Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
come back to the cobbles ken
Happy to be told otherwise
obviously the evidence did not stack up and therefore Barlow wasn't proven guilty.
In cases of rape and child sexual abuse it's often the case that they aren't found guilty - because they're hard to prove. The amount of 'not guilty' verdicts has lead lots of people to believe that there are guilty people who've been let off.
So it means the same thing as Not guilty
You are right to say that sometimes the prosecution fail to prove their case adequately and guilty people are "let off".
But I believe that you have to trust the legal system. No one here heard all the evidence and we have to believe that the jury was in the best position to find him not guilty
It means when you do dleiver a not guilty verdict, it does mean just that. Not proven is the one which says 'we think on balance you did it but we don't have enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt'.
The only two things scotland can be proud of
"sits back and awaits something about telephones and antibiotics"
and steam. we practically invented steam (chap from my home town in fact, cleverclogs).
George Stevenson? He is English: lived in Scotland
said in the wonderfully Scottish and threatening manner?
and live mammal cloning.
There's a really good exhibition at the National Library right now about things invented either in Scotland or by Scottish people.
You refer to the doctrine of the presumption of innocence, but it does not automatically follow that there is a legally defined innocence. This is the source of much confusion and needless argument here. There can only be innocent in a general or factual sense. Defendants in trials are either acquitted or convicted, the most common way to be acquitted is through a finding of "not guilty".
then allow the presumption of innocence to mean that the acquitted is innocent of all charges?
We've had about 15 different people trying to explain this now.
The PoI is part of your article 6 rights: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/hrr_article_6.pdf
' 2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. '
It is not a general right that we all enjoy in our day to day lives. It is specifically for people charged with a criminal offence - to protect them against an unfair trial and a wrongful conviction. The PoI is a presumption of no-evidence-strong-enough-to convict which logically entails the *general* innocence of the accused. We are all entitled to be treated as if we were *generally* innocent. If we weren't it would be an infringement of other rights but not this *particular* right which is limited in scope to the judicial process.
The reason why Bill Roache is now entitled to be treated as *if he were innocent* IS NOT because of the legal presumption of innocence. It is because of various other fundamental rights which we all have. He had the same right to be treated *as if he were innocent* before the trial; it isn't attached to any finding of the jury.
Here is mine
an atheist "not believing in god" - is not the same as saying "god doesn't exist".
Not guilty = not enough evidence to convict.
Which is utterly separate from the question of innocence.
Presumption of Innocence: Innocent until proven guilty. Innocent by definition means guiltless. Therefore not guilty = guiltless = innocent
"Not Guilty" simply means that, nothing to do with being actually innocent of the crime as charged.
Don't know how else to explain it to you.
If you are presumed innocent of a crime until found guilty, then found not guilty, you are innocent of that crime?
Don't know how else to explain it to you
It seems to me people here are using the alleged ambiguity between innocent and not guilty to suggest that "he's probably guilty but the evidence wasn't good enough so he "got away with it"
what if we knew he had committed the crime, but we couldn't prove it in court?
By your definition he is "innocent".
Then we could be here all day
But in your example I'm sure we could just string him up
Because we all know them to be, but a court can't prove it? What would be your solution then?
merely pointing out the fallacy using your own logic.
And yes, if you cannot prove a case in a court of law, in this country you are innocent until proven guilty
I'll repeat what I said, maybe you'll address it this time:
"what if we knew he had committed the crime, but we couldn't prove it in court?
By your definition he is "innocent"."
Your definition of not guilty=innocence, as you posted twice up there.
do you stand by this? or do you not?
The answer is yes. Not proven guilty in court = presumed innocent
you can't say anything for certain about a specific case. buy you can say that as the number of victims reporting rape is much much higher than the number of people found guilty, and there is no reason to think that the number of victims reporting it are not being honest any more than any other type of crime (probably far less likely to due to the seriousness people treat this issues, and the way in which they will be treated taking it to trial), you can therefore infer that many people who are in fact guilty are found innocent compared to many most other crimes. So for this type of crime in particular not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent
it just means innocent in the legal sense, which you would hope correlates to innocent in the factual sense, but sadly often doesn't especially in these types of cases.
