be guilty? I don't think so. By the same rule, someone found guilty could be innocent then? They're defense was weak, but they couldn't disprove the allegations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 That's not really right. Or fair. Are you saying that all people who are brought before the courts must be guilty? I don't think so. That would be silly. It's equally silly to say that all the victims who fail to get a conviction were lying, or making false allegations. The truth is unknown. The courts just have to do what they can to the best of their knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetJ123 Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 That would be silly. It's equally silly to say that all the victims who fail to get a conviction were lying, or making false allegations. The truth is unknown. The courts just have to do what they can to the best of their knowledge. In relation to this type of offence there will be more of the guilty found not guilty than the other way around. That's just because its so difficult to prove. One word against the other. There seems to be a push for more conviction because of this. But that is ridiculous. It is as bad for someone innocent of all offences to be locked up as it is for a victim to suffer the offense in the first place (of course not in the most serious offenses.) I have to say this push for more convictions has been campaigned for by feminists and others of the same mind. I feel this is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 There seems to be a push for more conviction because of this. But that is ridiculous. I agree with you in most part. People have to be convicted on the strength of the evidence. It's the only way a just court system can work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I agree with you in most part. People have to be convicted on the strength of the evidence. It's the only way a just court system can work. Which begs the question, why was Michael De Vell brought to court with no forensic or corroborating evidence or proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Which begs the question, why was Michael De Vell brought to court with no forensic or corroborating evidence or proof. One assumes that the CPS considered the case strong enough. Secondly, if the abuse was historic, there wouldn't be any forensic evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetJ123 Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 Which begs the question, why was Michael De Vell brought to court with no forensic or corroborating evidence or proof. One assumes that the CPS considered the case strong enough. Secondly, if the abuse was historic, there wouldn't be any forensic evidence. I think he was charged for the reason already discussed. There's a thirst for more convictions and the police and CPS fear being criticised for not bringing cases to court. They want bums on cell seats, guilty or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.