Innocent until proven guilty

[Krazynights34]

Ok, I’m just feeling a bit wound up by this at the minute...(other thread got me thinking).

AIBU to point out that the “innocent until proven guilty” is a trial right not a moral position or one the police should adopt?

That is to say it’s a position that the courts adopt to ensure a fair trial. But it’s not what the police procedures or general attitude to an alleged crime is or ought to be.

Im willing to be corrected by police/lawyers etc. On procedure. But this makes sense of what the police said to me when reporting assault (ie that it is victim led 😱) and why people think it’s unjust to take phones etc off suspects (it isn’t unjust).

I think the police investigation should go where the evidence leads. That is to say, there should be a presumption of innocence until the evidence indicates otherwise.

Unfortunately, it falls flat with rape. There were huge campaigns in the 90s to change the police attitude to take as a starting point that anyone reporting someone for rape was telling the truth and the person accused had committed rape, as so many rape cases were going unreported as victims were afraid of not being believed- as had been the case for a huge number of those who had reported.

Then you have cases where safeguarding and child protection is involved - which takes precedence, protecting potential victims by assuming the guilt of someone accused, or assuming innocence and potentially leading to more harm being done if a guilty person goes free?

It's a tricky one, I can see both sides. People's lives can be ruined by police investigations even if found innocent.

AIBU to point out that the “innocent until proven guilty” is a trial right not a moral position or one the police should adopt?

YABU, because it is a trial right but it is also a moral position that someone can choose to uphold outside of that sphere too.

Ah, just realised I read your post in totally the wrong direction!

I think we should try to be neutral, and then employ innocent until proven guilty at trial.

The police shouldn't be thinking someone is innocent - they should be starting from a position of they don't know. But at the point they charge someone surely the police should genuinely think they are guilty!!

I’m so glad you are all contributing.
I need perspective on this stuff!

What Fastestbrownie said. But at the same time, they also often have more background info than the general public.

Yes the police shouldn’t assume they are innocent or guilty, they should just collect as much evidence as they can, if they have reason to believe a crime has been committed

I don't have to remain neutral if someone I know says she was raped by somebody else I know. I'm quite at liberty to believe her and treat her rapist as a rapist.

I don't have to offer due process if I want to protect myself from an alleged abuser.

Courts and criminal investigations aren't about truth. It's foolish to treat them as if they were.

(And nobody is "found innocent". That's not how it works.)

Police lines of inquiry should lead toward and away from a suspect - that is to say they should investigate all avenues and not just assume based on the first evidence gathered etc. Their job is to present robust evidence to CPS to determine if said evidence meets a threshold for charging. In court the CPS must prove so that the jury are certain the defendant’s guilt - so in that manner, until pronounced guilty they are innocent. That is not to say that the people involved in investigating will not draw their own conclusions- they are only human after all.

It's "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" (I think, although that may be from American cop shows!)
It doesn't really matter if the police think you are guilty or innocent, IMO. They collect evidence and send to CPS- including seizing evidence. It still doesn't really matter much if CPS think you are guilty, they just decide if the case goes to court or not.

So, YANBU. It doesn't matter is 100% of the country thinks you are guilty if the jury finds you not guilty on that day.

There was a whole thing around this with rape and the met. Maybe other forces too.

Some were disproportionately no criming rape reports. Warboys, the women were flat out not believed and told to go away as a black cab driver wouldn't do something like that, apparently.

As a reaction there was a thrust for police to believe victims. In the context it didn't mean take their word as absolute and never doubt it. It meant, don't tell take victims to sod off because you've got nasty sexist bias.

It was then complained about as people pretended they thought it meant the latter when it meant the former.

And then Cressida dick formally withdrew it and gave an interview where she said it was wrong to do that and they wouldn't bother with crimes where there was not a good chance of winning.

And now we have rape prosecutions etc at an all time low.

I'll find her comments.

The OP refers to Police procedures. I had Police run into my house shouting, "Police, stay where you are. Put your hands where we can see them!" at me. I was innocent, but their actions showed that they couldn't, or at least didn't assume so.