Therefore 'not guilty'=innocent in the legal sense but 'not guilty' does not always equal innocent in the factual sense.
take those people who murderers stephen lawrence, some of them have never been found guilty (or gone to trial) so are innocent, but not in the factual sense
i'm not really, i'm more pointing out that there exists a concrete reality of what happened which cannot always be established in a court, in these case people can be legally innocent when in reality they are not
I don't think they're the same. An acquittal does not mean someone is materially innocent - legally or in any other sense. If the women in this case were charged and found guilty of malicious prosecution then perhaps but even then it's not really what the court is finding.
There's also a US case where the judge misdirected the jury by telling them to presume 'not guilty' (instead of innocent)I'm on my phone so can't write a really long reply but can elaborate later.
Also disagree strongly with your point that we MUST have faith in the legal system and that it's adequate.
Jurisdictions have malicious prosecution or similar as a criminal offence bit even in tort it's really rare)
However, legally innocent means lack of guilt, so it is the same. Whether or not you agree is a different matter entirely.
And if we don't have faith in the legal system, what should we do instead? It's pretty fair from perfect, but given the numbers who pass through the system on a daily/weekly/monthly/yearly basis, it does a fantastic job and gets it right almost all of the time
"However, legally innocent means lack of guilt, so it is the same." - where is your authority for that?????
You seem to think there is no room for interpretation in law! And that your interpretation is automatically right. I've based my interpretation on a body of case law and academic literature. Disagree with that if you want but it's not just MY opinion.
As I understand it, Bill Roache is entitled to be treated *as if he were innocent* - the same rights he would enjoy had he never been accused or if he was just some other regular guy. But this doesnt mean that it has been legally established that he is innocent. It has been legally established that he is "not guilty". It's a fine distinction but the two concepts are definitely NOT synonymous. Hence calls for there to be a mechanism whereby judges in England and Wales can make a pronouncement of "innocence" over and above "not guilty" where there is evidence of severe reputational damage (and/or vigilante justice) AND evidence of malice. Not something I think is necessarily workable or desirable but it demonstrates that the meanings attributed to "not guilty" and "innocent" by the judiciary and by the public are not identical or interchangelable.
He is innocent until proven guilty. By being found Not guilty, he is therefore innocent of the crime with which he was charged is he not?
You do like to make assumptions about me based on what I'm saying. Of course I'm not automatically right, its only my opinion
I have some sympathy with your point about the meanings of innocent and not guilty in the general public, but I'd argue that Innocent and Not Guilty are synonymous. Innocence is defined as being "free from legal or specific wrong; guiltless:" Guiltless = Not guilty
The very basis for a 'presumption of innocence' is that it should generally be the job of those accusing to prove guilt- a defendant needs to counter evidence that they are guilty rather than provide evidence that they are innocent.
Don't think you need to know even the slightest thing about the law ('cos I don't) to know that innocent and not guilty are not synonymous .
It needed to be proved that Barlow committed these acts and it was the job of the accused (in the form of the CPS) to prove guilt here.
He (Barlow) is presumed innocent of the charges of rape and indecent assault.
The prosecution then had to provide evidence to prove that Barlow did indeed commit these crimes.
The defence countered by attempting to disprove and cast doubt
He was found not guilty, and presumption of innocence then means that he is innocent of all charges
Now as I've mentioned above, if you want to argue semantics about the morals of Innocent and Not guilty being different: that's fine. And some people seem to want to assume he is still guilty but got away with it. That's fine too, but daft. But legally he is innocent
are not the same thing, that is the error you are making.
Doesn't matter how many times you keep asserting they are over and over again.
That's the error you (and others) keep making
You've just used the doctrine of the presumption of innocence (which forms part of the right to a fair trial NOT the epistemic question of whether someone "did it") and somehow extended it to mean something else.
Isn't that what you're doing? And confusing it for discussing legislation and criminal justice?
I don't know shit about this case- was just pointing out something I found out for the first time a few days ago that was relevant to a discussion regarding the concept of 'presumption of innocence'.
