Moral Dilemma

[Saracen]

....

With regards to you willing to vote guilty if you were satisfied of guilt sufficiently to be prepared to carry that weight, I respect that, but that doesn’t actually answer the question I asked, because you would not being sitting on every jury, in every case, and so will never know the evidence presented in all cases. I’m gonna repeat the original question, but don’t think I’m haranguing you, or trying to push you into a corner, because I’m not. Rather I’m genuinely interested in your answer because I think it fundamental to any DP argument, for or against. I suppose the question can be broken down into 2 parts:

1) Do you think there is any system or process that can be put in place that would remove entirely the possibility of miscarriages of justice?
2) If no to 1, it leads me to ask is the possibility, no matter how small, of executing innocent persons a price worth paying to see certain criminals, in very certain circumstances, given the DP?

The question is more general, and what you want for society, rather than an individual case in which you are sitting on.

I don't take it as haranguing. Not at all. These are quite long, complex exchanges (that I'm enjoying, by the way), and unless we treat each post as a professional project, drafting and redrafting (and I sure don't) it's easy to miss touching on each and every point.

Also, for clarity, my jury service was also ages ago (30 years-ish), and not on earth-shattering issues either. Certainly not ones that would have been life sentence, let alone DP cases. Nonetheless, the burden of being potentially responsible for banging someone up, never mind their execution, was one I took seriously. It weighed quite heavily, and so it should on anyone that's ever done it. I don't think people can quite understand it, if they've not done it. I mean, they can understand it intellectually, but never quite feel it.

For instance, it's easy to judge on news reports, TV clips, newspaper articles, etc, and be 'sure', just as it's easy to be a keyboard warrior and threaten to punch someone's lights out, but not as easy when you meet them face to face, and find out you're an average, overweight, flabby-reared office worker, and you've been threatening a young, extremely fit special forces soldier. Most of us are martial arts experts only in our own fantasy worlds. Some aren't. Then, the reality of the situation comes home to roost.

But unless you've psychopathic tendencies, or are at least emotionally stunted or atrophied, the reality sets in when you realise, in the real world, that person, that real person, with feelings, hopes, family, etc, sitting 30 feet from you in the court might spend the next several years in prison because YOU decided as you did in the jury room.

Personally, I rather hope I don't find myself in that position on a life case, or LWOP case, let alobe a DP case. But if I did find myself in that situation, then I'd discharge my duty and responsibility as best I coukd. And my stance on the DP is with that borne in mind. It's the mindest in which I take my view on the DP.

As for those specific questions, I thought I did answer the first, albeit kinda metaphysically. I can't even be sure the world exists as I see it. You, and everything else I experience, MIGHT be a figment of my imagination and reality is I'm in a drug-induced fantasy, or a psychotic episode in a padded cell, or a 30th Century Matrix VR world on humanity's first colony in the Andromeda galaxy.

So, a simple, direct answer to 1) is no, since I can't be utterly, totally sure of anything at all. But I can be utterly convinced I'm not in a psychotic break, or Andromeda. Of course, there's an extremely small possibility I'm convinced, but wrong.

And bear with me, there's a point to all this. And I'm getting there.

On point 2), I'm going to give a somewhat politician-type answer.

I think the question is the wrong question.

It's not whether the price is worth paying, but whether the sentence would be right, or wrong, in the circumstances.

In ANY jury decision, there's ALWAYS the chance you get it wrong. But it's a balance. There cannot be absolute certainty (hence q1 being easy to answer). But the only difference is the degree of injustice, not whether it happens at all. And that's why we have a presumption of innocence, and beyond 'reasonable' doubt.

You mentioned the Guildford 4 and Birmingam 6. Let me ask this. Can we ever give them those missing years of life, the years they spent incarcerated, back? Perhaps in a sense more importantly, can we undo the loss innocent family members suffered?

No.

Yet our system allows that risk of misjustice anyway.

The system goes quite a long way towards avoiding punishing the innocent, including when it means not punishing the guilty.

