Another prove your innocence case
Discussion
mjb1 said:
La Liga said:
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
Pretty sure they go through the suspects communications history with a fine tooth comb though, in finding something, anything that might be incriminating? Is that not equally speculative?La Liga said:
mjb1 said:
La Liga said:
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
Pretty sure they go through the suspects communications history with a fine tooth comb though, in finding something, anything that might be incriminating? Is that not equally speculative?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42758123
Theyve got to stop this process of first presume guilt, second anything to demonstrate innocence
Presume innocence , anything to demonstrate guilt
beeb said:
diary found supporting his case
How many other cases that didnt have the luxury of a diary somewhere?Theyve got to stop this process of first presume guilt, second anything to demonstrate innocence
Presume innocence , anything to demonstrate guilt
A first and relevant step to remove the grave injustices endemic in the ‘justice system’ would be to stop calling an unfounded allegation ‘evidence’.
For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event. The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event. The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
Thorodin said:
A first and relevant step to remove the grave injustices endemic in the ‘justice system’ would be to stop calling an unfounded allegation ‘evidence’.
For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event . The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
How many independant accounts do you expect to gain of a rape or an alleged rape?For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event . The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
And when rape victims are not believed this is what happens:
https://deadspin.com/for-20-years-gymnasts-said-th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
Zoobeef said:
La Liga said:
mjb1 said:
La Liga said:
Purely speculative and wide-ranging search of social media is not a reasonable line of enquiry.
Pretty sure they go through the suspects communications history with a fine tooth comb though, in finding something, anything that might be incriminating? Is that not equally speculative?The primary way of establishing this is through interviewing the complainant and suspect through standard questioning, "Hope did you meet one another?", "How do you stay in touch?", "Do you use any social media to communicate?" etc etc.
cookie118 said:
How many independant accounts do you expect to gain of a rape or an alleged rape?
And when rape victims are not believed this is what happens:
https://deadspin.com/for-20-years-gymnasts-said-th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
No that's not it at allAnd when rape victims are not believed this is what happens:
https://deadspin.com/for-20-years-gymnasts-said-th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
If there's enough evidence to convict, it will stack up
If the evidence isnt there it wont
The system has to be biased in such a way that if it's not clear, a guilty person goes free, rather than an innocent is locked up, as seems to be where it was headed in these cases.
Otherwise you can end up with a system where you just lock up everyone on the basis that amongst them someone must be guilty of something
saaby93 said:
No that's not it at all
If there's enough evidence to convict, it will stack up
If the evidence isnt there it wont
The system has to be biased in such a way that if it's not clear, a guilty person goes free, rather than an innocent is locked up, as seems to be where it was headed in these cases.
Otherwise you can end up with a system where you just lock up everyone on the basis that amongst them someone must be guilty of something
In which case-why have rape conviction rates so low? If we're heading for that scenario why haven't conviction rates spiked?If there's enough evidence to convict, it will stack up
If the evidence isnt there it wont
The system has to be biased in such a way that if it's not clear, a guilty person goes free, rather than an innocent is locked up, as seems to be where it was headed in these cases.
Otherwise you can end up with a system where you just lock up everyone on the basis that amongst them someone must be guilty of something
It seems fairly clear that the current system does not work for victims, and never has given that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to police. However I find it amazing the amount of media attention focussed cases where it appears that an innocent man has faced prosecution (note-not been found guilty).
To put it into perspective there are an estimated 11 rapes an hour in the UK. And yet less than 11 cases collapsing over a period of a month has been met with massive media attention in the past few weeks.
[quote=cookie118]
In which case-why have rape conviction rates so low? If we're heading for that scenario why haven't conviction rates spiked?
It seems fairly clear that the current system does not work for victims, and never has given that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to police. However I find it amazing the amount of media attention focussed cases where it appears that an innocent man has faced prosecution (note-not been found guilty).
So are you suggesting it's OK for the police to suppress evidence in order to increase the conviction rate? If not, what is the relevance of the conviction rate?
In which case-why have rape conviction rates so low? If we're heading for that scenario why haven't conviction rates spiked?
It seems fairly clear that the current system does not work for victims, and never has given that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to police. However I find it amazing the amount of media attention focussed cases where it appears that an innocent man has faced prosecution (note-not been found guilty).
So are you suggesting it's OK for the police to suppress evidence in order to increase the conviction rate? If not, what is the relevance of the conviction rate?
cookie118 said:
And yet less than 11 cases collapsing over a period of a month has been met with massive media attention in the past few weeks.
Of course it's met media and other attentionThe question that follows is how many people are behind bars on the same basis?
Hopefully there wont be many as the courts will have added to the alleged poor conviction rate
I'd suggest respectfully, the reason why rates aren't climbing is because more and more desperate/dubious cases are being brought to court and are being thrown out. Kinda ironic that it's doing the reverse of what was intended.
You can't increase rates by changing the goalposts, juries & judges won't accept it, nor should they.
Perhaps someone should tell the CPS.
You can't increase rates by changing the goalposts, juries & judges won't accept it, nor should they.
Perhaps someone should tell the CPS.
Dr Jekyll said:
cookie118 said:
In which case-why have rape conviction rates so low? If we're heading for that scenario why haven't conviction rates spiked?
It seems fairly clear that the current system does not work for victims, and never has given that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to police. However I find it amazing the amount of media attention focussed cases where it appears that an innocent man has faced prosecution (note-not been found guilty).
