Crosswords1 min ago
Roache Not Guilty Of All Charges
110 Answers
Just flashed up on Sky.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Can't say I'm surprised.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.How do you know that the women were telling a pack of lies?
You may have heard the expressions 'the burden of proof is on the prosecution' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. The judge will have directed the jury on both and told them that they must acquit if they are not sure. So an acquittal does not show anything more than that they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have been satisfied very quickly that they couldn't be sure. It does not follow that they thought , let alone were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the women, or any of them, had invented the whole accounts they gave.
If we applied any other principle, every case in which the jury were not satisfied of guilt should result in the prosecution of the prosecution witnesses who suggested that the accused was guilty.
You may have heard the expressions 'the burden of proof is on the prosecution' and 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'. The judge will have directed the jury on both and told them that they must acquit if they are not sure. So an acquittal does not show anything more than that they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt. They may have been satisfied very quickly that they couldn't be sure. It does not follow that they thought , let alone were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the women, or any of them, had invented the whole accounts they gave.
If we applied any other principle, every case in which the jury were not satisfied of guilt should result in the prosecution of the prosecution witnesses who suggested that the accused was guilty.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
AOG, if you don't know whether the women were telling a pack of lies, how can you suggest, as you appear to do, that they be charged with anything ? And how do you know that the jury thought they were telling a pack of lies? It is indeed for the jury, but the jury's verdict on each count is not evidence of perjury or, a bizarre suggestion, wasting police time. You have read of the standard and burden of proof , have you, or was the law different in the good old days ?
AOG
Is there not a possibility that if women who accused someone of rape (who is then found 'not guilty') could face charges themselves, it will deter them from going to the police?
If a man is found not guilty of interfering with children on a sexual abuse trial, should the children then be charged with wasting police time?
It's the same principle really.
Is there not a possibility that if women who accused someone of rape (who is then found 'not guilty') could face charges themselves, it will deter them from going to the police?
If a man is found not guilty of interfering with children on a sexual abuse trial, should the children then be charged with wasting police time?
It's the same principle really.
//It is in a sad state, if some can accuse others of vile crimes they have not committed and then get away scot free, when the accused is found not guilty//
Do you not get it? My kids understand it!! It's reasonable doubt....
Not guilty is like 'yes' or 'no' ... one or the other, no other option...
I'm not saying he's guilty, but to dismiss someone as a liar is pretty crass, it just couldn't be proved..
Do you not get it? My kids understand it!! It's reasonable doubt....
Not guilty is like 'yes' or 'no' ... one or the other, no other option...
I'm not saying he's guilty, but to dismiss someone as a liar is pretty crass, it just couldn't be proved..
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.