So, let's look at the DP another way, and at least, bear this in mind. First, context. Given that I'm not particular familiar, as I said earlier, with the individual this thread started on, I did stipulate, when this thread got to be a more serious DP discussion, that I was referring to "the worst" paedophiles. Given that all paedophiles are pretty obnoxious, let me nail that down a bit. The "worst" I meant are the really, REALLY nasty ones, sexual sadists fixated on kids, for instance. Any victims of a paedophile are likely to pay a mental price for years, maybe life, but some carry physical scars, or don't survive the experience.

So, when rejecting the DP, yes, you MIGHT prevent a miscarriage and hence the execution of an innocent. But you WILL prevent the execution of the guilty, and therefore, run the risk that one of those guilty paedos is subsequently released, or escapes, and goes on to abuse, maim or kill more innocent kids, before getting caught again.

So, yes, I understand the point you make about possibly executing an innocent person. Just don't make the mistake of thinking that not having a DP means you have no chance of the innocent not suffering or dying, because we don't.

There is no perfect solution, either way. There is NO method by which we can absolutely guarantee that the innocent never suffer unjustly. Either way, there's risk of that.

It's life, I'm afraid. At one end of the spectrum we have the law of the jungle, survival of the fittest. That, essentially, is when we get the Saddam system of justice. I regard UK justice as far more 'advanced, more 'civilised' than that, and we have a system, including checks and balances, and a presumption of innocence with a bar to conviction set pretty high. But make no mistake, the price we pay for setting the bar quite high to protect innocent from conviction is that quite a few that, in reality, were guilty, go free.

It is an admirable moral position, to protect the "innocent" from conviction, but make no mistake, that "admirable" position DOES result in nasty people going free, and genuinely innocent people ending up as victims because we set the bar that high. Yet, society makes that judgement, sets the bar that high and, pays that price.

Get it wrong with truly guilty "worst" paedophiles, and it'll be their future victims that pay the price. Are YOU prepared to pay that price, by opposing the DP, when executing such "worst" paedos would have saved those kids from what was done to them?

Uncomfortable thought, innit?

So yes, in answer to 2), whatever system we devise, there will, short of the future development of a 100% accurate and reliable truth detection system, always be a very small risk of executing an innocent. Is that a price worth paying, you ask? Yes, provided we do our very best to make the system as foolproof as realistically possible. Because there is also a risk from not doing it.

It's a balance. No system is, or probably ever will be, perfect. Right now, we lock people up sometimes for decades, and cannot undo that any more than we could unexecute people. Yet, we take that chance. It's the inevitable result of not having a system that was perfect.

If we don't execute a paedophile, or the worst of killers, then if they ever get out of detention and kill or abuse again, the system bears responsibility for that suffering.

How strongly do we weigh the rights of the worst paedophiles, against whom a hugely strong if not 100% guaranteed case exists, compared to the rights of the innocent kids that will become victims should they get out?

I can almost hear a chorus of "lock them up for life, then". Well, to bounce q2) back at you, can you be 100% certain that, even if you sentence them to LWOP now, that a future court, panel of doctors and/or parole board won't decide they know better? And who's better equipped to judge guilt .... a judge and jury that have just sat through the trial, or some 'review' board in 10, 20 or 30 years time, when they read the file?


I understand your concern, opel. I'd ask you to consider, though, that there's risks to the innocent either way. The DP is utterly pragmatic in one way, at least. If you execute the "worst" of these offenders, then and only then can we know, 100% and for certain, they won't harm any future truly innocent victims.

If we have a DP, there's a small chance of executing an innocent in a miscarriage. If we don't, there's a chance of the guilty notching up further victims. At least, if we have a DP, we can truly attempt to devise a system to minimise chances of miscarriages, but it's a fact of life that no system can guarantee no miscarriages, in both directions. Life is a risk, a balance, a compromise, and the best we can hope for is that we genuinely seek to do the best we can, and minimise mistakes, and get that balance in the right place.