So are you suggesting it's OK for the police to suppress evidence in order to increase the conviction rate? If not, what is the relevance of the conviction rate?It seems fairly clear that the current system does not work for victims, and never has given that the vast majority of rapes are never reported to police. However I find it amazing the amount of media attention focussed cases where it appears that an innocent man has faced prosecution (note-not been found guilty).
saaby93 said:
Of course it's met media and other attention
But why should it be met with more media attention? The 11 people this hour, 264 people this day or c.8000 people that have been raped since this story first broke just before Christmas won't have the front page of the newspapers or the media coverage that this story has had. cookie118 said:
Thorodin said:
A first and relevant step to remove the grave injustices endemic in the ‘justice system’ would be to stop calling an unfounded allegation ‘evidence’.
For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event . The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
How many independant accounts do you expect to gain of a rape or an alleged rape?For the victim’s barrister to stand in court, and offer nothing in the way of proof, to allege an attack was made by an accused person does not in my view come any way near evidential. Many of these alleged offences are unsupported allegations, subsequently failing to be validated by other independent accounts of the actual event . The attraction of additional self-certifying victims with similarly weak accusations does not constitute anything valid to the case for the original alleged victim. It has to be accepted that not everything can be proven one way or the other.
The imperative of belief before actual proof is gross and a mockery of justice, no matter what social pressures prevail.
And when rape victims are not believed this is what happens:
https://deadspin.com/for-20-years-gymnasts-said-th...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys
cookie118 said:
But why should it be met with more media attention? The 11 people this hour, 264 people this day or c.8000 people that have been raped since this story first broke just before Christmas won't have the front page of the newspapers or the media coverage that this story has had.
If rapes are being underreported, where are all these figures being trotted out come from? does anyone really have a number that's more than a finger waved around in the air with a guess (genuine question) techguyone said:
cookie118 said:
But why should it be met with more media attention? The 11 people this hour, 264 people this day or c.8000 people that have been raped since this story first broke just before Christmas won't have the front page of the newspapers or the media coverage that this story has had.
If rapes are being underreported, where are all these figures being trotted out come from? does anyone really have a number that's more than a finger waved around in the air with a guess (genuine question) These figures come from An Overview of Sexual Offending in England and Wales, the first ever joint official statistics bulletin on sexual violence released by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ), Office for National Statistics (ONS) and Home Office in January 2013.
cookie118 said:
However saaby is saying
If you want to play the game of saying someone has said something they havent just to create some argument, there's a new youtube video on it first posted in the BBC pay threadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cls8ZURQRK4
cookie118 said:
To put it into perspective there are an estimated 11 rapes an hour in the UK. And yet less than 11 cases collapsing over a period of a month has been met with massive media attention in the past few weeks.
It doesn't matter how many innocent men you bang up - unless you are successfully prosecuting actual rapists, this situation will never change.By hiding or omitting evidence - all the police are doing is clogging up the courts with non-genuine cases, spreading already thin resources even thinner and muddying the waters between genuine cases of rape and false allegations.
I can't see how that is of any benefit to the police or courts (unless the aim is to simply massage the conviction rate and deflect criticism that 'not enough is being done')......and it certainly doesn't benefit genuine rape victims.
When I first found out my ex was spreading rumours about me raping her and that's why I never got to see my child the first thing I did was go to the police.
I told a uniform officer, he took a statement and said "we will call her and if she says its lies that'll be it. If she says yes we will have to investigate."
She obviously continued the lie. Apparently its not a crime anyway to say someone raped you when they didn't so various cops told me.
I called every day for a week for cid to come and see me. Nope. They took her statement and proceeded with it as gospel. I'm Sat there going after 5 years of her silence from the alleged dates would I be coming to the police to highlight this to you having got away from it for five years if I did it. I handed in my phone she refused. I gave mountains of reasons why I couldn't or why she would be saying this now. Not interested. A huge problem is they only investigate one side. They aren't in the slightest interested in both. They also didn't submit evidence to trial that would hinder a prosecution it was only for the fact I knew certain criminal records of witnesses, logs of harrasement, vandalism to my car from her and such that my lawyer had to go back and point out to them that it was their duty to include this.
Their words when i continued to ask why aren't you looking at both sides. "that's for your lawyer to do and I should get the best I can afford".
It's unreal.
I told a uniform officer, he took a statement and said "we will call her and if she says its lies that'll be it. If she says yes we will have to investigate."
She obviously continued the lie. Apparently its not a crime anyway to say someone raped you when they didn't so various cops told me.
I called every day for a week for cid to come and see me. Nope. They took her statement and proceeded with it as gospel. I'm Sat there going after 5 years of her silence from the alleged dates would I be coming to the police to highlight this to you having got away from it for five years if I did it. I handed in my phone she refused. I gave mountains of reasons why I couldn't or why she would be saying this now. Not interested. A huge problem is they only investigate one side. They aren't in the slightest interested in both. They also didn't submit evidence to trial that would hinder a prosecution it was only for the fact I knew certain criminal records of witnesses, logs of harrasement, vandalism to my car from her and such that my lawyer had to go back and point out to them that it was their duty to include this.
Their words when i continued to ask why aren't you looking at both sides. "that's for your lawyer to do and I should get the best I can afford".
It's unreal.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff