that's where I land on these BUT

but the alternative is not great for the accused either. No easy answer on this.

I lean towards reversing the presumption of guilt (or probably more like lowering the burden of proof) for this sort of thing but it then puts you in the VERY uncomfortable position of assuming that people are guilty until proven innocent on an issue that is often fact-specific and so often a grey area coming down to 'he said, she said'.

Posted By: CWC on October 15th 2016 at 08:57:50

Message Thread

Just heard this guy interviewed on the Today prog (General Chat) - Old Git, Oct 15, 07:20:00
- Haven't we been down this road before? (legal principles etc) (General Chat) - CWC, Oct 15, 08:32:23
  - There's just been another fascinating debate on Today on precisely this point (General Chat) - Old Git, Oct 15, 08:42:07
    - Not great for women tho (n/m) (General Chat) - Dandy Highburyman, Oct 15, 08:48:45
      - that's where I land on these BUT (General Chat) - CWC, Oct 15, 08:57:50
        
        I think lowering the burden of proof would be terrible (General Chat) - Jim, Oct 15, 09:35:53
        
        All about opinions though innit. I can see the merit in both arguments. (n/m) (General Chat) - Jim, Oct 15, 09:36:32
        
        Indeed! (n/m) (General Chat) - CWC, Oct 15, 10:40:05
- Look away Norway! (General Chat) - Bravo win or die, Oct 15, 07:38:37
  - fair play to The Sun for their front page on it (General Chat) - Ralf Scrampton, Oct 15, 08:36:50
    - fair play to the Sun? (General Chat) - Charles21, Oct 15, 13:17:03
  - Awful (n/m) (General Chat) - Old Git, Oct 15, 07:54:02
    - To be fair, his morals are no different to any defence lawyer (n/m) (General Chat) - Jacksons_Twelfth, Oct 15, 08:06:13

Reply to Message

In order to add a post to the WotB Message Board you must be a registered WotB user.

If you are not yet registered then please visit the registration page. You should ensure that their browser is setup to accept cookies.