We could draw the conclusion that rare mistakes in the DP means we never execute again, but by that logic, the lesson from the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6 is that we never lock anyone up again, in case we get it wrong. In which case, we're back to law of the jungle, and in all likelihood, vigilante justice.

Balance, compromise, genuine best efforts. That's the only thing we can do, imperfect as it may be.

[opel80uk]

A fine post. I think it refreshing to have a discussion with (potentially?) a proponent of the DP that is willing to accept that if you have the DP, no matter what process you have, there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice and as such, innocent people will be executed. You would be amazed at the amount of times that I’ve had similar discussions with people who refuse to countenance that scenario. I find your position consistent and well thought out, but I must disagree with you.

I won’t go into every point you made, as I think the issue is drawing to close. But I will make a couple of points. Firstly, you asked:

can you be 100% certain that, even if you sentence them to LWOP now, that a future court, panel of doctors and/or parole board won't decide they know better? And who's better equipped to judge guilt .... a judge and jury that have just sat through the trial, or some 'review' board in 10, 20 or 30 years time, when they read the file?

The answer, in short, is no. That being the case, I fully cede that you are right that the DP is completely pragmatic, and ensures that there is no chance of the person reoffending. But for me, it’s that precisely that definitive action, or pragmatism, that makes me oppose it. You are right that we can’t give back years that wrongly convicted people have spent in prison (Gerry Conlon died a broken man just last month – he is testament to that fact), but we can try to recompense them. And it is not necessarily to that individual that benefits from society doing so, but rather society as a whole, because they hear an admission that the constructs we have in place underpinning our society are not infallible, that sometimes we do get things wrong, and when we do it is fitting and right that we acknowledge our mistakes, and attempt, no matter how futile, to right that wrong. The punishment of execution, with no chance on recompense other than mealy mouthed words, is fitting, IMO, only of a system that is unwilling to acknowledge it’s limitations, or one that is actually infallible. I would like to think we neither is a description of ours.

Which leads me on to what I think was your other major point. You said:

It is an admirable moral position, to protect the "innocent" from conviction, but make no mistake, that "admirable" position DOES result in nasty people going free, and genuinely innocent people ending up as victims because we set the bar that high. Yet, society makes that judgement, sets the bar that high and, pays that price.

Get it wrong with truly guilty "worst" paedophiles, and it'll be their future victims that pay the price. Are YOU prepared to pay that price, by opposing the DP, when executing such "worst" paedos would have saved those kids from what was done to them?

In answer to that, and I answer as a father (not that that should place my opinion any higher than anyone else’s, parent or not) as well as an individual, I fully accept that my position results in nasty people going free and yes, that is a price I am prepared to pay. The reason I am prepared to pay it is simple. It was John Adams (I think) that said “the protection of innocence is more important than guilt being punished”. I agree wholeheartedly because If that is not seen to be the case, and nothing like an innocent person being executed exemplifies that, then what are we left with? A society whereby someone can potentially pay the ultimate price, with their innocence offering them no protection from it. What message does that send to society?

I fully understand & accept that the kids that end up abused by those released (or not executed) are innocent too, and worthy of protection. But that should not come at ANY price. The death penalty, wherever it is applied, has become, for one reason or another, a scar on those countries justice systems. You talk about balance, but a balance must also be found that protects the British justice system as IMO and despite its flaws, one of the best, and importantly fairest, in the world. An imperfect balance can be found which does that, LWOP. It may not be as decisive, and may in the future result in those people being free again to do those terrible crimes, but I honestly believe that society is better served with no death penalty, and society must take precedence over all of those individuals, as harsh and detached as that sounds.

[heinsmit]

There were some saying that the band members knew what was going on. This comes from people who were talking openly on the internet about Ian Watkins long before his arrest. Not saying it's true, just that the allegations are there.

