Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

The PIT

What Ever Happened To Innocent Until Proven Guilty

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11119937

So they only suspects so what happens if the information is incorrect. Loads of worried parents and two people who have lost their careers and self believe. Much better if they had been quietly put on gardening leave until found guilty.

We've now got advice line open which might be advice line for nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand to be corrected but I'm sure at an information security event I attended we were told this type of offence was one of the very few in UK law where you had to prove your innocence and the innocent until proven guilty rule didn’t apply .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as UK law.

However, a Not Proven verdict is possible here in Scotland, under 'Scots Law - the same law which saw Al-Megrahi released on compassionate grounds.

As for the story/teachers - they have been suspended due to an ongoing case, not because they are guilty before a trial begins.

If guilty, throw away the key.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as UK law.

However, a Not Proven verdict is possible here in Scotland, under 'Scots Law - the same law which saw Al-Megrahi released on compassionate grounds.

As for the story/teachers - they have been suspended due to an ongoing case, not because they are guilty before a trial begins.

If guilty, throw away the key.

True

But why set up a phone line over something that may not be an issue.

In reality you are considered guilty until proven guilty which is why I believe the law should be changed on this. I would also like a news black out as everyone knows people can perceived views from our quality press. I often wonder about fair trails and jury's pre-conceived ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure on the moral rights and wrongs of doing away with "innocent until proven guilty" in this situation (there might be a case for relaxing it), but "guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent" strikes me as taking it too far.

Preconceptions among the jury is likely to be a problem. I'm aware that in society, for instance, if a man is accused of abusing a woman and isn't considered a member of her family, the general public usually assume him guilty, and prejudices often result in him being prevented from proving his innocence via circular arguments ("the rule is, if a man is accused of abusing a woman, he is guilty- therefore, he must be guilty, and since he is guilty, that helps to confirm the aforementioned rule, which in turn confirms his guilt etc"). Child abuse is much the same these days. I doubt that courts will be immune to this kind of thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...