Ted Heath - victim or rapist

[Nearly Sane]

I see many of Twitters have decided he is guilty as breach of a subjective moral code


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-41503143

[Humph Warden Bennett]

By all accounts Heath was not a very nice man, but that does not make him a child molester.

[ProfessorDavey]

By all accounts Heath was not a very nice man, but that does not make him a child molester.

I guess the question here, in relation to historic allegations of abuse, is whether it is right to investigate and come to conclusions even when the alleged perpetrator is dead.

Some think that because the person cannot defend themselves in a court of law that they must therefore be presumed innocent and that no investigation can be warranted.

Alternatively the the victims have a right to a form of justice, and while that cannot result in the perpetrator being convicted (as he or she is dead), a level of justice is served if an investigation concludes that they were a victim and in all likelihood a specific person was the perpetrator.

I err towards the latter view.

[floo]

I knew someone, now dead, who used to serve with Heath during WW2 and knew him well. His son told me his father would not have been a bit surprised about the allegations made against Heath, as there were sexual abuse rumours concerning him even in those days.

[Nearly Sane]

I knew someone, now dead, who used to serve with Heath during WW2 and knew him well. His son told me his father would not have been a bit surprised about the allegations made against Heath, as there were sexual abuse rumours concerning him even in those days.

And the winner of the hearsay prize is....

[Nearly Sane]

I guess the question here, in relation to historic allegations of abuse, is whether it is right to investigate and come to conclusions even when the alleged perpetrator is dead.

Some think that because the person cannot defend themselves in a court of law that they must therefore be presumed innocent and that no investigation can be warranted.

Alternatively the the victims have a right to a form of justice, and while that cannot result in the perpetrator being convicted (as he or she is dead), a level of justice is served if an investigation concludes that they were a victim and in all likelihood a specific person was the perpetrator.

I err towards the latter view.

and the winner of the false dichotomy award goes to...

[ProfessorDavey]

And the winner of the hearsay prize is....

Do you think that allegations involving living victims but dead alleged perpetrators should be thoroughly investigated?

[ProfessorDavey]

and the winner of the false dichotomy award goes to...

Any chance in actually engaging in the discussion, given that the original post was yours.

[Nearly Sane]

Any chance in actually engaging in the discussion, given that the original post was yours.

Pointing out that you are using a false dichotomy is surely engaging in the discussion? Effectively your line is assuming guilt because it cannot be disproved. That seems odd to me.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you think that allegations involving living victims but dead alleged perpetrators should be thoroughly investigated?

Yes. Do you think that someone saying that the son of someone who knew someone wouldn't be surprised by something is an allegation is a good reason for an investigation?

[ProfessorDavey]

Pointing out that you are using a false dichotomy is surely engaging in the discussion?

Not really it is kind of Vlad style debate-bankerly I'm afraid. Had you made that point and then gone further to elaborate on the relevance of your point to the actual topic, then fine - but you didn't.

Effectively your line is assuming guilt because it cannot be disproved. That seems odd to me.

I don't think it is - I think it is a legal process that attempts to find facts - that is different to one that is engaged in the process of trying and convicting (or otherwise) a living person. We have all sorts of legal processes whose purpose is to find facts.

[Nearly Sane]

Not really it is kind of Vlad style debate-bankerly I'm afraid. Had you made that point and then gone further to elaborate on the relevance of your point to the actual topic, then fine - but you didn't.
I don't think it is - I think it is a legal process that attempts to find facts - that is different to one that is engaged in the process of trying and convicting (or otherwise) a living person. We have all sorts of legal processes whose purpose is to find facts.

Do you have to justify the point that someone, in this case you, was making a false dichotomy? Good to see though that you have accepted that you were.

In what way isn't assumption of guilt your position? Absolutely there needs to be a different process if the accused is dead. But surely assuming that the accusation if it cannot be disproved is true, as your position seems to be, exactly does that?
 

[ProfessorDavey]

Yes.

Do you think that someone saying that the son of someone who knew someone wouldn't be surprised by something is an allegation is a good reason for an investigation?

No - but no-one is suggesting that there should be an investigation purely on the basis of Floo's post, are they.

[Nearly Sane]

No - but no-one is suggesting that there should be an investigation purely on the basis of Floo's post, are they.

Didn't say they were. But it is hearsay, and not even relevant hearsay, isn't it? So pointing that out would be surely ok?

[ProfessorDavey]

In what way isn't assumption of guilt your position? Absolutely there needs to be a different process if the accused is dead. But surely assuming that the accusation if it cannot be disproved is true, as your position seems to be, exactly does that?

If there is an investigation the purpose would be to find fact - there would be no presumption that the accused is guilty. But I suspect (but might be completely wrong) that there need not be an presumption of innocence either for someone who is dead as the presumption of innocent is reserved for legal proceedings where a specific person is charged with a crime and taken through the court system. That cannot happen in this case as the person is dead.

