|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Should Cardinals Mahony and O'Brien go to Conclave?
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I hear all of the above but am not convinced that not having some kind of statute of limitations is required: for example, how on earth can an accused individual remember what s/he was up to on a Tuesday evening in March 30+ years ago?
[ETA - perhaps a subject for another thread?]
[ 26. February 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I have decided that I'm annoyed with Mrs X. I worked with her in 1982 at a company in a town I haven't lived in, and neither has she, for 25 years. I wish to make a complaint that on a Thursday - or was it Friday - no! Wednesday evening in August or September of that year - No, I remember now: it was at the office Christmas party! - anyway, she, most inappropriately for a married woman with kids I feel, said she would like to meet me behind the photocopier for a 'bit of no nonsense, so strings groping' and was I up for it?
Well, even though there were no witnesses and I can't remember exactly what date it was - and i certainly can't prove it even if I remembered the exact time! - and though it'll ruin her marriage and disgust her kids, I'm going to make the accusation anyway, in public and whilst retaining my anonymity.
Why didn't I tell anyone about it earlier, well I was worried that no one would believe me - but nowadays they'll believe anything you tell a reporter won't they?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
Let's leave Cardinal O'Brien out of this for a moment as we don't know the truth or falsity of the allegations against him.
Generally speaking the common English usage of the term hypocrite refers whose professed beliefs are at variance with their actions. Even if, on some level, a denouncer of sexual relations between persons of the same sex is sincere in his or her denunciations they may be properly described as a hypocrite if they are also a practicioner of said practices on the Q/T.
I am guessing that what Johnson was talking about was someone like my dear old Grandmother who puffed away on a gasper like Messrs Benson and Hedges needed the cartons back, whilst firmly inculcating in us kids the idea that smoking was a bad idea. Grandma wasn't a hypocrite, she wanted us to avoid going down a path that she had gone down and regretted. She would have been a hypocrite if she had noisily denounced smoking every time we went to see her and then sparked up the moment we were gone.
More generally there comes to a point, I think, that a variance between one's acts and one's words makes sincerity impossible. It is possible to disapprove of adultery and to end up in bed with someone who is not one's spouse but if one routinely ends up in bed with someone else one is not sincere, one is posing as a disapprover of adultery even if one feels sincere and noble about one's pose from time to time. It's entirely possible to have good intentions and to be guilty of bad faith on an industrial strength scale and when that happens get ready for people to call you a hypocrite, you'll have earned it.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Desert Daughter
Shipmate
# 13635
|
Posted
Innocent until proven (!) guilty. What's going on here is a disgraceful witch-hunt -and oh, how delicious that the "witch" is a Catholic cardinal... This is libel, pure and simple.
--------------------
"Prayer is the rejection of concepts." (Evagrius Ponticus)
Posts: 733 | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty. What's going on here is a disgraceful witch-hunt -and oh, how delicious that the "witch" is a Catholic cardinal... This is libel, pure and simple.
Like
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Armin:
By contrast, a spokesman for the Vatican appeared on Channel 4 News last night. He was educated, intelligent and deeply patronising (he basically told Jon Snow, "Go off and play with your technology, and leave the serious thinking to us") and I've seen other such figures over the years, when similar accusations are made. People like that, it seems to me, do the RCC real damage. Why can't you have someone saying, "We don't yet know if these accusations are true or not but, if they are, deep harm has been caused, which we weep over"? Why can't the official spokesmen show compassion, rather than slick talking?
As far as I can tell, these news are currently still available here, the interview starts at 3:07. At no point anything resembling the remark that you put in quotation marks was made! Furthermore, while one may regret that not more was said concerning the potential victims, this simply was not the focus of the interview. Both men focused clearly on the current state of the Church, and the consequences of this event for it. Finally, the performance of Msgr Figueiredo was indeed slick. As appropriate when dealing with the secular press, which has been utterly merciless in exploiting any weakness shown by RC spokespersons.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty.
To borrow from A Man For All Seasons, "the public may reason according to its wits, but [a] court must reason according to the law". There's no reason why the opinions of private individuals must be bound by legal conventions.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
If the allegations are true, it is quite likely that men who have been the object of sexual interest by the cardinal are less than impressed by the statements he makes about homosexuality. Hypocrisy does tend to seriously piss people off. (bold changed to italics)
I find this quite wrong. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Cardinal O'Brien is a homosexual by some convenient definition. Why would it be hypocrisy for him to speak out against homosexual marriage? Why indeed would it be hypocrisy for him to condemn homosexual activity and consider homosexual orientation as intrinsically disordered? Even if he indeed was celebrating gay sex orgies every day of his life, which he most assuredly was not, the charge of hypocrisy would not necessarily stick. Hypocrisy consists in promoting standards one does not in fact hold, it does not consist in failing to adhere oneself to the standards one promotes. Wikipedia makes this point with a nice quote from Samuel Johnson:
quote:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.
I am coming to agree with the above.
