is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?

[anonymous-user]

At present, Thorodin, the law permits the victim of a rape during childhood to obtain some form of justice by seeing the rapist convicted many years later, even if the only evidence of the rape is the testimony of the victim. You think that this is stupid. I disagree.

[Thorodin]

Breadvan72 said:

At present, Thorodin, the law permits the victim of a rape during childhood to obtain some form of justice by seeing the rapist convicted many years later, even if the only evidence of the rape is the testimony of the victim. You think that this is stupid. I disagree.

OK, once again I have been tempted back to dispel another of your deliberate misdirections. It is becoming more obvious that, typically, you will resort to blatant diversions from the letter of my posts to score
miserable points in your refusal to recognise there may be other views that bear at least some discussion. I have not said "....if the only evidence ....is the testimony of the victim. (I) think this is stupid..." You know full well that my line about certain areas of the law being stupid and in need of revision (to which I believe you refer above) was entirely concerned with secondary complainants testimony being acceptable as evidence to 'prove' the original offence. Your attempts to present my posts contrary to what you know I meant pretty much define your casual regard for the truth. Heaven help anyone drawing you on the cab rank.

[anonymous-user]

Your words, Thorodin.

Thorodin said:

...

The 'testimony' of the alleged victim comprising the 'evidence' in such cases is in my view inadequate and falls short of 'proof'.

Thorodin said:

...

The testimony of the complainant should not be considered as proof of the charge.

...

It's OK to change your mind about something, but please don't pretend that you haven't said something when you have. Also, top tip: save the feeble insults for someone else. They bounce off me.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th August 06:21

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

How many victims of crimes today would fail to find justice if such 'independent verification' were necessary?
And how harmful to society would that be?

Possibly as many as innocent people might fall foul of malicious allegations. There's a very old tenet in law known as Blackstone's formulation that states it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. It refers to suffering at the hands of the law and it applies very much in a situation like this.

You can't possibly have "beyond reasonable doubt" where the only evidence is word against word, and the whole of the BBC Gang walking free is better than you being found guilty because someone from your past decides to tell made up make up stories about you.

[XCP]

I would ask 'better' for whom? the victims of the 10 guilty criminals? there may be a great many of those, far more than 10 people I would suggest.

[Variomatic]

XCP said:

I would ask 'better' for whom? the victims of the 10 guilty criminals? there may be a great many of those, far more than 10 people I would suggest.

Better for everyone who doesn't want to live in a world where you can be arrested, convicted, and punished for things you didn't do.

[Oakey]

Variomatic said:

Possibly as many as innocent people might fall foul of malicious allegations. There's a very old tenet in law known as Blackstone's formulation that states it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. It refers to suffering at the hands of the law and it applies very much in a situation like this.

You can't possibly have "beyond reasonable doubt" where the only evidence is word against word, and the whole of the BBC Gang walking free is better than you being found guilty because someone from your past decides to tell made up make up stories about you.

Yeah, what's definitely needed instead is a total reliance on forensic evidence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-1941...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_McKie

Hmm, maybe not.

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

How many victims of crimes today would fail to find justice if such 'independent verification' were necessary?
And how harmful to society would that be?

Possibly as many as innocent people might fall foul of malicious allegations. There's a very old tenet in law known as Blackstone's formulation that states it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. It refers to suffering at the hands of the law and it applies very much in a situation like this.

You can't possibly have "beyond reasonable doubt" where the only evidence is word against word, and the whole of the BBC Gang walking free is better than you being found guilty because someone from your past decides to tell made up make up stories about you.

Erm, thanks for that, how I managed my career I'll never now.

You are actually arguing against the standard of proof for non-historical offences as well.

What percentage of guilty verdicts in the last month would pass your new test?

[Derek Smith]

Variomatic said:

Possibly as many as innocent people might fall foul of malicious allegations. There's a very old tenet in law known as Blackstone's formulation that states it's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer. It refers to suffering at the hands of the law and it applies very much in a situation like this.

There are sensible arguments against Blackstone's Ratio.

It must be accepted that whilst an innocent person being convicted is an injustice, so it is for the ten victims for whom the offender escaped. Indeed, it is only applicable to criminal law and not civil law. In the latter case the standard of proof is much lower and, logically, miscarriages of justice are more frequent.

And why just 10:1? Would it apply to 100:1, 1000:1, 1,000,000:1?

There is a case in my area where the parent of a child killed by an inattentive driver only wanted the truth to emerge and did not care about any punishment. After all, her child was dead. She just wanted to know how. But with Blackstone, the accused was not penalised for not saying what happened, a prosecution was not justifiable and the mother was denied the truth. One of the ten who got away, hopefully, though, not to kill again. But then again, she had done so once, so one might assume she was more likely to do so in the future.

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

Erm, thanks for that, how I managed my career I'll never now.

You're more than welcome. Even the best of us need a memory jog now and then

pork911 said:

You are actually arguing against the standard of proof for non-historical offences as well.

Not at all.

I'm arguing against guilt being determined when the only evidence is the accuser saying "he did somehing" (especially when here's no other evidence that the something was ever done) and the defendant saying "no I didn't".

That deadlock can only be broken by the personal prejudices of jurors towards someone's tone of voice, or colour of skin, or how close together the defendant's eyes are. None of which are a safe basis for convicion by any stretch of a sane imagination.

pork911 said:

What percentage of guilty verdicts in the last month would pass your new test?

I have absoluely no idea because, obviously, I didn't hear the evidence. Which makes it a rather pointless question, does it not?

[XCP]

Variomatic said:

Better for everyone who doesn't want to live in a world where you can be arrested, convicted, and punished for things you didn't do.

As long as your house is not one of those targeted by the guilty burglars who have been freed of course!