I suspect you're on the very niche rise here, but out of curiosity- can you or anyone else provide a legal definition of innocent/innocence, detailed in legislation, that applies currently to England and Wales? Because this whole sub thread is predicated on your idea that there is such thing as 'innocent in a legal sense' and others suggesting that no such thing exists, and that the law doesn't concern itself with innocence- only with whether or not guilt can be proven.
It would be in keeping with the spirit of the law if the person insisting innocence existed as a legal concept proved their claim.
Or you could argue with the pretend people in this thread who are replying to you with specific reference to the Roache case, whatever.
there are various other offences like strict liability offences, terrorism, cot death/murder cases where there is more of a reversed onus and parliament can actually, within reason, restrict the presumption. SOA isn't one of these cases.
But "He was found not guilty, and presumption of innocence then means that he is innocent of all charges" - this is where we disagree. This just isnt how PI works.
'presumption of innocence then means that he is innocent of all charges'
what if there is more evidence and then is found guilty at a later stage, would they have been innocent up to the point
where are you getting this from? like, where have you read this? cause you're saying this as if there's a legal authority on this or something. if there is then I am totally willing to read it and accept the limitations of everything i've read so far. but where is it?
Someone is murdered. The police arrest and you but you're released without charge. You go back into normal society, not enjoying the presumption of innocence in any legal sense in relation to that murder but still not being deprived of your rights because you are *generally* innocent - not *presumed* innocent in relation to a particular offence. Then they arrest someone else. In neither case has the arrestee been presumed innocent. The CPS think there's enough evidence to convict this other guy so they go ahead with prosecution. They haven't presumed he's innocent either - they've acted in accordance with their belief that he did it and that there is evidence of this fact. It's really only when you get to the trial stage that the actual doctrine of PoI kicks in and the jury have to weigh up the evidence. The second guy is acquitted (we don't know why because juries don't have to give us reasons). He then goes back into society and is in the exact same position (legally) as you.* Neither of you has been found innocent.
*with a few exceptions which aren't relevant here.
*he gets to the trial stage
"presumption of innocence" is a procedural principle; "not guilty" is a verdict (result).
Within the system of (British) legal discourse, "not guilty" does *not* mean "innocent", because the *finding* of "innocence" is not available to the court.
Moreover, the principle of the "presumption of innocence" isn't "innocent until proven guilty", but rather derives from the Latin "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negate", which translates roughly as "the burden of proof lies with the one who asserts, not with the one who denies".
As a *procedural principle*, the presumption of innocence does not ascribe the character of innocence to anyone, nor even presumes it of anyone. Rather, it is a means of legitimating particular judicial processes and techniques — e.g. those concerning the acquisition of evidence, witness testimony and examination, etc. — and disqualifying others. At the risk of derailing this discussion with a debate about the utility of analogies, we could say that the "presumption of innocence" is built into judicial (and other) procedures in the sense that the presumption that people generally are not psychopaths is built into the procedures of polite social interaction. When I want to buy something from a shop, for instance, I take it up to the counter and conduct my behaviour and speech as though the sales clerk were *not* a violent psychopath. The fact that I make it out of the store alive doesn't in itself mean that the sales clerk *isn't* a psychopath, that he/she wasn't about to stab me in the eye with a hunting knife.
It's right about now that you're wanting to object that the analogy doesn't hold because the point of the commercial exchange is not to determine whether the sales clerk is a psychopath, whereas the point of a trial is to determine whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. But the point here — the crucial difference that you're refusing to acknowledge (I know not why) — is that the point of a trial is *not* to determine guilt or innocence but to find a defendant "guilty" or "not guilty". (Of course, there are undoubtedly other ways in which the analogy doesn't hold, but those non analogous aspects don't bear upon the salient point of the distinction between procedure and outcome.) "Not guilty" means here that there was insufficient evidence for a jury to find, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.
And while you keep saying that "not guilty" and "innocent" are "in a legal sense" the same thing, the truth is that you're the reason why you're conflating the two terms here is because in a *non-legal* sense the two words can be treated as synonymous.
I say all this having no idea who Ken Barlow is or why he's being talked about.