My initial reaction to the 'story' was to gloat and to quip that those who rant most about something are always the ones who are secretly tempted to it. But later I started to reflect on the Cardinal's good record in speaking up for the poor and other social justice issues.
Andrew Brown, in today's Guardian speaks to me so much that i have put it in my prayer journal: quote:
Journalists and Guardian readers who never get drunk and have regrettable sexual episodes are entitled to completely unalloyed joy at the spectacle of a moralist revealed as a hypocrite. The rest of us should temper our delight.
He goes on to say that the whole system of celibacy and how those who vowed it were often teenage boys when they entered seminaries results in an immaturity when it comes to Church teaching about sex. And the Cardinal recently questioned the celibacy rule.
I hope that Bishop O'Brien will have more good things to say, less stridently, more pastorally, more gently in years to come, after mature reflection from a position of relative powerlessness.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The claims may or may not be true, but they are effectively claims of sexual harassment. That is really not the same thing snogging someone at a disco and then regretting it.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
The claims may or may not be true, but they are effectively claims of sexual harassment. That is really not the same thing snogging someone at a disco and then regretting it.
Depends who the snogger might be. If in a position of responsbility and authority with respect to the snoggee, it could be an abuse of power and, in certain circumstances, an offense under the Criminal Code in Canada. Mileage in other jurisdictions may vary.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
I don't know whether Cardinal O'Brien did anything to anyone, but I do know what it's like to be sexually abused by someone much more powerful - 35 years ago in fact - no I don't remember if it was a Tuesday afternoon, but if you want to defend O'Brien by trivialising the entire issue of historic sexual abuse - as your post does Mudfrog (and some of the rest of you come close) then have some concept of what you're doing.
By a combination of circumstances I won't go into, I had the joy of hearing the person who abused me make just the same arguments about how dare those women come forward after all those years about Savile and Stuart Hall and complain about a bit of groping...
No, I didn't speak up. I cringed.
Do you hold forth on these views in real life, Mudfrog? Because I'd like you to think of the people who've been abused sitting in cowed silence around you thinking 'I'd better not say anything.' You don't know who they are, because they don't say anything. They'll just cringe away from you and remember never to trust you with anything of that nature. For every person who speaks up publicly in real life, a lot of people don't.
If you want to know why folk who've been abused can hesitate for years to come forward, you've answered your own question - because of words like yours which imply that what happened to us was nothing and that we're to blame for not thinking it was nothing ( and we're probably making it all up anyway).
You won't meet many cardinals, Mudfrog, but you will meet a lot of people who've been abused and who won't tell you. If I wasn't far away on the other side of a computer screen I wouldn't tell you either.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I'm sorry for your experience and I would never want to belittle or trivialise a case where great pain has been caused.
My little scenario at the photocopier was merely written to illustrate the fact that sometimes accusations are made that are unprovable, have no evidence to support them and therefore are impossible for the defendant to refute. And that, I fear, is the problem with some cases and maybe with this particular one with the cardinal.
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
The obvious result of this belief, of never doubting what the victim says, is that without question we must believe the perpetrator to be entirely guilty and worthy of condemnation. To treat him as innocent until proven guilty means that we cannot, will not, believe that the accuser might not be telling the truth.
I believe there were similar cases in the seventeenth century where simply to call a woman a witch was evidence enough and conviction and execution were inevitable.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry for your experience and I would never want to belittle or trivialise a case where great pain has been caused.
If you would never want to, then why do you? That may sound snarky, but I'm genuinely curious. Why the reflexive victim-blaming?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
It's interesting that you don't consider testimony by the alleged victims to be "evidence". And given how hard folks like Cardinal Mahony worked to make sure that multiple accusations resulted in as few convictions as possible, what is your basis for claiming that every accused abuser gets convicted?
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I believe there were similar cases in the seventeenth century where simply to call a woman a witch was evidence enough and conviction and execution were inevitable.
Again, what are the conviction stats on accused abusers? Well below 100%, I should think. The number is probably even lower for accused abusers who wear clerical collars.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I'm sorry for your experience and I would never want to belittle or trivialise a case where great pain has been caused.
My little scenario at the photocopier was merely written to illustrate the fact that sometimes accusations are made that are unprovable, have no evidence to support them and therefore are impossible for the defendant to refute. And that, I fear, is the problem with some cases and maybe with this particular one with the cardinal.
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
The obvious result of this belief, of never doubting what the victim says, is that without question we must believe the perpetrator to be entirely guilty and worthy of condemnation. To treat him as innocent until proven guilty means that we cannot, will not, believe that the accuser might not be telling the truth.
I believe there were similar cases in the seventeenth century where simply to call a woman a witch was evidence enough and conviction and execution were inevitable.
If you think you're just neutrally showing that some things are unprovable with that insulting scenario, then you don't know how your words come across. I hope you don't speak like that in real life, and I re-iterate - if you do you're likely leaving an invisible trail of hurt behind you, despite your intentions.
