Sexual Risk Orders

[jeremyp]

We don't know that he committed no crime,

What do you think "acquittal" means?

all we know is that there was insufficient evidence to convince the jury.

He is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law and should not be punished.

[Udayana]

As explained previously - the law allows courts to impose these orders whether or not a criminal act has been committed, based on an assessment of future risks.

This was introduced by the "Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014" as an amendment to the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" - which allowed similar orders to be made - but only after conviction or caution.

[jeremyp]

As explained previously - the law allows courts to impose these orders whether or not a criminal act has been committed, based on an assessment of future risks.

Ah, so we are in the department of pre-crime. That always ends well.

This was introduced by the "Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014" as an amendment to the "Sexual Offences Act 2003" - which allowed similar orders to be made - but only after conviction or caution.

But do you think it is right that a man not found guilty of any crime can be punished?

[Shaker]

Ah, so we are in the department of pre-crime. That always ends well.

Sounds like science fiction to me ... *cough*

[Udayana]

Ah, so we are in the department of pre-crime. That always ends well.

But do you think it is right that a man not found guilty of any crime can be punished?

I don't think people should be punished, pre-crime. However it seems reasonable to allow the courts to consider the risks of someone committing serious assaults in the near future and impose orders that could help prevent them.

[jeremyp]

I don't think people should be punished, pre-crime. However it seems reasonable to allow the courts to consider the risks of someone committing serious assaults in the near future and impose orders that could help prevent them.

It isn't reasonable to convict people of crimes they haven't committed.

[Bubbles]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-35385227

Any thoughts?

Yes.

I would have thought any woman named like that could challenge the court that her human rights had been breached.

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-right-private-and-family-life

If the case where parents were spyed on by a council for invading their privacy, I definately think any woman named in such a fashion would most definately be a breach of her right to privacy. ( see in the article further down)

Having sex is a very private and personal thing.

It's almost like treating a woman as if she was a whore! 

Talk about name and shame

 

Very degrading, for any woman.

What bunch of unthinking muppets thought of that one? 

[jeremyp]

Rose and I agree about something....

[Udayana]

.. But of-course there is no law that anyone planning to have sex with someone (say person b) cannot go around disclosing their intention and b's name address age etc to whoever they like.

Also, how would a woman feel if raped by a man who had recently been acquitted of a similar crime and the police had made no effort to prevent this, even if the acquittal were on a technicality?

[L.A.]

As explained previously - the law allows courts to impose these orders whether or not a criminal act has been committed, based on an assessment of future risks.

. . .

But this does seem to be contrary to natural justice and the fact the many of the facts are being concealed from the public does not inspire confidence.

[Rhiannon]

I suspect that given the low conviction rate these orders could end up being used instead of a proper trial by jury. Everyone should be concerned about this because anyone can be falsely accused, and not just by disgruntled women.

[Rhiannon]

And can anyone explain how this prevents rape?

[Udayana]

But this does seem to be contrary to natural justice and the fact the many of the facts are being concealed from the public does not inspire confidence.

Yes, obviously there is potential for misuse. I assume there are suitable checks, balances, appeals, reviews etc built into the system - although I don't know that there are.

Reminiscent of the terrorism control orders that were eventually found to breech the human rights of the suspected terrorists. Also of some family court issues.

[Outrider]

And can anyone explain how this prevents rape?

Let's say that the authorities think Bob is a potential rapist. Rape convictions are difficult to achieve, because many rapists fall back on the 'it was consensual' defence, which is difficult to disprove beyond reasonable doubt.

If they have this order against them they don't need to be convicted of rape to be imprisoned, they can be prosecuted for breaking the court order which doesn't care if the sex they have is consensual or not - just having sex at all without pre-warning the authorities is a criminal offences.

It's a way to get rapists off the street, to improve conviction rates for sexual offences (by lowering the threshold considerably) - it's only going to prevent rapes in those instances where the individual is self-aware enough to realise how vulnerable to imprisonment they are in the event of an accusation.

O.

[L.A.]

Yes, obviously there is potential for misuse. I assume there are suitable checks, balances, appeals, reviews etc built into the system - although I don't know that there are.

Reminiscent of the terrorism control orders that were eventually found to breech the human rights of the suspected terrorists. Also of some family court issues.

Any form of detention or restrictions on movement or activities without due process are a cause for concern; we always used to condemn states that did such things!

[Rhiannon]

Let's say that the authorities think Bob is a potential rapist. Rape convictions are difficult to achieve, because many rapists fall back on the 'it was consensual' defence, which is difficult to disprove beyond reasonable doubt.

If they have this order against them they don't need to be convicted of rape to be imprisoned, they can be prosecuted for breaking the court order which doesn't care if the sex they have is consensual or not - just having sex at all without pre-warning the authorities is a criminal offences.

It's a way to get rapists off the street, to improve conviction rates for sexual offences (by lowering the threshold considerably) - it's only going to prevent rapes in those instances where the individual is self-aware enough to realise how vulnerable to imprisonment they are in the event of an accusation.

O.

Exactly as I understood it too. I'm not convinced it's going to be that effective but I am concerned about it becoming the tool of choice by the authorities when dealing with rape accusations.

[BeRational]

Does a jury trial mean nothing these days then? This man was found not guilty of the charges brought. He is therefore innocent in the eyes of the law and should not be punished. It's that simple.

I agree to a point.

The point is that the trial addresses ONE question. Guilty or Not guilty.

[L.A.]

I agree to a point.

The point is that the trial addresses ONE question. Guilty or Not guilty.

But that really is the essence of our justice system and if you start punishing people because of what you think they might be capable of doing - you are on-track for a system that embraces political prisoners and mental asylums for anyone who embarrasses the government.