The finding of guilty doesn't put an end to the presumption of innocence, in the sense that the courts are able to treat those who have been found guilty differently than those have not (or not yet) been found guilty. The general rules of procedure remain the same whether found guilty or not -- though technically I suppose you could argue that the legally guilty only appear in situations of sentencing and appeal, and not trial situations.
but what's your excuse for doing the same thing 16 hours later?
pointing out the distinction be tween procedural principle and legal finding might help us all avoid getting baited by a troll next time.
Let's face it: when we get caught up in these things, as often as not it's about trying to explain it to ourselves as much as anyone else.
I'm not, its just that my understanding differs from others. I may be wrong, but I've not seen anything here that changes my opinion
Some have asked for evidence as to why I'm "conflating" Innocent and not guilty: I simply don't have a link or blog post that clarifies my argument. In discussions with a few legal bloggers on twitter last night and this morning (hardly cast iron proof I agree) I asked for clarification re: term Innocent vs Not Guilty. One answer are here (I'm aware I look like a git in the hat)
Another blog post here (see section under "what happens now?)
This confirms what I have failed to adequately explain above. Effectively he is innocent as a jury couldn't find him guilty "beyond reasonable doubt".
My issue here is some appear to using the fact of a not guilty verdict to suggest he is actually guilty, but got away with it because the evidence wasn't strong enough. No one here knows what the truth of the matter is, and he will always now be "presumed innocent" of these charges unless/until more evidence comes to light which can be examined in a court of law
Don't think anyone has said he is guilty, just that it is a possibility and that he hasn't been proven innocent
who don't exist in this thread might have been suggesting about this specific case, rather than the real replies that actual people were making about the incorrect assertion that 'innocent in a legal sense' is an existent thing.
But you've climbed down now, so it's all okay.
Dick beats other dick in internet fight
1.5 bitcoins as a prize
how this has reached this many replies!
That guy you spoke to on twitter says almost *exactly* the same thing as me:
That the jury couldn't be sure that Roache did it but that he should nevertheless be treated *as if* he were innocent.
Because effectively he is? Yes? No?
If you were to go and publish a blog/article suggesting that although Roache has been found not guilty, this doesn't mean he is innocent of the charges, how do you think that would be perceived from a legal perspective?
in the same way I am and you are (I think). That is, we are *generally* innocent (note: this isn't a legal term just a way of conceptualizing it better). I've committed numerous criminal offences though.
Do you not get from the statement:
"he should be treated *as if he were* innocent in relation to these particular charges"
that it makes no actual claim about whether he is indeed innocent *in relation to these particular charges*? Otherwise we would be saying "he is innocent of this crime and so should be treated as such".
Because of his not-guilty verdict yesterday he will go on still being *generally* innocent or treated *as if he were innocent* but he had this right anyway. It was the crown which was trying to make it otherwise and it failed to make its case convincingly. It's nothing to do with a presumption. They haven't found that he *is innocent* of all charges BECAUSE THAT SIMPLY ISN'T POSSIBLE IN ENGLISH LAW.
HE WILL NOT NOW BE PRESUMED INNOCENT OF THESE CHARGES.
IF THERE IS FREAH EVIDENCE AND HE IS PUT ON TRIAL AGAIN THEN HE WILL BE PRESUMED INNOCENT. HE'S NOT ON TRIAL ANYMORE. HOW CAN HE BE BEING PRESUMED INNOCENT. ahhhhhhhhhh
And stop shouting
"the reason I ask is several people I know seem to be suggesting that NG doesn't mean innocent therefore he still did it".
No, people are saying that "not guilty" doesn't mean "innocent". No one (in this thread at least) is saying "therefore he still did it".
Although I think that Latin definition from Wikipedia is way too simplistic - it's closely related to the burden of proof but that doesn't cover the need for the jury to discount everything they might already know pre-trial.
I think part of the problem here is that the language in the law is imprecise. Innocence intuitively implies 'material innocence' but its actually unclear what type of innocence the jury are to presume. A verdict/ finding definitely is not not one of material guilt/non-guilt though. I think the reason why 'innocence' as opposed to 'not guilty' has taken hold is that it avoids confusion about what the jury are being asked to do. Directing them to presume 'not guilty' until proven otherwise would be far too much like telling them which verdict to reach.