You and I have no idea whether those accusations are unprovable or not - only skeletal details have been released. You have no idea whether they are simply one person's word against another or not. Given that four people are mentioned - there may or may not be patterns, but we don't know as we're not privy to the full evidence. As Trisagion has pointed out, the Catholic Church has a process for investigation (which I believe was overhauled as a result of previous failures) which will presumably be invoked - until that process has time to work, we are in the dark. No one has gone to the police, so no-one is about to be convicted of anything.
Your post uses that nebulous entity and all-round baddy 'Society' to construct a straw-man - this is very handy for speaking in generalities without producing any evidence or testable claims for them, but it won't do.
The fact is that the criminal justice system tests accusations severely - people who come forward have to stand up to rigorous adversarial cross examination as in the case of
Francis Andrade .
The standard for juries is still that cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In the Savile case, while he was alive police departments, far from taking one persons word for anything- turned people away, not realising that there was a pattern of abuse happening. When the pattern was investigated after his death, there turned out to be witnesses and it was very far from being 'one person's word'.
As it happens I'm an expert on the historical witch-hunt. I wont bore you with acquittal rates as it's not the point. But if you can point me to where people accused of sexual abuse are being stripped naked and sleep-deprived to produce false confessions and pricked with pins to provide false forensic evidence, please let me know as I'll be happy to go round and protest against it. False confessions and false forensics are no more common in these cases than others. ( These days -see below for discussion of Rochdale, to which I could have added the South Ronaldsay case)
It certainly can happen that you get something like a witch-hunt when people suspect someone of paedophilia, throw due process out the window, assume guilt and form a lynch mob. It can also happen that due to a moral panic, dodgy forensic evidence is accepted and more normal standards of evidence are dropped- as in the Rochdale case and its claims about 'anal dilation' and satanic abuse (though thankfully that was later discredited). But this is not the same thing as taking an issue more seriously in the legal system to the point where more cases are brought to trial and investigated carefully and tested in court under normal legal standards of proof and forensic evidence rather than being immediately (and often wrongfully) dismissed out of hand.
The choice isn't between 'never doubting the victim' and making up insulting trivialising scenarios where victims are obviously lying or exaggerating. The choice isn't between 'witch-hunting' and never believing victims. If you think there is something dreadfully wrong on a Rochdale standard with the criminal justice system- by all means show us what it is and link to accurate reports of actual cases where you think there has been wrongful conviction.
Saying it's wrong to assume guilt on the cardinal's part doesn't make trashing the people who've come forward OK. It's perfectly possible to say 'we don't know - we have incomplete information - we hope the processes involved are up to handling matters fairly.' It's wrong to demonise the Cardinal on our skeletal knowledge but it's equally wrong to start attacking those who have come forward and to start attacking all abuse victims with wild scenarios about malevolent denunciations in the pub and equating the mere fact that the issue is being taken more seriously to witch-hunting.
[ 27. February 2013, 00:26: Message edited by: Louise ]
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What Louise said. Your post seems to indicate a lack of understanding of basic psychology, Mudfrog.
To the OP, there is little doubt Mahony mucked it up big time. If he had any honour, he would stay home. Alas, he will go to Rome.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To the OP, there is little doubt Mahony mucked it up big time. If he had any honour, he would stay home. Alas, he will go to Rome.
Unfortunately, there was never any doubt about that. The only way that person would have staid home is if BXVI had kicked him out of the College of Cardinals, in spite of (as I understand it) no chance of criminal conviction now. And while one can say many good things about Benedict XVI, that's just not his style. Hence I put down Pope Leo XIV as my wishful guess for the next pope. We do need a lion in charge.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
How do we know that the allegations are true? We seem to have landed in a culture today where all victims who allege sexual abuse must of necessity be telling the truth because the allegation is one of sexual abuse. Once the allegation is made - even if there is no evidence - the alleged perpetrator is ruined. There can be no defence as it is one person's word against another and society now seems to say that a simple unsupported allegation is enough to try, convict and condemn a man and we must always believe the abused victim.
It's interesting that you don't consider testimony by the alleged victims to be "evidence".
How can an allegation be 'evidence'?
Evidence is what is given in support of the allegation. Simply to allege a crime has been committed does not constitute evidence that it has actually occured.
At my son's school around 12 years ago, a girl was told off my a male teacher for misbehaving. So she went and told someone that he had touched her up.
it was not true. Had never been true. It was malicious.
He lost his job, his reputation, his health.
He was hated across the entire city.
It later transpired - far too late - that she made it all up simply because she wanted to get back at him for telling her off.
That is what I mean - it's not a trivial scenario like my photocopier one; it is true. Yes, allegations should be treated seriously and yes, alleged victims should be treated with respect, BUT where it is the presence of an allegation that ruins lives, then something is wrong.
It should be the verdict that gives the punishment, not the allegation.
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Mudfrog, I think you're confused about the term "evidence".
Of course an allegation of abuse is evidence, if it is made by someone alleging they are a victim. It is direct testimony. What distinguishes it from hearsay is that the witness is testifying to events which they claim to have experienced. They are not passing on something they have heard.
As Louise has observed, such evidence is tested for veracity by investigators and prosecutors before a witness is put on the stand. It is then tested by the defence. The jury weighs the truth of it, with any other evidence, which may include contradictory testimony.
