Ken innocent

I don't disagree with the principles behind what your saying, I am however pointing out that there are distinctions between innocent and not guilty. Are false allegations ever made yes absolutely, do some less than innocent people get away with historical offences due to time elapsed between the 'offence' and complaint being made yes they do.

 

So it isn't innocent until proven guilty anymore ?

Unfortunately mud tends to stick.

 

I think Baldyboy is right to continue on that theme as it concerns me, and a Guilty or Innocent verdict should NEVER be taken as a 100% correct ruling as history has shown - it's just that the many Justice systems in place are deemed as adequate until something better comes along. Shall I start an O.J. Simpson or a Pete Townsend thread?

 

He may well have taken advantage of his position to blur the boundaries between consent, coercion and force, and if he did it was wrong, but to try and get a conviction after all of these years was never going to be easy.

It isn't analagous to the OJ Simpson because of the delay in bringing the allegations to light.

 

I used O.J. Simpson reference to give an example of an Innocent' verdict being seen as questionable by many now and so is relevant here, if only here.

 

OK. I think OJ was certainly guilty but got off by having by far the best lawyers who muddied the waters by casting doubt on the forensic evidence, with Ken Roach there was no forensic evidence.

 

There are always exceptions to any rule. The trick is to not focus on them. Sometimes shit happens.

 

The burden of proof in criminal cases has to be beyond reasonable doubt period, so with that in mind how very difficult must it be to prove historical allegations without a confession and without any forensic evidence. I am not commenting on the Roach case as I am unaware of all the evidence for and against and I am not party to the case. What I am saying is that Yes we are innocent until proven guilty, some are just more innocent than others.
The reason that a lot of sexual accusations get nowhere is due to the general principle of consent, did they consent (In adult cases, not involving children). If you know that your accuser has DNA evidence, and there are no bruises consistent with a struggle etc; it comes down to a one on one allegation who is more plausible and can we prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I don't for one moment think that the over riding principle of beyond reasonable doubt should be chamged, do we have one of the best legal frameworks in the world, yes we do, is it perfect no it isn't.

 

I see where Baldboy is coming from, BUT the point is supposing its you or somebody you know or deeply care for, like another forum member :wink:. I know its a cliche

Are you advocating that there is no smoke without fire and that even if found not guilty, then the shadow of even being accused should be enough for society to still unofficially sit in judgment or god help us the Daily Mail et al.

Of course there may be times when its a legal technicality that stinks and a criminal walks free. Given that though, if its a choice of a difference between Not Guilty not equating to innocence or the system making the odd blunder and letting a guilty man walk free but Not Guilty means innocence, I'll have the latter thank you. Imperfect as that may be.

I'm getting old but I find this lack of tolerance and people being quick to accuse but slow to forgive or apologize, pretty scary.

John

 

I am as far from a Daily Mail reader as it is to get, I am remaining open minded as to what happened in this as other historical cases, I am just stating that the ability to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt is very difficult. So when we speak of someone being innocent, I question the use of the word, Not Guilty is the phrase used AND that in my mind is different from Innocent. That was the point I was attempting however poorly to make.
I have seen the impact historical cases have on both the accused and the alleged victims at first hand, I understand that these are always emotive, and I also understand that to judge people today on yesteryears morals is also very difficult.
However what may be acceptable today may be deemed unacceptable by generations down the line.

 

I didn't do anything

 

I agree entirely with this; very clearly set out. The purpose of the trial process is to sort defendants into two categories, guilty and not guilty. No court can declare anyone to be "innocent".

The person who has been found not guilty may still find that employers will not employ him, voters will not vote for him, customers will not buy from him, etc. It is not against the law to discriminate against someone on the grounds that they have been accused and acquitted of a crime.

 

Indeed. The person who makes an allegation of historic abuse might have genuinely suffered abuse, but not necessarily at the hands of this defendant. They may have forgotten that they consented at the time. Their memories may be entirely false. Or they may have fabricated allegations deliberately because they are attention-seeking; or because they hope gain a financial pay-out from the media; or because they intend to seek compensation from the defendant (especially if he is wealthy), or from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (actually the CICA is very unlikely to pay out on a historic claim).

 

I am not sure what you mean by a "legal technicality", OJ. Each and every one of the rules, practices, and procedures of the criminal courts has been put in place for a reason, and the reason is to avoid injustice. If you have in mind any particular "legal technicality" which you argue is unjust, please share it with us. I would love the chance to find out what you mean.

 

Pete I know when I'm onto a loser & how much you love to debate.

I'm not going to be drawn or maybe that should be hung then drawn by a mind better educated and whose chosen area of expertise I have just wandered into (like a lamb to the slaughter)........................I know when to runaway.

My point being when the case turns on something plainly against the total run of evidence, especially if its an arcane point of law lost on a simple soul like myself................clearly something you've never come up against.

I'm not knocking the system I think we have the finest in the world. Its also had its share of howlers over the years too, for various reasons not necessarily the courts but the whole system

I understand Baldboys distinction (and for the record BB I was not inferring you read the Daily Mail or any other particular paper for that matter) but I'm disheartened by the fact that it appears that having your day in court facing your accusers and winning your case is no longer enough. You may be a free person but its Ok for the stigma and whispering to carry on.

John

 

But is it ethical and right Pete?

(I'm no coward like OJ :biggrin:, I'm happy to prod the tigers arse(metaphorically speaking of course, I neither infer nor imply any resemblance to a tigers butt and Pete and any such convergence is purely accidental))