![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Huntley, crimes and rape
Just been listening to the radio on the way home. Huntley has been sent down on two counts of murder.
Jurors returned guilty, 11 votes to 1.
Good enough for me.
It also appears that he has been investigated by the police on ten previous occasions over the last 10 years.
What _really_ annoys me is the fact that they are going to _investigate_ how he got a job in a school, having had previous allegations of 'sexual crimes'.
WTF? Is it not obvious? HE WAS NOT CONVICTED.
Someone came on the radio to announce that the fact that he'd been accused in the past should be passed on to the school, and he should have been given a job.
I strongly disagree. It is already the case that being accused of a crime does immeasureably harm - especially crimes like rape etc.
If one is NOT CONVICTED then that should be the end of the matter. IMHO the fact that you have been accused should _never_ reach the public domain prior to a conviction.
A jury system is far from perfect. It's about retribution, not justice, and juries make mistakes. But it's the best we've got. Trial by media is a kangaroo court, and anarchic mob law at it's best.
So those who would whine about the data protection act protecting criminals, remember the other reason it's there. It's to protect the 99% of those who _aren't_ criminals as well. Think of the ways in which an extensive record of your life could be abused.
What if you'd been accused of rape by a girlfriend with a grudge. They fish out your record, and find that another girlfriend made a similar allegation. It is a tenet of our legal system that one instance DOES NOT have a bearing on the other. That is the way it should be. I'd hate to get sent to prison because several people happened to dislike me enough to make such an accusation.
I believe that everyone has the right to a trial by jury, on the basis of the evidence of _that crime_ alone. Previous form, previous allegations, or the fact that you might have been a porn star are all utterly irrelevant.
This is why the police told the school that they had no reason to deny him the job in their background check. This is exactly the way it should be.
The data protection act more or less says that irrelevant information cannot be kept beyond a definite need for it. The reason? Well, quite simple really. We don't trust faceless organisations to have the kind of personal information that could destroy your life.
Oh and I'm also outraged by the fact that if I fly to the US in the future, the EU will kindly send various details, including my credit card number to them in advance. But I'll save that for another day.
Jurors returned guilty, 11 votes to 1.
Good enough for me.
It also appears that he has been investigated by the police on ten previous occasions over the last 10 years.
What _really_ annoys me is the fact that they are going to _investigate_ how he got a job in a school, having had previous allegations of 'sexual crimes'.
WTF? Is it not obvious? HE WAS NOT CONVICTED.
Someone came on the radio to announce that the fact that he'd been accused in the past should be passed on to the school, and he should have been given a job.
I strongly disagree. It is already the case that being accused of a crime does immeasureably harm - especially crimes like rape etc.
If one is NOT CONVICTED then that should be the end of the matter. IMHO the fact that you have been accused should _never_ reach the public domain prior to a conviction.
A jury system is far from perfect. It's about retribution, not justice, and juries make mistakes. But it's the best we've got. Trial by media is a kangaroo court, and anarchic mob law at it's best.
So those who would whine about the data protection act protecting criminals, remember the other reason it's there. It's to protect the 99% of those who _aren't_ criminals as well. Think of the ways in which an extensive record of your life could be abused.
What if you'd been accused of rape by a girlfriend with a grudge. They fish out your record, and find that another girlfriend made a similar allegation. It is a tenet of our legal system that one instance DOES NOT have a bearing on the other. That is the way it should be. I'd hate to get sent to prison because several people happened to dislike me enough to make such an accusation.
I believe that everyone has the right to a trial by jury, on the basis of the evidence of _that crime_ alone. Previous form, previous allegations, or the fact that you might have been a porn star are all utterly irrelevant.
This is why the police told the school that they had no reason to deny him the job in their background check. This is exactly the way it should be.
The data protection act more or less says that irrelevant information cannot be kept beyond a definite need for it. The reason? Well, quite simple really. We don't trust faceless organisations to have the kind of personal information that could destroy your life.
Oh and I'm also outraged by the fact that if I fly to the US in the future, the EU will kindly send various details, including my credit card number to them in advance. But I'll save that for another day.
no subject