Allegations are evidence for the court to consider for admissibility and the jury to weigh if they are allowed in. They are not proof of guilt.
I know personally both victims of abuse and victims of accusations of abuse which were subsequently found to be untruthful. The truth is that victims in both categories suffer a very great deal. Abuse hurts deeply.
Judicial processes are not perfect. They can be painstakingly slow and the waiting is hard. They can be painful to endure once started. Being cross-examined for veracity in open court can itself be a very painful experience for both the witnesses (accused and accuser) and their families, particularly when giving and hearing accounts of painful experiences.
All that is granted. But judicial processes despite their potential imperfections and great strain, are a heck of a lot better than trial by media or rushing to judgment. Either way.
[ 27. February 2013, 09:30: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Desert Daughter:
Innocent until proven (!) guilty. What's going on here is a disgraceful witch-hunt -and oh, how delicious that the "witch" is a Catholic cardinal... This is libel, pure and simple.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The poor Cardinal in question had only a few weeks left to go until he retired. He is refuting the spiteful allegations and yet still has to go.
(snip)
To bring it all up now just seems spiteful to me.
What seems odd to me is that Desert Daughter and Mudfrog seem unaware that they are just as guilty of judging others without evidence. We don't know if the Cardinal is guilty, and we don't know whether his accusers are telling the truth or not. But surely they deserve the same 'innocent until proven guilty' as the Cardinal.
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I agree it's important not to trivialise sexual abuse, or the victims of it. But I think in such staunch defence of the victims of abuse there is a danger in trivialising the victims of false abuse allegations.
The justice system is indeed set up to judge the merits of a case, to provide unbiased, rational analysis, and sound testing. However, it is seriously flawed, and a belief in its ability to not convict innocent people is both naive and dangerous.
Unfortunately it is true that often the police will persue a sexual abuse case with special fervour to bring it to court, based solely on one person's word and no other evidence. The prosecutorial system works to hide any inconsistency or holes in the accuser's testimony in order to create the best case possible. It is up to the defence to try and argue against this case that has been constructed, and if they aren't as good as the prosecution then inconsistencies won't be uncovered.
It is also true that the jury system is massively weighted in favour of the prosecution in these cases. A little child's testimony of abuse is believed far, far more than an adults' defence, no matter the merits of each testimony.
And it is true that victims of abuse allegations are publically shamed, whether innocent or not, while accusers hide behind anonymity.
For someone accused of a sexual crime they didn't commit the cards are hugely against them from the start. I know of a case where an innocent man was advised by his solicitor to plead guilty to try and get a lesser sentence. Even though it was just his word against the child's, with no other evidence, it was considered so likely that the court would be sympathetic to the child that it was too dangerous to attempt a defence.
I suspect this happens more often than most people can imagine. There are some crimes that are so terrible that even being suspected of it is a crime in itself. False allegation of abuse is a secret crime that carries on with little reporting. The accusers are never named in the media, or prosecuted for ruining, or trying to ruin a person's life. The accused, who are shamed and often still considered guilty by colleagues and neighbours, are unlikely to speak out publically and just want to hide away. If they say they didn't do it, no one beleives them. If they aren't convicted most people consider it was only due to lack of evidence rather than innocence. Read some of the threads in this forum for a snapshot of what these victims are going through.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Lots of assertions and surmises there, Hawk. Is there evidence to back them up? Is the ratio of prosecutions to convictions significantly different from other kinds of cases? Is there UK evidence that there are unusual perjury rates in these kinds of cases. Is there evidence of CPS misconduct in these kinds of cases. What is the rate of overturn on appeal?
I can't find much evidence for the UK via Google - at least not yet.
Here is some information from the US. And here is the home page for the source website. I'd not heard of it before but I note that it has Erin Pizzey down as keynote speaker at a conference, which provides some assurance that it is not a one-eyed "axe to grind" site.
[ 27. February 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Originally posted by Hawk
quote:
Unfortunately it is true that often the police will persue a sexual abuse case with special fervour to bring it to court, based solely on one person's word and no other evidence.
Unfortunately it is also true that the police will ignore complaints of abuse and the investigation will never begin.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Hmmm, so no comment on the poor teacher who lost everything because the accusation was treated as evidence that abuse actually happened even though there was no proof.
As far as I am concerned, this provides a definition that I am happy to work with and stand by:
quote:
An allegation is a statement or claim of a fact by a party in a pleading, which the party claims to be able to prove. Allegations remain assertions without proof, until they can be proved.
Evidence is anything that serves towards showing any statement about reality to be true or false.
Therefore, evidence is required in order to prove an allegation. The allegation is not evidence. it requires evidence.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
So if two people witness a crime, their testimonies are both evidence? But if one of them alleges a crime has been committed, then that person's testimony is no longer evidence?
What if twenty people witness a crime and all bring a joint allegation? Is there now no evidence?
[ 27. February 2013, 16:24: Message edited by: hatless ]
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Direct or Indirect Evidence
Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly without the need for inference. i.e. when an event is seen.