'Innocence' legally doesn't really have much meaning and I think it's probably meant more in the sense that 'ordinary citizens' are generally innocent - yet not *presumed* innocent in relation to anything in particular. The police wouldn't be allowed to do their jobs if we were all presumed innocent of/in relation to every crime.
So the PoI is a presumption of no-evidence-strong-enough-to convict which logically entails the general innocence of the accused (leaving aside previous convictions which the jury won't even know about).
If the innocence they were to presume was the same type of 'innocence' or 'non guilt' to be reached though a verdict then the system would probably have developed a way of making that apparent.
And to be clear, none of what we have said is any legal authority. It just makes far more sense than what Gringo is saying (which is also claiming to be "the law").
See my post above for a reply
I can see this going round in circles.
If a jury acquits, they are saying that the state didn't fulfill the burden of proof for guilt.so an acquittal can be agnostic about the actual/material guilt status of a defendant. it's all about evidence and burden of proof. as I already said, this doesn't stop someone being treated *as if* they were innocent for the purposes of non-judicial stuff like media reporting, getting a job etc but it's still not the same as being proven innocent. various things don't require a criminal conviction to treat someone unfavourably though - e.g. you can be sacked if your employer thinks you did something illegal/that would bring the organisation into disrepute etc. because the court hasn't really found you to be "innocent" at all. your employer may have seen you commit the offence for example but had their evidence torn apart for whatever reason.
consider it this way: if the jury were presuming BR to be materially innocent (i.e. he simply did not do what he is alleged to have done; the elements of the offence won't be met) what exactly are the jury being required to think happened? that no sex took place? that he lacked mens rea/intent? that he reasonably believed there to be consent? are they to begin the trial by disbelieving every element of the offence? cause this would be contradictory: you can't think sex didn't take place at all but that it was also consensual and that consent was communicated. in this case, I think BR's defence was that sex took place but that it was consensual. but if he had denied having sex at all, what were the jury to presume exactly? that his version of events was 100% truthful or just that the exact thing being alleged was false? the presumption of innocence doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the hypothesis about whether the defendant *actually did it*. all the jury need to go to court thinking that there is no evidence until they have seen conclusive evidence of all the elements of the alleged offence. they don't necessarily have to have any opinion about what actually did happen - just that they can't be sure that it was rape. their presumption of innocence is really a presumption of no-evidence-strong-enough-to-convict. But the presumption of innocence is only operative absolutely for judicial proceedings. its to protect against wrongful conviction but not just all the different possible harms consequent upon being falsely accused of a crime. The language of "innocent till proven guilty" is kind of confusing in this way but I definitely think there's an important distinction to be drawn between the two terms and they shouldn't be used interchangeably. A finding of not guilty is not a finding of innocence. The presumption of innocence is more like a presumption that guilt is not yet established but it's only for the jury's decision making. you don't leave court acquitted and take the presumption of innocence with you.
what about all the crimes that never make it to court? it does a fantastic job - at what? putting people behind bars yeah. administering justice? depends what you understand by justice.
about 'all the crimes that never make it to court'? Are you saying there are a significant number?
"Estimates from research suggest that
between 75 and 95 per cent of rape crimes are never reported to the police."
"For those victims who do come forward, between a half and two-thirds of cases will not proceed beyond the investigation stage"
so unless you wanna try to argue that between a half and two-thirds of people who report rape are lying about it, yes, there is overwhelming evidence that a huge number of cases of this particular crime never make it to court
I replied after I had seen tiramisu had posted actual sources about this.
Good example of how people like you demand to be spoonfed information you could very easily have found for yourself using Google and really obvious search terms like "rape reported crime statistics". Then think when I don't take time to link it to you for whatever reason (idk. maybe a bit sick of having to explain this sort of shit to people like you over and over again day in day out - or in this case it had already been covered) it's cause i'm not being 'helpful' enough. cause yeah it's not like i devote a huge amount of my free time talking to people about gender inequality in the vain hope that they might also bother their arses to do something about it.
you honestly think you're not that bad. but thinking it's my responsibility to bring you widely reported, easily accessible information which is already in the public domain in order to back up a really fucking basic claim that most rapes arent reported to police makes YOU the unhelpful one.
