To think that “innocent until proven guilty” just doesn’t always apply, particularly in cases of sex offences?

[AngeloMysterioso]

It should… I know it should. In a fair and just world.

But the fact is that, in this country at least, because it’s almost always a he-said-she-said, the level of prosecutions and convictions for rape is so shockingly low that virtually every rapist out there is technically an innocent man.

I don’t know what the answer is. I don’t like trial by media, I don’t think someone should be convicted of a serious crime purely on somebody else’s say-so, but I also know that so many men are being able to get away with it that innocent until proven guilty has become a complete crock of shit.

Especially when the perpetrator is famous. Even setting aside the one in the news right now, we also have a recent case of a footballer whose crime was literally recorded and he still got away with it.

I mean what the fuck do we do?!

I do not want to live in a society where it does not apply. You simply need to have legal framework and due process.

There’s a distinction between committing a crime and going to court.
It’s like saying a crime doesn’t happen unless it’s been proven in court. If I came to your house and stole your TV, I’m guilty of a crime whether I’ve been to court or not.

Some people excusing Brand are just a little hard of thinking.

I wonder how you would feel if your husband or partner was wrongly accused of rape. Would you want it to apply then?

But the current legal framework and due process are failing victims. There are countless rapists just walking around amongst us who have never and will never be charged, or prosecuted, or convicted, simply because it’s too difficult to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. Doesn’t mean they’re innocent. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

I wonder what Andrew Malkinson thinks ?

As I said in my OP- I don’t think someone should be convicted of a serious crime purely on somebody else’s say-so.

Carl Beech and Operation Midland show exactly why innocent until proven guilty is an essential cornerstone of our justice system.

Do you really mean "Although the legal concept is important, we all know that not being found guilty doesn't de facto mean the accused is- actually- innocent"?

It's vital (IMO) that the legal concept remains. But we all know that it doesn't mean the person was innocent after all.

My partner sat on a jury about an assault case in which she and others felt it very likely the person committed the assault, but the evidence didn't prove it beyond reasonable doubt, so they had to reach a "not guilty" verdict.

Miscarriage of justice goes both ways. But I dare say there are considerably more unconvicted “innocent” rapists, and victims who will never receive justice, than there are Andrew Malkinsons.

The problem isn't the Law, it's the evidence gathering, preparation and the prosecution of the Law that's at fault in many current cases.

However, with historic cases there's little chance to gather evidence, unless there are witnesses, either actual or electronic.
If I went to a police station and stated that X seriously assaulted me (non sexual) 5 years ago, how would you expect the Police to proceed without witnesses?

What if I accused you of stealing my television and everyone believed me but it wasn't true?

I agree; most rapists get away with it. It’s not a fair system. So to hell with it.

Innocent until proved guilty is fine, referring to in a court of law.

In real life, we make choices according to our previous experience. If someone I know well and trust warns me about a third party, I'm going to pay attention.

I don't pay attention to rumours spread by randoms. Investigative journalists and documentary makers are not randoms. They are highly qualified. As are the lawyers they'll have run their content past!

"Innocent until proven guilty" only applies to the legal system, as it should.
It doesn't mean we all have to assume every alleged perpetrator is innocent unless and until they are proved guilty in court!
Care proceedings are conducted on the balance of probability rather than innocent until proven guilty. The standards are different depending on the risk and evidence.
if a man is accused of rape or sexual abuse he shouldn't have access to vulnerable women or children. It's not worth the risk in the event that he is guilty, even if he isn't proven such.

Have there been documentaries accusing people of crimes that have proved to be untrue?

When tv shows about unscrupulous businesses are on tv, no one gasps with horror about their innocence. Why is this different?

I agree. Most rapists get away with it. False reports are very rare, and don’t usually name a perpetrator. False allegations against named perpetrators are vanishingly rare.

In court, we still need the presumption of innocence. I won’t say publicly that an individual is a rapist unless he has been convicted. But if a woman alleges rape, then I believe her. For me, this also applies to acquittals. If a man has been found not guilty of rape in a court of law, I can’t call him a rapist. But I still believe the women who made the allegations. To be found not guilty is not the same thing as to be innocent.

Absolutely. Innocent until proved guilty is a basic tenet of our justice system and I certainly don’t want that to change.

'Innocent until proven guilty' is how the jury are told to view the defendant.

In reality you are guilty of a crime the second you commit it, whether a court convicts you or not.

Similarly, in reality if a court wrongly convicts you of a crime, you don't magically become guilty. You are still innocent, whether you are subsequently found innocent at a retrial or not.

There's a difference between reality and what can be proven in a court of law. And while our legal system is the best we have to go on at the moment, it is simply not up to the task of dealing with a complex crime like rape.

We need a massive overhaul of the system because currently only around one rapist in a hundred gets convicted. This does not mean that the other rapists are all innocent. It means the system needs to be dramatically improved.

Rape convictions fall to record low in England and Wales - BBC News

I don't think its true that "convictions for rape is so shockingly low that virtually every rapist out there is technically an innocent man"

I think there are a number of reasons, but the one that springs to mind is the general attitude/treatment of rape victims - more often that not, who are women.

Never, in any other crime, is the victim's life ripped opened up to look for reasons why they are to blame for the crime.

Maybe, occasionally someone who has been murdered, may get reported as someone who wasn't very nice or maybe engaged in poor behaviour. But, even then, that's always washed away with "well it doesnt matter what they did, they didn't deserve to get killed" and it doesn't stop the murderer from being convicted.

Yet, for some reason, it's seems perfectly acceptable to deeply look into every aspect of the rape victims life and use it against her.- what was she wearing, how drunk was she, look at her messages on her phone, parade her underwear in front of the jury.
Suella Braverman even put forward a proposal to allow defence teams access to a rape victims counselling records. If a victim of rape seeks counselling, Suella was suggesting this should be made available to the lawyers!

To sum up, we treat rape victims very differently to every other victim

Isn’t the Scottish “not proven” basically “we think they did it but the evidence isn’t there”.? (Yes, I know legally it’s the same as “not guilty”)

A large part of the problem is juries. I don’t think jury trials are fit for purpose in rape cases.

Have there been documentaries accusing people of crimes that have proved to be untrue?

Who needs documentaries when you have actual court cases ?

People seem to misunderstand it. It means you can’t be punished legally, through the justice system, without the process being followed and the prosecution proving your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically you can’t lock people up without following the process thoroughly.

People seem to think it means you can’t even talk about people’s crimes if they haven’t been proved guilty. I saw someone take loads of electricals from a shop and run away, stealing them. That will probably never get to court because shoplifting is rarely prosecuted. That guy still committed a crime, he’s still guilty.

As much as I think rape is horrific (having been raped myself more than once), if we have to live in a broken system, I think it's better this way around. You can't undo a rape by convicting someone of it. It doesn't really make it better or fix the impact on my life that one of my rapists is in prison and two others aren't. I'd like justice, but more than that, I don't want to live in a world where innocent people get convicted just to satisfy my need for retribution.

What I really want is to live in a world where men stop raping women. And I don't think prison is that much of a deterrent even for the rare ones who actually are convicted.

I know quite a few Guilty as Fuck people with clean records. Women should know better than to presume men are innocent unless a court says so.