[pork911]

Variomatic said:

pork911 said:

Erm, thanks for that, how I managed my career I'll never now.

You're more than welcome. Even the best of us need a memory jog now and then

pork911 said:

You are actually arguing against the standard of proof for non-historical offences as well.

Not at all.

I'm arguing against guilt being determined when the only evidence is the accuser saying "he did somehing" (especially when here's no other evidence that the something was ever done) and the defendant saying "no I didn't".

That deadlock can only be broken by the personal prejudices of jurors towards someone's tone of voice, or colour of skin, or how close together the defendant's eyes are. None of which are a safe basis for convicion by any stretch of a sane imagination.

pork911 said:

What percentage of guilty verdicts in the last month would pass your new test?

I have absoluely no idea because, obviously, I didn't hear the evidence. Which makes it a rather pointless question, does it not?

You totally miss the point. Though you still don't realise it, you are arguing against many convictions for recent offences.

[Zeeky]

La Liga said:

was asking how you know this to be the case. I don't see how the safe-guards and structure which govern, dictate and define admissibility and weight have changed to allow this to be the case.

Similar fact evidence used to be limited to facts not in dispute. For a long time now that has been diluted to include similar allegations. Around 20 years ago the requirement for the similarity to be 'striking' was removed. Your comment that similar MO can be compelling evidence is possible but unlikely using standards applied today.

Many years ago I observed one of my first criminal trials with the CPS. The prosecution sought to admit similar fact evidence related to a previous conviction of the accused. The similarities were vague, so I thought. I was far from convinced. The evidence was admitted and inevitably the accused was convicted (quashed on appeal - dodgy voice identification if I recall correctly).

[Variomatic]

pork911 said:

You totally miss the point. Though you still don't realise it, you are arguing against many convictions for recent offences.

No I don't miss the point, and yes I would argue against any recent convictions based on one word against another with nothing else to support eiher side. Not only that, the more serious the allegation the more vociferously I'd argue against it because:

(a) serious allegations are more likely to illicit sympathy for the accuser from Joe and Jane Public, and

(b) The effect of an incorrect guily verdit is far higher for an accusation of child buggery than it is for shoplifting. Even if it's later overturned, one fo those verdicts will never go away and might even put the (falsely) accused at risk of harm.

Imagine I say that Pork stole my bike (for which I have no receipt, photos of me riding it, or family members who remember seeing me with it) and you say that you didn't*.

It just so happens that the jury prefer my swarhy Mediterranian looks to your blonde Nordic charm so choose to believe me over you. According to your position, you should be happy with being convicted!

• strictly off the record, the reason for no receipt, photos or family memories is because I haven't actually owned a bike for the past 15 years. But you really pissed me off once even if you don't remember!

[Zeeky]

Breadvan72 said:

...You can try to wriggle and spin all you like, and throw all the pathetic insults you wish (they bounce off), but you said what you said. If being confronted by the consequences of your preferred option makes you uncomfortable, that's not my problem.

You could be describing yourself there BV. Applying a "broad interpretation" to the meaning of words can allow for some unusual definitions

On the point of the accused's word against his accuser's I believe we over-estimate our ability to identify oral evidence as being either truthful or untruthful.

Having said that, if prosecution was not possible without forensic evidence or independent witness evidence we would be putting a large proportion of the population at serious risk of very serious crime with no prospect of punishment or deterrent.

That cannot be acceptable.

Edited by Zeeky on Monday 18th August 21:57

[Oakey]

Variomatic said:

No I don't miss the point, and yes I would argue against any recent convictions based on one word against another with nothing else to support eiher side. Not only that, the more serious the allegation the more vociferously I'd argue against it because:

(a) serious allegations are more likely to illicit sympathy for the accuser from Joe and Jane Public, and

(b) The effect of an incorrect guily verdit is far higher for an accusation of child buggery than it is for shoplifting. Even if it's later overturned, one fo those verdicts will never go away and might even put the (falsely) accused at risk of harm.

Imagine I say that Pork stole my bike (for which I have no receipt, photos of me riding it, or family members who remember seeing me with it) and you say that you didn't*.

It just so happens that the jury prefer my swarhy Mediterranian looks to your blonde Nordic charm so choose to believe me over you. According to your position, you should be happy with being convicted!

• strictly off the record, the reason for no receipt, photos or family memories is because I haven't actually owned a bike for the past 15 years. But you really pissed me off once even if you don't remember!

Alternatively, someone steals your bike, you see the person who did it yet there are no other witnesses. You later pick the person out of a lineup after giving the police a description of the thief who they picked up earlier. Unfortunately the bike wasn't recovered. So now what? You know it's the person that stole it, you recognise them. Should they just drop the case?

[Zeeky]

They probably would regardless of whether or not they should.

[Variomatic]

Oakey said:

Alternatively, someone steals your bike, you see the person who did it yet there are no other witnesses. You later pick the person out of a lineup after giving the police a description of the thief who they picked up earlier. Unfortunately the bike wasn't recovered. So now what? You know it's the person that stole it, you recognise them. Should they just drop the case?

Yes they should.

Because next time it might be me, or my brother, in the lineup when there was no bike and I'd rather lose a bike than risk that.

[Oakey]

You won't know unless you try. It's that sort of defeatist attitude that leads to people not wanting to report crimes at all.

[Oakey]

Variomatic said:

Yes they should.

Because next time it might be me, or my brother, in the lineup when there was no bike and I'd rather lose a bike than risk that.

The number of people making false accusations is more than likely significantly lower than those that are being honest. You also seem to have ignored the earlier post where DNA and fingerprint evidence resulted in innocent people being stitched up. So if witness testimony, DNA and fingerprinting aren't infallible, what's your solution?