Indirect (or circumstantial) evidence is where the available pieces of evidence must be brought together sufficient to infer a fact.
In law the term "sufficient" may mean "beyond reasonable doubt" or "on the balance of probabilities" dependent on the circumstances of the case. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.
In science the term "sufficient" may mean when things are observed to be a particular way many times without exeption.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
On the topic of hypocrisy, I was catching up on some daily lectionary reading and stumbled across Romans 2:1-11, which includes the lines:
quote:
You say, “We know that God’s judgment on those who do such things is in accordance with truth.” Do you imagine, whoever you are, that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them yourself, you will escape the judgment of God?
At least for St. Paul the relevant definition seems to be judging people for something which one does oneself, not judging people for something one secretly doesn't think is that bad.
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Hmmm, so no comment on the poor teacher who lost everything because the accusation was treated as evidence that abuse actually happened even though there was no proof.
Bloody Hell, of course this is a bad thing! It does not follow that allegations should not be treated seriously.
Accusation =\= guilt
Acquittal =\= innocence
Guilty Verdict =/= proof of commission of crime
There are a lot of inadequacies in our justice systems. Bad outcomes will happen, the work is making sure they do not predominate.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
We're way away from Cardinals and Conclaves, but it's an interesting tangent and it may lead back to them.
Mudfrog, I guess you can define evidence any way you like and make that your own understanding. Your understanding does not match up to the one used in the UK legal system. What constitutes evidence in UK courts includes testimony given under oath. ("Given under oath" is of course significant; liars who get found out are then subject to punishment for perjury, and that has certainly happened in false accusation cases in the UK).
Put simply, I think you're mixing up evidence and independent corroboration.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
I would imagine Mudfrog means that if I say you did something and you deny it, then our contradicting statements should cancel each other out since everyone is equal before the law and my testimony should carry equal weight to yours. Therefore further corroboration is needed from other sources.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Lots of assertions and surmises there, Hawk. Is there evidence to back them up?
No. Just my personal opinion based on what I've read and heard from others.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There is a fairly big mismatch between the amount of unwanted sexual contact reported in victim studies like the British Crime Survey - and actual convictions for such offenses. It is also extremely difficult to prove sexual harrassment. Though employment standards are generally "the balance of probability" (mirroring the civil system) rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" which would be the criminal level of proof.
Likewise it is quite possible to have your children on the at risk register for suspected abuse for years - without ever being convicted of a criminal offense. Indeed I think it is fair to say, that most parents suspected of abusing their children, are never arrested let alone charged. Conversely, it is possible to lose custody of your children without ever being convicted of a criminal offense either - though it is a lot less common than the press would have you believe. It is extremely difficult to take action on the basis of emotional abuse - physical abuse and neglect are generally the easiest to prove.
Here is some data regarding rape - one of the more clear cut offenses you'd think.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
Creepy ideas about anonymous detention and secret police aside, isn't keeping abuse allegations secret and concealing the identities of alleged abusers how Cardinal Mahony got in trouble in the first place? Maintaining a code of omertà and forbidding accusers from speaking publicly doesn't have a very good track record in this area.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Maybe we can bring those two threads of the tangent together?
Hawk, here's a thing. A jury may have to consider two bits of evidence. Testimony from the alleged victim about the alleged offence for which the accused is being tried. Testimony from the accused which contradicts the testimony of the victim. Both testimonies, the allegation and the denial constitute evidence which is both presented and tested by cross-examination. Both are evidence for the jury to consider, since both are presented under oath. What you can't say is that neither constitutes evidence. What you can say is that if that is all there is, and the testimonies stand up under cross-examination, then an acquittal is very likely, since there must be reasonable doubt.
In the absence of corroborative evidence of some kind, it is unlikely that the CPS would bring such a case.
And that seems to explain such data as I've seen. A low proportion of cases come to trial because there is insufficient corroboration to justify a case being made. So when cases come to trial, then in general there will be some corroboration of the allegation by the victim. All other things being equal, the quality of the corroboration will determine the outcome.
I've only pressed the point because Mudfrog seemed to be denying that an allegation by a victim constituted evidence. Evidence insufficient to justify a conviction or even a prosecution is still evidence.
Personally, I've never heard of a conviction for a sexual offence against a child or an adult where there was no corroborative evidence brought. In the cases of the false allegations which I know about, they never came to court but there was a substantial period during which the accused people's lives were under various clouds; suspension, restricted access to their children, etc.
All I'm really arguing is don't rush to judgment, either about accusers or accused. Let due process take its course. The issue of what constitutes evidence seems to me to have been a confusion over the meaning of words.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
An order of a judge to restrict the media from publishing the name of an accused person (commonly called a suppression order in Australia) does not create a secret police or restrict the media from publishing all other facts related to the case. Indeed, if the media are playing the ball and not the woman/man, i.e. making balanced reports based on the progression of the case rather than stirring up moral panic and newspaper sales with it, it shouldn't make a difference other than writing "the unnamed defendant" or "the defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons" instead of "Jill/Joe Bloggs."