[Saracen]

A fine post. I think it refreshing to have a discussion with (potentially?) a proponent of the DP that is willing to accept that if you have the DP, no matter what process you have, there is always the risk of a miscarriage of justice and as such, innocent people will be executed. You would be amazed at the amount of times that I’ve had similar discussions with people who refuse to countenance that scenario. I find your position consistent and well thought out, but I must disagree with you.

....

I entirely take the point about this often being a subject prone to entrenched and dogmatic viewpoints. I've had the same experience of many on the 'anti' side, many times.

Seems to me there's no perfect answer possible. One way you might execute the innocent, and the other way you risk abused, or even murdered and abused kids.

When John Adams (or whomever) referred to the innocent, I wonder if he considered those kids whose lives could be wrecked, or lost, by giving too much protection to those presumed innocent?

Here's a question that usually gets a dogmatic answer .... or an evasion.

Suppose we have a situation where there is NO doubt. None at all. Never mind how it comes about. Consider it a hypothetical. If there is absolutely no doubt, at all, that the convicted person did, for instance, seriously abuse and kill multiple kids, would you countenance the DP then?

What about someone for whom we have no doubt, AND that says they will reoffend given a chance because they can't help themselves? Someone that even wants the DP maybe.

And if they do, somehow, end up released and reoffending, quite how do we explain why we didn't act to prevent it when we could have, to their future victims? How do we explain to them, or their families, that we knew the risk, and let our moral scruples over a KNOWN abuser/killer leave them sacrificed on that altar?

It's a bit like on of those basic philisophy questions, isn't it?

You're manning a points switch on a railway line, and you see a runaway train heading down the track. You have 5 seconds, to switch the points or not. If you don't, there are 6 workmen on the track, and you have no chance to warn them, and they haven't seen the train. Fail to switch, and they die.

But .... if you switch the points, there's one workman on the branch line, and he will die.

So what do you do? Do nothing, and 6 die because of your action. Switch, and one dies that otherwise would live, because you chose to sactifice him, over the other 6.

[opel80uk]

Suppose we have a situation where there is NO doubt. None at all. Never mind how it comes about. Consider it a hypothetical. If there is absolutely no doubt, at all, that the convicted person did, for instance, seriously abuse and kill multiple kids, would you countenance the DP then?

If somehow we all could just know whether someone was guilty, then yes I would. I’m not sure I would go as far to say I would support it, but I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.

When John Adams (or whomever) referred to the innocent, I wonder if he considered those kids whose lives could be wrecked, or lost, by giving too much protection to those presumed innocent?

I’m not sure about that, but I found the actual quote and it seemed he thought about the wider implications, and expressed a sentiment I find hard to disagree with:

"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever"

You're manning a points switch on a railway line, and you see a runaway train heading down the track. You have 5 seconds, to switch the points or not. If you don't, there are 6 workmen on the track, and you have no chance to warn them, and they haven't seen the train. Fail to switch, and they die.

But .... if you switch the points, there's one workman on the branch line, and he will die.

So what do you do? Do nothing, and 6 die because of your action. Switch, and one dies that otherwise would live, because you chose to sactifice him, over the other 6.

I think, quite confidently (or as confidently as you can answer these type of questions), I would switch. I understand there is a slight dilemma in that one action is just that – an action that will kill a person, and the other is more passive, inaction if you like. But I think if I was that one workman, I would understand someone making that same choice, condemning me whilst saving 6 others, it just makes sense. And I also feel I am able to answer that quite confidently because in your scenario’s above (both the workman one and the abuser one) we are dealing with certainties, one that we all just know that the abuser is guilty, and in the other that 6 or 1 workmen will die, whereas the DP in reality will always be applied with us knowing that there is always a chance we are executing the innocent.

And your question about how to explain to someone and their family that we let our moral scruples get in the way of administering a form of justice that would have stopped the abuse they suffered is a pertinent, and difficult one. But I would argue that it is precisely because of our moral scruples that enables us to have, IMO, one of the best justice systems in the world. Of course, I accept that it is cold comfort to explain that to an abuse victim, but that bad things could happen to us is a price we all pay to be part of society, and if society as a whole is, as I believe, better served by not having a DP, then so be it.

