Page 2 | Innocent until proven guilty

Franpan · 27/02/2021 21:23

But it’s not what the police procedures or general attitude to an alleged crime is or ought to be.

Well, my general attitude is that I don’t know whether someone committed a crime unless I witnessed it. I can have a view, sometimes a strong one, but I accept that my view may not be correct. I don’t necessarily believe people just because they say X happened, whether they’re the alleged perpetrator or the alleged victim.

JorjaSays · 27/02/2021 21:24

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Franpan · 27/02/2021 21:26

As a moral stance. I believe her, unless there is compelling evidence of lying.

I find this very odd. I’m not usually in a position to ‘decide’ to believe someone (to take a moral decision to believe this group or that group of people). I either believe them or I disbelieve them, or I have no idea. I’m not in control of that.

FrippEnos · 27/02/2021 22:14

If you are saying that the police should work from the point of view that the person or persons that they are investigating are are guilty, then IMO YABVU.

There have been many miscarriages of justice because of this happening.

Original poster

Krazynights34 · 27/02/2021 22:27

@FrippEnos

That’s the opposite of what of what I was saying! At least in a sense.

I mean, we, the public, THINK that the police investigate crimes as if the suspects were “innocent until proven guilty”.
They often know the suspect IS guilty but proving it to a jury is (they imagine) harder than it used to be.
Because now, if there isn’t CCTV, other “independent” witnesses, no-one without mental health issues (who doesn’t?), history of abuse, reason to be potentially malicious (eg ex reporting an historical abuse/rape experience), nothing gets done.

I just meant that the public should be aware that it’s a trial right to be considered innocent. It’s neither a moral, or even sensible, assumption to make as a police officer/friend/witness .. or whoever may be hearing a story of a crime.

I guess I’m frustrated with the shoulder shrugging “oh well, if it was even vaguely true, the police would press charges”/, if there was convincing evidence Thea’s prosecute etc.

Not for a second would I want it to be guilt until proven innocent!

But, til trial.. there should be another way of thinking about these matters.
Not sure what however!

OP posts:

Original poster

Krazynights34 · 27/02/2021 22:29

Thea’s?? Wtf?
Sorry I mean “that they would”.

Booze and autocorrect

OP posts:

bottleofbeer · 27/02/2021 23:39

Legal trials are a game. Who has the best hand to convince a jury of guilt or innocence?

We have to go with the presumption of innocence and it is up to the prosecutor to convince otherwise. It's not up to the defendant to prove their innocence.

Best we've got.

DdraigGoch · 28/02/2021 01:19

@Fastestbrownie

Police procedure is supppsed be neutral to avoid preconceived assumptions and personal prejudices, and also because it's not their job to play judge, jury and executioner. They're there to gather evidence and keep the peace, that is it.

This.

Matters of innocence and guilt should have nothing to do with the police. They should be open minded when they investigate.

SmokedDuck · 28/02/2021 03:46

Individuals of course can believe what they like, but in general I'm not sure how it would function if people regularly treated people found not guilty as if they were guilty.

The police need to try retain a kind of distance from any particular outcome as it impedes investigation. Doing so actually involves imagining any number of scenarios though which can be distressing for people.

And I don't think they can avoid making judgements at times about whether a complaint meets the definition of a crime, or even if it is possible to investigate it in some cases - there can be a crime but no evidence.

NiceGerbil · 28/02/2021 04:04

'Individuals of course can believe what they like, but in general I'm not sure how it would function if people regularly treated people found not guilty as if they were guilty.'

They do though all the time.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

It took 40 women coming out in public and showing their faces to get bill Cosby tried.

Warboys it was stacks of women before the police thought hmm maybe we should look at this.

The police are not free of bias.

In principle they should investigate in a neutral way.

In practice.

My force is the met.

Told victims of warboys to sod off.
Reid as well.
Massive thing in the papers about corruption a few years back.
Killing people then lying about it. Jean Charles menezes. Sean rigg. Ian Tomlinson.

