Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In a single case, this is more difficult and especially in relation to a historic case but this does not mean the case should not be fully investigated, that the accused should not be questioned or that evidence should not be passed to prosecutors in order that a decision on prosecution can be made.
In the UK suspects can be questioned. In the US, not so much.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
I agree to a point. With some of the alleged victims of Weinstein and Cosby, they are now wealthy and probably not needed a payday from this. At the time it occurred they were not and perhaps were afraid of being blacklisted by these powerful men.
I don't feel bad for Cosby or Weinstein. Seems like both used their positions to try to lure women into bed with them. Both have admitted that much. Whether any of it was not consensual we may never know. At the very least they are scum for doing it in the first place. Best to have self control and not go there.
To me it is not rape if a star-struck woman of adult age wants to have sex with one of those scuzzballs. It may be sleazy but rape, no. It's a closer call if there's an employment or therapeutic relationship but on these sound like situations where both sides got what they wanted that day or night and then thought better of it.
How would we ban the media on this? With twitter and so many outlets for information even if the mass media did not cover it, it really would not matter. Plus how do you bar news outlets in all other countries?
The names would not be released in the first place, so couldn't be tweeted, this is already the case in relation to minors (under 18) and in terms of those making the accusations who are allowed anonymity by the Courts, so why not also a defendant who until conviction is not guilty of anything.
In terms of twitter if you prejudice a trial could be prosecuted for contempt and imprisoned.
Don't think just because you tweet something that you are immune to the law.
In the UK suspects can be questioned. In the US, not so much.
You can be questioned in most countries regarding serious allegations, this may be done voluntarily at a police station or you may be arrested as a suspect. In terms of the latter the police can detain you in England and Wales for up to 24 Hours but the police may apply for an extension of up to 36 or 96 hours if you’re suspected of a serious crime, eg murder or serious sex offences, whilst in terms of suspected terrorism the police can hold you for up to 14 days without charge. In all cases of arrest and interview under caution you must have a lawyer provided for you free of charge, who will sit in on the interview and advise their client throughout.
If you are arrested then you will be interviewed under caution, the caution in the UK is different to the US and you are warned that remaining sllent or not supplying the police with the facts may be detrimental to your legal defence should the case go to Court.
UK Caution - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence",
Last edited by Brave New World; 10-26-2017 at 04:39 AM..
If you are arrested then you will be interviewed under caution, the caution in the UK is different to the US and you are warned that remaining sllent or not supplying the police with the facts may be detrimental to your legal defence should the case go to Court.
UK Caution - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence",
In the U.S. the Miranda warnings are quite the opposite:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?
Thus while people will talk out of panic or thinking they can dissuade the officer from making any arrest, most would be wise to remain silent. This is of course not legal advice; that must be solicited from an attorney and varies case to case, state to state.
In the U.S. the Miranda warnings are quite the opposite:
You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you? With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?
Thus while people will talk out of panic or thinking they can dissuade the officer from making any arrest, most would be wise to remain silent. This is of course not legal advice; that must be solicited from an attorney and varies case to case, state to state.
You have the same rights in the UK, and you are provided a free Lawyer (Duty Solicitor) by the state and you can indeed remain silent if you so wish, however it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court.
The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 provides statutory rules under which adverse inferences may be drawn from silence.
Adverse inferences may be drawn in certain circumstances where before or on being charged, the accused:
fails to mention any fact which he later relies upon and which in the circumstances at the time the accused could reasonably be expected to mention;
fails to give evidence at trial or answer any question;
fails to account on arrest for objects, substances or marks on his person, clothing or footwear, in his possession, or in the place where he is arrested; or
fails to account on arrest for his presence at a place.
Strange, there doesnt seem to be that much difference between the UK and US in regards to policy and rights when arrested for a crime.
There's a huge difference. In the UK silence is used against the suspect. In the U.S. it cannot be used against the suspect.
UK Caution - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"
No, what's horrible is a man forcing a woman to do something she doesn't want to, then doing it to another woman and another and another.
Women are stigmatized if they report a rape right away or years later. They're already traumatized, it's hard to face the embarrassment, prying, and counter-accusations.
Some apologists will accuse them of trying to make money, or get attention. Others will claim it was consensual. What jerks.
absolutely...agree 100%...
In no way am I justifying rape or sexual assault
how do YOU know it wasn't consensual...it is her word vs his word
especially hollyweird where women benefit from putting out...advance or create careers, and then call it rape later...or sexual harassment...everyone is jumping on the bandwagon
ellen sexually assaulted katy perry...by jokingly staring at her awesome boobs...come on
There's a huge difference. In the UK silence is used against the suspect. In the U.S. it cannot be used against the suspect.
UK Caution - "You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you may later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence"
I totally agree, there is a significant difference.
However there may be no conviction based wholly on silence. Where inferences may be drawn from silence, the court must direct the jury as to the limits to the inferences which may properly be drawn from silence.
Furthermore there is a reduced right to silence or indeed no right to silence under the UK legislation listed below.
Quote:
In respect of those questioned by the Serious Fraud Office, the right to silence has been reduced by virtue of Section 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 The right has also been reduced for those accused of terrorist offences.
Under Section 49 and Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA), it is an offence to fail to disclose when requested the key to encrypted data (with a penalty of two years in prison, or five years with regards to child sex abuse cases).
When a vehicle is alleged to have been involved in an offence, section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended by section 21 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 enables the police to require the vehicle's registered keeper, or any other relevant person, to provide information as to the identity of the vehicle's driver. A special warning is given indicating that refusal to do so constitutes an offence in itself.
Under the Police Reform Act 2002 a person failing to provide a constable in uniform or designated person their name and address where they are suspected of having behaved or behaving in an anti-social manner is a criminal offence and there is no right to silence.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