[Saracen]

If somehow we all could just know whether someone was guilty, then yes I would. I’m not sure I would go as far to say I would support it, but I certainly wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.



I’m not sure about that, but I found the actual quote and it seemed he thought about the wider implications, and expressed a sentiment I find hard to disagree with:

"It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever"




I think, quite confidently (or as confidently as you can answer these type of questions), I would switch. I understand there is a slight dilemma in that one action is just that – an action that will kill a person, and the other is more passive, inaction if you like. But I think if I was that one workman, I would understand someone making that same choice, condemning me whilst saving 6 others, it just makes sense. And I also feel I am able to answer that quite confidently because in your scenario’s above (both the workman one and the abuser one) we are dealing with certainties, one that we all just know that the abuser is guilty, and in the other that 6 or 1 workmen will die, whereas the DP in reality will always be applied with us knowing that there is always a chance we are executing the innocent.

And your question about how to explain to someone and their family that we let our moral scruples get in the way of administering a form of justice that would have stopped the abuse they suffered is a pertinent, and difficult one. But I would argue that it is precisely because of our moral scruples that enables us to have, IMO, one of the best justice systems in the world. Of course, I accept that it is cold comfort to explain that to an abuse victim, but that bad things could happen to us is a price we all pay to be part of society, and if society as a whole is, as I believe, better served by not having a DP, then so be it.

With respect to John Adams and "innocence" .... who is the true innocent? The kids to be saved from abuse, or the person that has been through a trial, with as many safeguards as we can construct, and been convicted? In the first case, we can pretty much be sure the kids are innocent, but in the second, it's "possible".

So, we offer up the certainty of the kids to the possibility of the convicted offender?

Does not your choice to condemn the single worker on the track to death, a person that for all you know is perfectly innocent, to save the other six, suggest a moral judgement that says that in this sort of conflict, you are prepared to take explicit, overt action that you know will result in the death of a man you have no reason to believe is guilty of anything at all?

You are, after all, not just passively observing, but explicitly making a decision that kills a man who otherwise would live. What of HIS family?

What about if there's a tiny chance, say 0.1%, that if you don't act, the 6 will notice the train and jump clear?

Or 1%?

10%

What if the single workman on the sidetrack was responsible, by his negligence, for the runaway train getting loose?

And what if it wasn't negligence, but because he fancies the wife of one of the other six and wants him out of the way?

I'm sure you can see my point. Life isn't about absolutes, even in DP cases. I don't say all this in any real expectation of changing your mind, but to try to illustrate my rationale. In the real world, neither the DP nor the risk or not using it are scenarios I like, but that's the real world.

I would not, for instance, support the use of the DP for all paedophiles or, and I've said this in previous DP threads, for all murders. But there are some for which I would. And this discussion hints at why I would.

[opel80uk]

With respect to John Adams and "innocence" .... who is the true innocent? The kids to be saved from abuse, or the person that has been through a trial, with as many safeguards as we can construct, and been convicted? In the first case, we can pretty much be sure the kids are innocent, but in the second, it's "possible".

So, we offer up the certainty of the kids to the possibility of the convicted offender?

We do, but your point would possibly be more pertinent if I was advocating some kind of community probation sentence, but I am not. LWOP is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a soft approach and would, if implemented (big ‘if’, accepted) would offer, IMO, the best compromise for all, including the protection of potential future victims. I fully accept it doesn’t offer the definitive protection that the DP does, but then I’m of the opinion that we cannot just take that consideration into account when considering the DP. I found an article (it was from 2002, but the sentiment still holds) and in the real world, the one that the DP would be applied in, that “between 1989-1999 there were 8,470 criminal convictions abated - a yearly average of 770. In addition, there are around 3,500 quashed criminal convictions a year at the Crown Court” Michael Naughton, chair of Innocence Network UK, goes on to say, not unreasonably if the figures are to be believed (and have continued to the modern day) that “Contrary to popular perceptions, then, wrongful criminal convictions are a normal, everyday feature of the criminal justice system - the system doesn't just sometimes get it wrong, it gets it wrong everyday, of every week, of every month of every year. With the result that thousands of innocent people experience a whole variety of harmful consequences that wrongful criminal convictions engender.” And yet we still, mostly, uphold UK justice as one of the finest because we acknowledge and accept it’s failings and the impossibility of getting it right all of the time. So we can talk about hypothetical scenarios as much as we like, about due process that we would put in place, and about if’s and but’s, but until we do have a system where we do just KNOW, the DP is a gamble too far me, IMO.