A suppression order is about keeping the trial process clean of media influence, and unfortunately it is necessary for the judiciary to enforce them because the 'old' system of trusting the media to report fairly didn't work. They also exist for other reasons, for example when a defendant or witness is under the age of 18 or also a party in other ongoing investigations/trials.
There's also an element of fairness in it when there's a case where the alleged victim's identity is suppressed. Without the accuser's name being public, there's no chance of anybody coming forward with information which disproves the allegation, for example if the accuser was in a completely different city at the time of the alleged offence. The defendant should have the same protection from people coming forward with information (which may or may not have any truth to it) based on their name being published in the press.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Creepy ideas about anonymous detention and secret police aside, isn't keeping abuse allegations secret and concealing the identities of alleged abusers how Cardinal Mahony got in trouble in the first place? Maintaining a code of omertà and forbidding accusers from speaking publicly doesn't have a very good track record in this area.
The problem is not one of secrecy, it's about not reporting those allegations to the competent authorities - the police.
People speaking out in public against others who have not been proven guilty of a crime doesn't help anybody.
[ 28. February 2013, 04:59: Message edited by: the giant cheeseburger ]
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
american piskie
Shipmate
# 593
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
All I'm really arguing is don't rush to judgment, either about accusers or accused. Let due process take its course.
I can't be alone in doubting whether Cardinal O'Brien can now receive any sort of "due process". I suppose he can plead autrefois convict, citing the decisions of the Head of a certain autocratic State, though.
I probably am alone in thinking that the point of the precipitate action taken by the said Authority may have been to short-circuit any external scrutiny. A sort of Benefit of Cardinals.
Posts: 356 | From: Oxford, England, UK | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Those accused should be anonymous until brought to trial.
So you're suggesting that a branch of the police be allowed to operate in secret, its activities hidden from the public? What could possibly go wrong?
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD? IIRC, we used to have anonymity for both victims and accused in rape trials in the UK without HM Constabulary assuming Stasi-like qualities.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
The problem is, Matt, that from the POV of "fair trial", current standards of behaviour by some of the media poison so many wells. In practice, one wonders just how many jurors take their oath of office with their minds at least partly made up by advance publicity. No matter what exhortations they receive.
It happened many years ago, so I feel I can pass this on. I experienced some of that pre-judging from other jurors in the one jury case I sat on. It involved an allegation of abuse of a child by the child's mother and there had been a lot of prior press coverage. I cannot help but feel that if the trial took place today, there would be even more advance coverage and it would be more lurid.
TBH, my own view about the "oxygen of publicity" is pretty ambivalent. In principle I'm uncomfortable about both media regulation and the way the media mess up the possibilities of fair treatment for accused people. Basically, because the media are, for all sorts of reasons, not subject to the same standards of evidence-testing which apply in courts, and also are in the business of selling their services, they can screw up the truth of things while proclaiming that they exist to make sure that the truth will out.
But I don't think all journalism, all media outlets, have sleazy standards. I guess, like many of us, I pick and choose what to read on the basis of how much trust I have in the integrity of the outfit. On the whole, I'm happier with a free press than without one. That doesn't mean I have to like the way all outfits go about their business, nor that I'm blind to the damage they do by irresponsible reporting.
It's not clear to me that there are any grounds for legal proceedings against the Cardinals named in these threads, but I'm inclined to agree with american piskie about well-poisoning. On the other hand, serious investigative journalism has often done a good job in getting the truth of systematic abuse "out there".
So it's a conundrum of our times, I reckon. Trial by media is not fair. It is safer than lynch-mob rule, but it does seem to play on that instinctive relationship between revulsion and the pressure for quick social revenge on perpetrators which can produce "mob law". It can all too easily pander to base instincts while reinforcing self-righteousness. That sort of pandering is pretty dangerous, and not just to the exercise of justice.
[ 28. February 2013, 09:56: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
An order of a judge to restrict the media from publishing the name of an accused person (commonly called a suppression order in Australia) does not create a secret police or restrict the media from publishing all other facts related to the case. Indeed, if the media are playing the ball and not the woman/man, i.e. making balanced reports based on the progression of the case rather than stirring up moral panic and newspaper sales with it, it shouldn't make a difference other than writing "the unnamed defendant" or "the defendant, who cannot be named for legal reasons" instead of "Jill/Joe Bloggs."
A suppression order is about keeping the trial process clean of media influence, and unfortunately it is necessary for the judiciary to enforce them because the 'old' system of trusting the media to report fairly didn't work. They also exist for other reasons, for example when a defendant or witness is under the age of 18 or also a party in other ongoing investigations/trials.
There's also an element of fairness in it when there's a case where the alleged victim's identity is suppressed. Without the accuser's name being public, there's no chance of anybody coming forward with information which disproves the allegation, for example if the accuser was in a completely different city at the time of the alleged offence. The defendant should have the same protection from people coming forward with information (which may or may not have any truth to it) based on their name being published in the press.
