Really? I have seen several. Here's one:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/engla...nds/
4211367.stm
Robin, we cant even keep an eye on the ones "tagged" let alone ones yet to enter the judicial system
@Robin: The headline hardly says that he was innocent, merely that his father says that he is. While the story arguably is slanted in his favour, it does include quotes from the US government to the effect that they believe the man is dangerous.
Hardly "Innocent Man Released After Years In Captivity"...
One thing John Reid and I seem to agree on is that control orders are flawed... the only problem is, we think so for different reasons.
Personally, I don't see the benefit of saddling the law enforcers with yet another community of 'pre-judicial arrestees' to monitor when, as you say, the system is already overstretched at every point - detection, prosecution, incerceration...
Something in his calculations doesn't add up; if the threat from these individuals is as serious as he maintains, how come there isn't enough evidence to bring a charge which would satisfy the judiciary of the need for a stronger measure than a control order?
I wish I knew "the answer"...
Hi, Cloaked User... fair point; I was just responding to the original post with a comment that I've seen plenty of headlines of that kind. Maybe I read a different selection of media sources from Bystander ;^)
>The headline hardly says that he was innocent
It doesn't have to: of what has he been proven guilty?
>the US government [says] that they believe the man is dangerous.
No doubt they believe that he's concealing the Iraq WMDs somewhere about his person.
Back on topic, I'm sure I've seen some headlines along the lines of "Innocent Man Held For Fourteen Years, Charged Board and Lodging"
I think it's a way of saying the sentence should have been longer
Ask the criminal if he views his suspended sentence or referral order as being "hard time" and I think you would hear the same comments as those in the papers.
"The headline hardly says that he was innocent, merely that his father says that he is.... "
Rogerborg, you got in before me! I would hope that here we use the archaic 'presumption of innocence until proven', rather than the more modern 'trial by headline', or , indeed, the recently fashionable 'pre-emptive assertion by America', which so impresses this current government.
Funnily enough, if I had to choose between a father asserting innocence and a newspaper asserting guilt, my money would be on the father. Now, if it had been his mother....!
What happens to someone who has been held in remand before being found not guilty and released? Do they get compensation?
For some reason it's always been a fear of mine that I would be arrested for something I didn't do. My fears are compounded as we move closer to being a police state (ID Card & stop and explaining yourself without any basis of suspicion). People always say you have nothing to fear if you haven't done anything wrong but that is so blatantly false.
I think you'd be lucky to get your own shoes back, let alone compensation for your lost job and home.
Barry,
I was arrested almost four months ago for something I didn't do.
Until the trial, in September, I am on bail. However on the day I was arrested, I was dragged out of bed at 6am, handcuffed, and locked in a cell for twelve hours. It is a traumatic experience. Police officers in the UK are thugs.
Do you think I will be offered any compensation? I would have to sue the Police and CPS in civil court.
There are far too many who have been not guilty and have been held for much longer than 6 months! Nevertheless, your are right in saying that anything other than immediate imprisonment is seen by the press (and by many victims) as a "let off" even in cases where the law does not permit imprisonment.
The frightening one is rape.
For obvious reasons, the CPS oppose bail in rape cases. And, indeed, it is hard to grant bail in a way that will reassure the public.
Remember - when considering Bail, we have to assume that the case will be 'proven at the highest level'.
Yet the _majority_ of rape cases result in a Not Guilty verdict (the whys and wherefores of this are another argument). So innocent men (proved innocent in a Court of Law) spend time in custody on remand.
A 'bunny boiler' can have an innocent ex-partner locked up on remand with frightening ease...
And, whatever you do, don't get accused of any serious crime on American soil. They can extradite you.
If only we could adopt the much more efficient system posited in the documentary Starship Troopers:
A murderer was captured and tried today.
Sentence: DEATH.
Tonight at six, all nets, all channels.
Rogerborg,
?
"we use the archaic 'presumption of innocence until proven'"
Unless it's a foreign court, when the media refer to convicted people as suspects.
http://www.theargus.co.uk/
search...ed.php#comments
"Ask the criminal if he views his suspended sentence or referral order as being "hard time" and I think you would hear the same comments as those in the papers."
Now ask the innocent man if he views his time on remand as being "hard time." I doubt he will think that the precise conditions of his imprisonment (basically the same as for convicted criminals serving sentences) is really the point.
He who is acquitted isn't "innocent", Bystander, he is merely "not guilty". Maybe you should retake the Magistrates' orientation.
I'm sure there are headlines along the lines of "Wanker Mag Rules Not Enough Evidence to Bang Up Toe Rag". Maybe more pithily phrased.
"He who is acquitted isn't "innocent", Bystander, he is merely "not guilty"."
But everyone is innocent until proven guilty!
Indeed, you can be both thin and not fat. Or in Oxford, you can be thin, and not fat.
Actually, in Jockland, you can be thin and not proven to have eaten all the pies.
I think that what we have here is a translation problem between the worlds of justice and media. I have found this aide-memoire to be useful in the past:
How to refer to persons charged with the following offences:
- terrorism, paedophilia, murder of a vulnerable person, motoring offence - vicious criminal
- arrested by another state - innocent victim
- any other offence against state - brave martyr
- white-collar crime - innocent until proven guilty at final appeal
- Attacking anyone in an entertainment setting - racist thug
- Policeman - innocent of either speeding or murder by definition (but, interestingly, not racism)
Radams,
Well, one of them has to go; either the verdicts become "guilty" and "innocent", or the old phrase becomes "not guilty until proven guilty". I see no way to reconcile the two.
I really don't know what Bystander's gassing on about though. The press go mad every time there's a wrongfully-convicted murderer exonerated. He is certainly old enough to remember all the fulminating that accompanied the realization that six Paddies apparently didn't blow up a pub in Birmingham.
(I was gassing about time spent on remand, not after wrongful conviction) - ed
Edited By Siteowner
If a person hadn't done something against the wishes of the Executive, then:
he/she wouldn't have been arrested;
he/she wouldn't have been charged;
he/she wouldn't be in Court!
Once once a person is in Court it is an affront to the Executive for that Court to make any finding that detracts from Executive action.
The Executive exists to maintain order and stability within society, and the Executive is the sole judge of what needs to be done to maintain that order and stability; in discharging this function, they are subject to no-one but their parliamentary majority, which consists of members of Parliament, who are all well-meaning people, beyond any reproach.
The judiciary only exists to give a pseudo-veneer of quasi-legitimacy to the process.
Bills of attainder were quite common once, and have made their way back as confinement orders and detention without trial. This is to cut out the waverers in the judiciary.
George
@ Anonymous
I bet you took your legal advice to go no comment -
@ thinblueline
Nope. The police are not at all interested in truth. They've also done an arrest for ABH when there was absolutely no physical evidence of any harm (obviously, since no assult took place) and the "victim" statement even states there was no injury. They did this because they're not allowed to barge in to your home and arrest you for common assult - it has to be something more serious.
I'm hoping to make a wrongful arrest suit once the charge is dropped.
If you think the law is an ass, just try the police.
Commenting by HaloScan