Does not your choice to condemn the single worker on the track to death, a person that for all you know is perfectly innocent, to save the other six, suggest a moral judgement that says that in this sort of conflict, you are prepared to take explicit, overt action that you know will result in the death of a man you have no reason to believe is guilty of anything at all?

You are, after all, not just passively observing, but explicitly making a decision that kills a man who otherwise would live. What of HIS family?

What about if there's a tiny chance, say 0.1%, that if you don't act, the 6 will notice the train and jump clear?

Or 1%?

10%

What if the single workman on the sidetrack was responsible, by his negligence, for the runaway train getting loose?

And what if it wasn't negligence, but because he fancies the wife of one of the other six and wants him out of the way?

I'm sure you can see my point. Life isn't about absolutes, even in DP cases. I don't say all this in any real expectation of changing your mind, but to try to illustrate my rationale. In the real world, neither the DP nor the risk or not using it are scenarios I like, but that's the real world.

My decision does condemn the single worker to die, but not based on any moral judgement about him, or the other 6. I answered the question as was asked, based on all things being equal, and assuming that either way him, or the other 6 will die, based on what I did or do. The other scenarios about negligence or him fancying the wife of another is not (I assume? Though if I did, I perhaps would make a moral judgement, it depends on what it was I knew) information that I would know at the time of making my decision and as such, would have no influence on that decision. At the end of the day, all I can do is make said decision based on my conscience, on what would I think does the least amount of harm to the least amount of people. I fully accept that life isn’t about absolutes, and there is no guarantee that my decision would be the right one (whatever the ‘right’ one is) but if I, and I only speak for me here, do what my conscience tells me is right.

I'm sure you can see my point. Life isn't about absolutes, even in DP cases. I don't say all this in any real expectation of changing your mind, but to try to illustrate my rationale. In the real world, neither the DP nor the risk or not using it are scenarios I like, but that's the real world.

I would not, for instance, support the use of the DP for all paedophiles or, and I've said this in previous DP threads, for all murders. But there are some for which I would. And this discussion hints at why I would.

I do see your point, and I do understand your rationale. I can also relate to it; it is hard to argue, even with myself, against something that will certainly stop other innocents becoming victims. But ultimately, I ask myself whether I honestly believe that, as a whole, we as individuals and also wider society, are best served by the introduction of the DP. And even though it goes against my natural instinct, I’d would have to say I don’t believe we are. That said, I can understand why it appeals to some; it’s for some of the same reasons that it appeals to me, too.

[wasabi]

For £33k per annum I'd rather see the back of a lifelong threat to society and see a paramedic employed to.save several lives each of those years.

[Saracen]

I'm short of time right now, Opel, but I would make one quick point, over your quashed conviction stats.

Just because someone's conviction is quashed, it does NOT mean they didn't do it. If justice is blind, then freeing those that (factually, not legally) are guilty is no more justice than convicting those that didn't.

Remember the bar to conviction is set, quite rightly, rather high. And it's not just over "beyond reasonable doubt", but also over the rules of evidence, and over what facts, material facts, are admissible. The jury, for instance, regularly if not most of the time aren't told everything. During my jury service, we were in and out of the court like table tennis balls, while "legal matters" were discussed.