There is also the effect of publicity on the reputation of the falsely-accused, especially in the days of Google. Many employers google job applicants, and if they see that someone has been accused of rape, they automatically cross that applicant off their list. They don't bother to look into the facts of the case.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
witness testimony is part of the evidence. Your word against mine needs evidence.
So if A testifies he witnessed B committing robbery that's evidence, but if B testifies that he didn't then A's testimony isn't evidence anymore? That seems very convoluted.
I would imagine Mudfrog means that if I say you did something and you deny it, then our contradicting statements should cancel each other out since everyone is equal before the law and my testimony should carry equal weight to yours. Therefore further corroboration is needed from other sources.
Indeed. In a court of law, if accuser A stands before a judge and says, 'B hit me', the judge cannot take that accusation as evidence (it's only an allegation) he must say to A 'can you prove it?' If A can produce witness C who saw it all happen, then that is evidence and it's up to the judge (and maybe a jury) to decide if the evidence can convict defendant B beyond reasonable doubt.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
In a court of law, if accuser A stands before a judge and says, 'B hit me', the judge cannot take that accusation as evidence (it's only an allegation) he must say to A 'can you prove it?'
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
One last try, Mudfrog, and then I must leave you with your blind spot.
What does the oath say?
'I swear that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.'
What on earth makes you think that allegations made under oath are excluded from the category of evidence? Where would that leave the perjury law? Perjury is punishment for false witness precisely because that false witness has been presented as evidence under oath in support of a conviction (or acquittal).
Judges in the UK system do not question the witness as to whether statements made under oath and presented as evidence can be corroborated. Corroborative evidence is a matter for the prosecution, and any cross examination about it is a matter for the defence. The judge rules on the admissibility and presentation of evidence under the laws governing the rules of evidence. The jury weigh the evidence. That's the way it works.
This is jurisprudence 101, Mudfrog, not rocket science.
[ 28. February 2013, 13:06: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
If there is no corroboration* for the statements of both the Victim/Plaintiff or the Defendant (i.e., a he-said-he-said situation), then it is entrusted to the jury or judge, in their roles as finders of fact, to determine who is more credible. This happens all the time.
*Assuming, of course, that the plaintiff can (despite lack of corroborating evidence) plead facts that, if true, would constitute a claim and create triable issues of material fact; this is the standard most US jurisdictions for even getting a case in front of a jury.
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
I actually thought that it would only go to court iof the crown prosecution service believed there was enough evidence. i can't see any case coming to trial where simply the accusers says 'B hit me' with no other witnesses or corroborative evidence.
And that is another reason in my book why people who are arrested or accused of a crime - especially a sexual crime, should not have their names released to the media until charges are actually brought.
This already happens in numerous occasions when the news reporter says, the name of the man arrested hasn't been released 'for legal reasons.'
Too many people have had their lives blighted by accusations, even if that accusation has never made it to court.
Mud sticks.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
People speaking out in public against others who have not been proven guilty of a crime doesn't help anybody.
Using the law to silence victims seems even less helpful.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
This PDF is The Stern Review "A report by Baroness Vivien Stern of an independent review into how rape complaints are handled by Public authorities in England and Wales.
In it she notes -
quote:
The British Crime Survey is a study carried out each year based on interviews with 46,000 people over16 years of age. Over 23,000 people were asked questions on intimate violence. The results from this survey suggest that 11 per cent of those who have been raped tell the police about it.
Some thing like 89% - about nine tenths of rapes go unreported - and that's just for rape. It's a massively under-reported crime. Under-reporting for men who are raped or sexually abused may be even greater.
On the subject of false accusations she notes that
quote:
It is not possible to establish an exact figure and the research that is available gives a wide range of suggested percentages. Some research suggests that a figure of eight to ten per cent of reported rapes could well be false reports.33
However, those we spoke to in the system felt that there were very few. A Crown Prosecution Service (CPS)lawyer told us,‘They are extremely rare. I have been prosecuting for 20 years, and have prosecuted for a false allegation once.’ The judges we talked to said these cases occur very infrequently. An experienced police officer had come across two such cases in15 years.
She notes in a box the Court of Appeals statement on one of those rare cases
quote:
Prison ‘inevitable’ for false rape claims
(30 October 2009)
which makes clear that such cases are treated with severity - and quite rightly so.
With regard to historic abuse cases, you can see in this Crown Prosecution document here that the court of appeals will reject cases where it thinks a fair trial cannot be had.
With regard to teachers -
quote:
The Education Act 2011 contains measures to
introduce reporting restrictions preventing the publication of a teacher’s identity when accused by, or on behalf of, a pupil until the point that they are charged with an offence or
until the Secretary of State or the General Teaching Council for Wales publishes information about an investigation or decision in a disciplinary case arising from the allegation. Restrictions would also lift if the individual to whom the restrictions apply publicly put forward their side ofthe story or gave their written consent for another to do so.
Department of Education PDF Allegations of abuse against teachers and non-teaching staff
Again good - and this applies to all sorts of abuse - claims that he hit me or called me a nasty name etc.
