ChatterBank1 min ago
How Do You Fairly Treat Those Accused Of Sexual Misconduct?
In the eyes of the law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty - but once accusations of sexual imperpriety are made, what do you do?
I think Westwood and Capital have done the right thing - but is there any other way this could've been addressed? Should the women have reported him to the police first?
https:/
I think Westwood and Capital have done the right thing - but is there any other way this could've been addressed? Should the women have reported him to the police first?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
// Should the women have reported him to the police first? //
difficult call, especially if there's a suspicion that the matter is far more widespread than so far reported, in which case one of the advantages of airing the matter is to bring other "victims" forward.
on another matter, from your link:-
// The women who spoke to the BBC are all black.... //
......and that's relevant.......... how??
difficult call, especially if there's a suspicion that the matter is far more widespread than so far reported, in which case one of the advantages of airing the matter is to bring other "victims" forward.
on another matter, from your link:-
// The women who spoke to the BBC are all black.... //
......and that's relevant.......... how??
The problem here is that he will be judged guilty by media, which as regulars know is my pet hate. Time and time again we see comments on here where people have prejudged someone.
I really do think that people should remain anonymous until they are at least charged. And even after then there should reporting restrictions until the person is found guilty. If innocent reporting restrictions should remain.
We need to ditch the pitch fork mentality.
I really do think that people should remain anonymous until they are at least charged. And even after then there should reporting restrictions until the person is found guilty. If innocent reporting restrictions should remain.
We need to ditch the pitch fork mentality.
Sexual offence cases are tricky because there is often no tangible evidence. Even if there is clear evidence then there is still the defence of 'consent' that can defeat any claim.
The case against the defendant is strengthened if there is more than one unrelated claim. Many of these historic abuse claims would have never got to court if only one victim reported the matter to the police so protecting the identity of the defendant isn't always in the best interest of justice.
The case against the defendant is strengthened if there is more than one unrelated claim. Many of these historic abuse claims would have never got to court if only one victim reported the matter to the police so protecting the identity of the defendant isn't always in the best interest of justice.
//so protecting the identity of the defendant isn't always in the best interest of justice.//
Depends on whose justice you are talking about.
Anyone accused these days gets their name smeared across the press and social media pages where the public hang the person (metaphorically speaking). It ruins their lives, people loose jobs and families because of it.
How do you fix that when they are found innocent? Hardly justice for that person is it?
And on the subject of historical, lets talk about the Nonce Finder General shall we?
Depends on whose justice you are talking about.
Anyone accused these days gets their name smeared across the press and social media pages where the public hang the person (metaphorically speaking). It ruins their lives, people loose jobs and families because of it.
How do you fix that when they are found innocent? Hardly justice for that person is it?
And on the subject of historical, lets talk about the Nonce Finder General shall we?
YMB
barry1010 makes a good point. If someone accused of a sexual offence can remain anonymous, how would other victims be able to come forward?
I saw the Netflix Jimmy Saville documentary last week and at the end it was revealed that many victims didn't report Saville to the police because they assumed they were "the only one and no-one would believe them".
Also - if you set the precedent of anonymity in sex cases, why not in murder, fraud, assault etc?
barry1010 makes a good point. If someone accused of a sexual offence can remain anonymous, how would other victims be able to come forward?
I saw the Netflix Jimmy Saville documentary last week and at the end it was revealed that many victims didn't report Saville to the police because they assumed they were "the only one and no-one would believe them".
Also - if you set the precedent of anonymity in sex cases, why not in murder, fraud, assault etc?
sp1814 - // Also - if you set the precedent of anonymity in sex cases, why not in murder, fraud, assault etc? //
Why not indeed!
The current twin evils of our culture - social media, and the overwhelming desire to think the worst of a complete stranger based on nothing more than supposition, are a combination that makes the protection of innocent individuals very important, which, if we are to be a civlised society, it always has been.
Why not indeed!
The current twin evils of our culture - social media, and the overwhelming desire to think the worst of a complete stranger based on nothing more than supposition, are a combination that makes the protection of innocent individuals very important, which, if we are to be a civlised society, it always has been.
In cases like this the accused should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached. If acquitted, anonymity should be maintained indefinitely. People must take responsibility for themselves. If they're assaulted it's up to them to report it. Too many men's lives have been ruined by false accusations.
I agree that nobody should be named or publicised at all, unless they have been found guilty. Just the association can ruin lives, as I, at least, can think of a few celebrities, where without googling, I can't actually remember the outcomes.
However, that is for innocent people... and while it is perfectly right and fair, to have "presumed innocence", the problem is that one word against another is obviously not 50/50. The first presumption has to be that an accuser is lying, unless they can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they aren't.
From stats alone, it suggests far more "get away" with it from lack of evidence, than are wrongly accused.
With the burden of proof being on an accuser, it might be more relevant to ask how to make it fairer for them.
However, that is for innocent people... and while it is perfectly right and fair, to have "presumed innocence", the problem is that one word against another is obviously not 50/50. The first presumption has to be that an accuser is lying, unless they can prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that they aren't.
From stats alone, it suggests far more "get away" with it from lack of evidence, than are wrongly accused.
With the burden of proof being on an accuser, it might be more relevant to ask how to make it fairer for them.
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Today I Heard My First . . . . .
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
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.