So, re:

Contrary to popular perceptions, then, wrongful criminal convictions are a normal, everyday feature of the criminal justice system - the system doesn't just sometimes get it wrong, it gets it wrong everyday, of every week, of every month of every year. With the result that thousands of innocent people experience a whole variety of harmful consequences that wrongful criminal convictions engender.

Just because a conviction is overturned, it does not and cannot be presumed they are "innocent". They are, in the absence of a valud conviction, "presumed innocent", which is not the same as innocent. It's why courts in the UK don't find people innocent, just not guilty, because, as you pointed out, the principle is that the bar is set deliberately high because of that Adamsian principle of letting the guilty go rather than convicting the innocent.

But you cannit have it both ways. You cannot assert that, having set the bar very high to conviction, the absence of one proves innocence. It absolutely does not, nor does it seek to. It seeks to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, guilt. Absence of a conviction simply means that that cannot be oroven and, because the bar was deliberately set high, the odds are that a good proportion of those found not guilty in fact are.

That there are regular failures in the system leading to overturned convictions does NOT mean those people were all innocent. Some possibly were. Many probably weren't, as will have been a lot of those found "not guilty" in the first place when, in fact, they were guilty as hell. It does mean that somewhere, somehow, the system failed. Which is why we have appeals.

In an ideal world, we'd have an infallible truth detector and, if you did it, you'd go down for it 100% of the time, and if you didn't, you'd be acquitted 100% of the time. Sadly, we don't, so we have a system that, for better or worse, loads the odds as it does.

But please, don't try to make out that even in the case of successful appeals or unaafe convictions that that means all of those didn't do it. There is NO proof of that, and the way the system is stacked make it unlikely, to say the least.

Presumed innocent and actually innocent aren't the same thing at all. Many that are the former will not also be the latter.

[opel80uk]

I'm shirt of time right now, Opel, but I would make one quick point, over your quashed conviction stats.

Just because someone's conviction is quashed, it does NOT mean they didn't do it. If justice is blind, then freeing those that (factually, not legally) are guilty is no more justice than convicting those that didn't.

Remember the bar to conviction is set, quite rightly, rather high. And it's not just over "beyond reasonable doubt", but also over the rules of evidence, and over what facts, material facts, are admissible. The jury, for instance, regularly if not most of the time aren't told everything. During my jury service, we were in and out of the court like table tennis balls, while "legal matters" were discussed.

So, re: Just because a conviction is overturned, it does not and cannot be presumed they are "innocent". They are, in the absence of a valud conviction, "presumed innocent", which is not the same as innocent. It's why courts in the UK don't find people innocent, just not guilty, because, as you pointed out, the principle is that the bar is set deliberately high because of that Adamsian principle of letting the guilty go rather than convicting the innocent.

But you cannit have it both ways. You cannot assert that, having set the bar very high to conviction, the absence of one proves innocence. It absolutely does not, nor does it seek to. It seeks to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, guilt. Absence of a conviction simply means that that cannot be oroven and, because the bar was deliberately set high, the odds are that a good proportion of those found not guilty in fact are.

That there are regular failures in the system leading to overturned convictions does NOT mean those people were all innocent. Some possibly were. Many probably weren't, as will have been a lot of those found "not guilty" in the first place when, in fact, they were guilty as hell. It does mean that somewhere, somehow, the system failed. Which is why we have appeals.

In an ideal world, we'd have an infallible truth detector and, if you did it, you'd go down for it 100% of the time, and if you didn't, you'd be acquitted 100% of the time. Sadly, we don't, so we have a system that, for better or worse, loads the odds as it does.

But please, don't try to make out that even in the case of successful appeals or unaafe convictions that that means all of those didn't do it. There is NO proof of that, and the way the system is stacked make it unlikely, to say the least.

Presumed innocent and actually innocent aren't the same thing at all. Many that are the former will not also be the latter.