@cheapskatemum
Wow! That’s frightening. Wtf were they investigating?

YABU, because it is a trial right but it is also a moral position that someone can choose to uphold outside of that sphere too.

Of course one can. In cases of rape or child sexual abuse I absolutely don't. As a moral stance. I believe her, unless there is compelling evidence of lying.

' 'Speaking as a cop, opposed to a citizen, I'm interested in crime. If it's a long time ago, or it's very trivial, or I'm not likely to get a criminal justice outcome, I'm not going to spend a lot of resources on it.

'And what might be a misunderstanding between two people, clumsy behaviour between somebody who fancies somebody else, is not a matter for the police.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5569145/Met-abandons-policy-automatically-believing-rape-complainants.html

That's date rape and historical CSA she's referring to indirectly isn't it.

There were huge campaigns in the 90s to change the police attitude to take as a starting point that anyone reporting someone for rape was telling the truth and the person accused had committed rape

The problem with removing the presumption of innocence from the defendant and reversing the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defence is that we now know where that ends. Carl Beech’s allegations were described by the Met as ‘credible and true’. It turned out, of course, that he was a fantasist, his allegations were complete nonsense and he ruined the lives of many of the men he accused.

The police don't give a shit if someone is guilty or innocent, frankly. It's almost irrelevant. Their job is to gather evidence, including witness/victim statements, and carry out an investigation. The CPS have to look at all the evidence and decide if a prosecution is likely to be successful or in the public interest. Whether someone is guilty or innocent doesn't enter into it. It's all about the evidence. The court, and the jury, have to consider guilt (beyond reasonable doubt is the test in crime) and if someone isn't found guilty, for whatever reason - it could be lack of evidence, crap job done by police or cps, or just the whim of the jurors - well then they are innocent in law. It doesn't actually mean they did it or didn't do it.

I don't think it is unjust to take phones off suspects but I think the delay in procedures meaning a suspect could be without their phone for months while it sits in a box waiting to be analysed is unjust.

'The police don't give a shit if someone is guilty or innocent, frankly. It's almost irrelevant. Their job is to gather evidence, including witness/victim statements, and carry out an investigation'

How do you explain all the victims of sex offences who have been turned away, disbelieved, no crimed etc over the years.

Loads of women reporting sex offences have said over and over that the investigation starts by investigating them and quizzing them as they aren't believed. That they have to prove that they're not lying before the investigation will commence.

One of the women attacked by warboys have the police his registration plate number. They did nothing.

'A serial sex attacker remained free to continue preying on women because police officers made serious mistakes during their investigations and failed to take victims seriously, the Independent Police Complaints Commission will rule today.'

'The IPCC inquiry found individual and systemic failings in the Met. In one police report a detective constable dealing with the July 2007 victim had written: "The victim cannot remember anything past getting in the cab. It would seem unlikely that a cab driver would have alcohol in his vehicle, let alone drug substances." Other findings included:

• Officers adopting a mindset that a black-cab driver "would not commit such an offence", and failing to challenge Worboys, who was identified by his cab number in CCTV footage in July 2007, over his account.

• Failing to search his home for evidence, and making no attempts to corroborate the victims' accounts.

Failing to check his story or re-interview him after hearing the July 2007 victim's full statement.

Worboys was arrested and released without charge after the woman came forward in July 2007 and officers chose to believe his account, not hers.

But it called on the Met to address the perception that women are not be taken seriously when reporting rape and other sex offences, recommending better information for victims, case updates, and liaison with agencies where women feel uncomfortable going to the police.'

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/uk/2010/jan/20/police-ipcc-john-worboys-errors

This is the backdrop.

And so many other cases, women let down.

It was never to take the women's word as gospel. But to counteract the fact they were not believed.

This has now been changed and due to a variety of reasons rape prosection stats are at an all time low.

The publicity and the reporting seems to add up to making women (and children) really think hard on whether to report.

Which is a win for the authorities as sex offences against women and girls are a time consuming pita for them.

@Krazynights34 thank you, it was frightening. I told the PC nearest me that & he dismissed it because of the seriousness of the crime. They were searching for something.