I'm sure you've seen in the press about how the police focused on the family of Stephen Lawrence. And the whole thing about the undercover police and the green rights activists.

Did any of you read what Dick said? Essentially saying the met wouldn't bother with ', date rape' or historic CSA?

you're ok with that? You trust them to do the right thing?

You're very very naive.

JesusAteMyHamster · 28/02/2021 04:16

I know someone who had 3 children removed because the eldest was covered in bruises and strangulation marks. She won't get them back, SS will know full well what's happened but with assaults on children it's difficult to prove.

Why aren't we prosecuting these parents who are neglecting children to the point they're removed ?

She's just got a job at a nursing home. Working with vulnerable people. I was shocked, I thought something would flag on a DBS. But no, despite the fact 3 children have been removed mainly due to the fact her eldest child had 35 bruises around his head and chest no charges have been brought to anyone involved with the DC and nothing to flag them on DBS so they're free to work with vulnerable people. The system is nuts.

AllFrightOnTheNight · 28/02/2021 20:54

@JesusAteMyHamster

I know someone who had 3 children removed because the eldest was covered in bruises and strangulation marks. She won't get them back, SS will know full well what's happened but with assaults on children it's difficult to prove.

Why aren't we prosecuting these parents who are neglecting children to the point they're removed ?

She's just got a job at a nursing home. Working with vulnerable people. I was shocked, I thought something would flag on a DBS. But no, despite the fact 3 children have been removed mainly due to the fact her eldest child had 35 bruises around his head and chest no charges have been brought to anyone involved with the DC and nothing to flag them on DBS so they're free to work with vulnerable people. The system is nuts.

Thats shocking, and the fact this person is working with vulnerable adults is disgusting. I suppose the comfort is that the children are no longer in her care, at least. And I hope that the nursing home is a good one with good supervision of staff, although I wouldn't hold my breath.

SmokedDuck · 01/03/2021 12:13

@NiceGerbil

'Individuals of course can believe what they like, but in general I'm not sure how it would function if people regularly treated people found not guilty as if they were guilty.'

They do though all the time.

Not guilty is not the same as innocent.

It took 40 women coming out in public and showing their faces to get bill Cosby tried.

Warboys it was stacks of women before the police thought hmm maybe we should look at this.

The police are not free of bias.

In principle they should investigate in a neutral way.

In practice.

My force is the met.

Told victims of warboys to sod off.
Reid as well.
Massive thing in the papers about corruption a few years back.
Killing people then lying about it. Jean Charles menezes. Sean rigg. Ian Tomlinson.

I'm sure you've seen in the press about how the police focused on the family of Stephen Lawrence. And the whole thing about the undercover police and the green rights activists.

Did any of you read what Dick said? Essentially saying the met wouldn't bother with ', date rape' or historic CSA?

you're ok with that? You trust them to do the right thing?

You're very very naive.

I'm not sure how you are seeing your post here as particularly connected to what I said. You seem to be making a lot of assumptions about what I've said that mostly come out of your own mind.

You do realise that sexual assaults are only one type of criminal offence, there are a great many others? Do you really think it would be a good idea if anyone or even most people who have been accused of things but found not guilty would be treated as if they are guilty after that by the public?

NiceGerbil · 01/03/2021 23:09

The public treats people found not guilty how they (all the individuals) feel like treating them.

You can't mandate that people think, feel or react a certain way.

Most of the post about was in response to this bit

'The police need to try retain a kind of distance from any particular outcome as it impedes investigation.'

Mally2020 · 01/03/2021 23:27

for a case to even reach court it means the CPS had substantial evidence to prove the individual on trial did something significant wrong at least. Getting prosecuted from it is just a formality and added extra which is something people don't seem to comprehend. To convict someone there has to be zero doubt so the prosecution barrister could paint any victim(s) in such a bad light that the jury questions the crime even if the prosecution statement has nothing to do with the actual crime. So many people are let off because the system is flawed and discriminates against victims especially victims of sexual crimes.