I don't think, nor did I suggest for one minute that all of those found not guilty, or those who have their convictions quashed, didn’t actually do it – we have no way of knowing that. What I will say is that, aside from the semantics of innocent and guilty (my understanding was that the reason we use not guilty is because it refers to the specific crime(s) you have been charged with, whereas innocent is a more encompassing statement about the individual, and not what a jury is being asked to determine), is that all those people, regardless of whether actually did it or not, they are innocent, under the presumed innocent principle, in the eyes of our justice system.

I didn’t, as you suggest, assert that, having set the bar very high to conviction, the absence of one proves innocence, simply because I don’t think that. But it would equally incorrect to presume that some of those acquitted or found not guilty are not factually innocent too, and likewise, that some found guilty and never acquitted are also factually innocent, regardless of how high the bar is set. I think it all comes down to, when you take all the considerations, including punishing the guilty, justice for victims, implications for society and protection of innocence, whether the DP is too high a price. You say no, I say yes.

[Saracen]

I don't think, nor did I suggest for one minute that all of those found not guilty, or those who have their convictions quashed, didn’t actually do it – we have no way of knowing that. What I will say is that, aside from the semantics of innocent and guilty (my understanding was that the reason we use not guilty is because it refers to the specific crime(s) you have been charged with, whereas innocent is a more encompassing statement about the individual, and not what a jury is being asked to determine), is that all those people, regardless of whether actually did it or not, they are innocent, under the presumed innocent principle, in the eyes of our justice system.

I didn’t, as you suggest, assert that, having set the bar very high to conviction, the absence of one proves innocence, simply because I don’t think that. But it would equally incorrect to presume that some of those acquitted or found not guilty are not factually innocent too, and likewise, that some found guilty and never acquitted are also factually innocent, regardless of how high the bar is set. I think it all comes down to, when you take all the considerations, including punishing the guilty, justice for victims, implications for society and protection of innocence, whether the DP is too high a price. You say no, I say yes.

You didn't assert it, but the quote you included did.

Contrary to popular perceptions, then, wrongful criminal convictions are a normal, everyday feature of the criminal justice system - the system doesn't just sometimes get it wrong, it gets it wrong everyday, of every week, of every month of every year. With the result that thousands of innocent people experience a whole variety of harmful consequences that wrongful criminal convictions engender.

As you say, we don't know. But that quote clearly makes that link, as per my emphasis in bold.

Sorry if I put it badly, but as I said, pushed for time right now.

[Saracen]

...

I didn’t, as you suggest, assert that, having set the bar very high to conviction, the absence of one proves innocence, simply because I don’t think that. But it would equally incorrect to presume that some of those acquitted or found not guilty are not factually innocent too, and likewise, that some found guilty and never acquitted are also factually innocent, regardless of how high the bar is set. I think it all comes down to, when you take all the considerations, including punishing the guilty, justice for victims, implications for society and protection of innocence, whether the DP is too high a price. You say no, I say yes.

Given that the bar is deliberately set high to try to prevent the innocent being convicted, even if as specified in that Adamsian principle, the price is that the guilty go free, the direct inference is that a significant number of guilty go free, because that is stated policy objective of setting the bar high .... reduce the likelihood of the innocent being convicted.

In any individual case of acquital, therefore, the ONLY thing we have established is failure to get over the bar, therefore we m6st presume innocence. But statistically, it's a direct inference from deliberately setting the bar high that a good number of guilty aren't convicted.

Whether this is right or wrong (right, IMHO) is another matter, but it is pretty much the settled view of modern society, or at least, ours.

[Crumbles]

I found myself facing this dilema recently. I honestly felt guilty for enjoying the music as it occured to me half-way through listening to 4AM forever. I know personally I shouldn't feel guilty but growing up I used to listen to them so much, its just annoying to feel how someone you saw as an icon turned out to be a horrible twisted individual.

What made me more sick about the whole thing was how the mother's of those children allowed them to do as they wished with their children because of their idolisation of him.

These days as well a lot of names are coming out of the woodwork after all the Saville inquiries. I won't be suprised of hearing of more celebrities and well known individuals are outed.