stop being such a prick royter/ other people who do this.
but i've never actually read anything that backs it up. Royter's comment did make he think, 'yeah - is this thing that i assume actually true?'
i'll have a read of that later - cheers
going to the pub now
you could probably compare victimisation reported in the british crime survey against cases that make it to court, that would probably still underestimate it though
They need to shake it up a bit to reignite our interest. A real twist like a woman, maybe Gloria Hunniford, Anneka Rice or Maureen Lipman. Frame 'em if you have to.
i love 2013
that Ken died on the way back to his home planet.
and he's currently in Canada visiting an ill relative
I always thought it would've been better to say he was on a factfinding mission in Thailand with Kevin Webster - kill to birds with one stone, so to speak.
Actually, now I think about it, maybe not Thailand....
I am aware of this.
I suspect that we are in a minority of two on here.
im still laughing at steve juggling scotch eggs
The funeral episodes were well handled. It was the little things like Steve and his crew that made it work so well. Also, I thought the way Mary and Norris's relationship was played was absolutely brilliant. The little smile he gave to himself after she had spoken to Roy, and the way they ended up doing the cha-cha-cha in the yard was heart-warming.
You don't get shit like that in EastEnders
and I hate Mary she's my worst character by far. The only thing that annoyed me (this should go into that other thread) was the mass singalong to the Carpenters, always find it so cringy when the Rovers bursts into a mass singalong
There's been an element of hysteria around the Yewtree stuff so it's not surprising that not all the cases are going to end in convictions.
That said, I hope the celebrities I personally dislike are all banged up.
but of course that was Judith Chalmers.
she'd be good too.
Five different people making those allegations.
Look at the case of Stuart Hall. There was a large number of victims there over a number of years. One of the key reasons he was found guilty was that each victim gave very similar accounts, described very similar methods and was detailed
From what I've read from the Barlow case, the evidence seemed very light and vague.
I'm amazed it came to court. One of the carges was dropped and then it transpired the accuser admitted she had no actual memory of the assault. Surely that would have come out during the prosecution's pre-trial investigations? (unless of course the trauma and stress of trial caused the witness to lose her recollection of events. Yoyu do hear of people freezing on the stand and, eg, being ubnable to identify their assailant in court, under pressure.)
if she said owt
BBC: ''Another woman initially told police she was warned about Mr Roache by actor Johnny Briggs, who played Mike Baldwin, but when it was discovered he was not in the show at the time she said the warning had come from a different actor.''
Which isn't going to help prosecution's case.
it's gonna be mike baldwin.
because as you say, weho the hell wouild do that and put themselves through it./ that said, it does happen in very rare circumstances. Perhaps because of perceived injustice or slight, mental illness, attention. So very rare though. And coupled with some of the foul stuff roache has said about women in the past, it does leave a bit of a bitter taste...
thet implies the first accuser had been prompted by his previous comments about rape victims and past lives.
Thought it was odd how they worded it like that interview was definitely responsible
bit odd the way it's written.
James and the circle of love. Are they a shit new Manc indie band ? or is he balls deep in some bizarre cult situation ?
is the name of gary glitter's recent hot-to guide
"name and shame them then prosecute them"
Not a friend of mine.
2 duplicate replies but posted 6 minutes apart!
alright, norton internet security
What if he had raped these women 'in character' - like if it was 'Ken' that was the rapist and Bill was just a passenger in his crimes
if they could prove he was delusional and thought he was Ken Barlow all the time, and Ken Barlow turned out to be a rapist. N'est ce pas?
support Tyrone's Oily Nightmare
Called "libel" after he unsuccessfully sued a newspaper for saying he was as boring as the character he plays. It was to warn others about te dangers of being litigious. So it's highly unlikely that he's going to sue you for saying he probably did it. Which he probably did.
apparently the jury found that he WASN'T boring but it still bankrupted him.
but I remember him, 'Tosh' from the bill and robert lindsay all getting wrecked in a pub. No idea if I was 3 or 23 as my memory has smushed it into some 'no context' box. But i remember it. Therefore Im glad, as Ive still never met a peadfile