This paper puts the rate of deliberate malicious accusations against teachers (covering all sorts of abuse) reported to Local Authority Designated Officers at 2%. Though due to problems with labelling it could be a bit higher.
So let's recap - probably something like 9 out of ten cases of rape never mind other forms fo sexual abuse) will never be reported to the police. No justice for 89% of rape victims even before we start the legal process.
Of those cases which go to trial people in legal system report that it's extremely rare to see a false report come that far - let alone end in conviction. And when such cases are detected the person who made the false report goes to jail.
Yet here we are in an undecided case where an abuse report has been made and it's being used to attack people reporting abuse in general.
We are in a position where probably 89% of rape survivors don't even seek justice, because it's so difficult, shaming and traumatic for people to come forward (and it's likely much harder for men and certainly much harder for children to come forward), but apparently that's not enough for some people, they'd like to claim the real problem here is false accusations and not enough is being done about that, because obviously abuse and rape survivors are too easily believed already!
This thread has cost me a lot of effort to stay visible and stay posting and to keep to my normal standards. I do so because every time a discussion of abuse is taken over by people who want only to talk about false accusation, people who have genuinely been abused can become more reticent and reluctant to speak up, to seek help, to seek justice. Those who have suffered the worst abuse often will do anything rather than talk about it because it's so costly in mental health to them. It's easy to stay invisible and let others create an even more hostile public arena where people are even more scared to come forward.
If we spoke about things in proportion, even if we took the worst case scenario and took that uncertain 8-10% figure of possible false reports, those who want to talk about false accusation would for every post on that, write at least nine of the same length talking about the problem of genuine sexual abuse reports and under-reporting and the devastating damage that rape and sexual abuse do to people's lives. I've already been careful to examine cases where there were miscarriages of justice. I look forward to other posters getting busy and doing something more than the odd sentence of throwaway boiler-plate before vividly attacking people who come forward to report abuse.
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Barnabas62 wrote: quote:
Judges in the UK system do not question the witness as to whether statements made under oath and presented as evidence can be corroborated. Corroborative evidence is a matter for the prosecution, and any cross examination about it is a matter for the defence. The judge rules on the admissibility and presentation of evidence under the laws governing the rules of evidence. The jury weigh the evidence. That's the way it works.
This is jurisprudence 101, Mudfrog, not rocket science.
I don't think that's exactly true, B62. The law of evidence is one of the big differences between the Scottish and the English legal systems. In the Scottish system, uncorroborated statements on essential points in criminal trials will get disallowed as evidence by the judge. Though I think what you say holds true for England, and in any event it is not a point to concern a witness. I've no idea what the position is in other judicial environments.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
Like I said, we had anonymity for those accused of rape before, and it didn't result in your fears coming to fruition; there was nothing to stop the accused persons waiving their anonymity and they were still entitled to full legal protection eg: access to a lawyer, so I still don't see what your problem is.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the giant cheeseburger
Shipmate
# 10942
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I really don't follow your logic here: how on earth do you quantum leap from accusées (or victims for that matter) being anonymous to the Gestapo or NKVD?
If police are allowed to detain alleged criminals without bail (say they're considered a flight risk or a danger to the public or any of the other reasons defendants are denied bail) and the police are barred from publicly disclosing any information about the case prior to trial, doesn't that effectively give police the power to "disappear" people? After all, wouldn't the proposed system of anonymity prevent the police from disclosing that they're holding the suspect?
Like I said, we had anonymity for those accused of rape before, and it didn't result in your fears coming to fruition; there was nothing to stop the accused persons waiving their anonymity and they were still entitled to full legal protection eg: access to a lawyer, so I still don't see what your problem is.
True. If an alleged suspect gets successfully "disappeared" from under the nose of their own lawyer and the judiciary, do you really think the media could possibly do any good?
Even if that did happen and the media did get hold of it before the suspect's lawyer or a judge, I think the average judiciary would be a little more interested in the disappearance of a suspect than a suppression order being breached.
Or to attack it from the other angle - if the police and judiciary are so corrupt that suspects are being "disappeared" I don't think the situation will be changed much by some reports in the media.
--------------------
If I give a homeopathy advocate a really huge punch in the face, can the injury be cured by giving them another really small punch in the face?
Posts: 4834 | From: Adelaide, South Australia. | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, Honest Ron. The Scottish dimension was news to me. I knew Mudfrog was based in Newcastle on Tyne, so thought we would be talking English Law.
I checked here. Clearly the judge has freedom to lay down the law over uncorroborated evidence on a major point. Whether he does that at the time, or it's a pre-trail issue, or he deals with it in his summing up, probably depends on the circumstances.
Uncorroborated statements are still evidence. It's just the rules of admissibility which are different. Inadmissible evidence is still a category of evidence. Later corroboration may enable its admission if a case has been delayed.
(As an 'left field' aside, I saw "Inadmissible Evidence" by John Osborne in the 1960's in London. A truly memorable acting tour de force by Nicol Williamson, as the seedy and breaking-down lawyer Bill Maitland.)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