[ProfessorDavey]

Didn't say they were. But it is hearsay, and not even relevant hearsay, isn't it? So pointing that out would be surely ok?

While I accept that hearsay is weak evidence, it is not no evidence. It isn't uncommon for courts to use wider anecdotal evidence of types of behaviour to paint a more complete picture of the accused that might support or not support the accusation. That someone has a well established reputation for acting in a particular manner isn't evidence that they did in a particular circumstance, but it supports specific evidence. The reverse is also true - courts often take account of 'character witness'-type statements indicating that an action someone is accused of is out of character. Doesn't prove they didn't do it, but again is valuable supporting evidence when building up a picture of the accused as a character.

[Nearly Sane]

If there is an investigation the purpose would be to find fact - there would be no presumption that the accused is guilty. But I suspect (but might be completely wrong) that there need not be an presumption of innocence either for someone who is dead as the presumption of innocent is reserved for legal proceedings where a specific person is charged with a crime and taken through the court system. That cannot happen in this case as the person is dead.

I think you are a bit confused abut how a presumption of innocence works, but that's missing the point. Your position seems to be that if an accusation cannot be disproved that we assume guilt which seems odd to me. The investigation into Heath has found only that there was enough to question, and the police carrying out the investigation were clear that it didn't mean he was guilty. why you want to have some presumption of guilt here, I have no idea

[Nearly Sane]

While I accept that hearsay is weak evidence, it is not no evidence. It isn't uncommon for courts to use wider anecdotal evidence of types of behaviour to paint a more complete picture of the accused that might support or not support the accusation. That someone has a well established reputation for acting in a particular manner isn't evidence that they did in a particular circumstance, but it supports specific evidence. The reverse is also true - courts often take account of 'character witness'-type statements indicating that an action someone is accused of is out of character. Doesn't prove they didn't do it, but again is valuable supporting evidence when building up a picture of the accused as a character.

Ah you don't understand hearsay, how cute. And you think that the son of someone who knew someone saying they wouldn't be surprised by something is even close to being useful is quite scary. It's like Salem but if someone whose dad saw Salem once said 'Definitely witches' and off you go as a new William Stoughton

[ProfessorDavey]

I think you are a bit confused abut how a presumption of innocence works, but that's missing the point. Your position seems to be that if an accusation cannot be disproved that we assume guilt which seems odd to me. The investigation into Heath has found only that there was enough to question, and the police carrying out the investigation were clear that it didn't mean he was guilty. why you want to have some presumption of guilt here, I have no idea

I have made is clear that I am neither presuming guilt nor presuming innocence. That is what happens in court proceedings whose purpose is to find fact. As the purpose of this kind of investigation is not to determine guilt or otherwise (that's the job of a court when a living individual has been charged with a crime, which isn't the case here) the notion of presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt seems moot.

[Nearly Sane]

I have made is clear that I am neither presuming guilt nor presuming innocence. That is what happens in court proceedings whose purpose is to find fact. As the purpose of this kind of investigation is not to determine guilt or otherwise (that's the job of a court when a living individual has been charged with a crime, which isn't the case here) the notion of presumption of innocence or presumption of guilt seems moot.

That's not even mere sophistry. I am talking about your position which seems to be that if accusations are not disproved then they should be assumed to nbe ture. Now if you want to qualify  that or explain that your position is something else , please go ahead

[floo]

Whether an alleged perpetrator is dead or alive it is only right allegations of sexual abuse are thoroughly investigated. Some victims of sexual abuse can be damaged for life after such an experience.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah you don't understand hearsay, how cute.

Wrong

And you think that the son of someone who knew someone saying they wouldn't be surprised by something is even close to being useful is quite scary. It's like Salem but if someone whose dad saw Salem once said 'Definitely witches' and off you go as a new William Stoughton

Completely wrong.

The notion that a particular act from someone accused of that act is out of character or otherwise is entirely relevant as evidence in a court of law. It is, of course, nowhere close to being determinative, but it is relevant. So, for example, were someone to be accused of violent assault character statements indicating that he had never been violent, had no reputation for violence would act to cast some doubt on the validity of the accusation. The converse is true - if the accused had a longstanding reputation for being a violent thug then that supports the plausibility of the accusation, albeit it would still need to rest on specific evidence in that particular case.

This happens all the time in courts of law.

[ProfessorDavey]

That's not even mere sophistry. I am talking about your position which seems to be that if accusations are not disproved then they should be assumed to nbe ture. Now if you want to qualify  that or explain that your position is something else , please go ahead

I suggest you read my posts - they say nothing of the sort.

And while criminal court proceedings in much of England require a binary verdict (guilty/not guilty) we are not dealing with criminal court proceedings, as there isn't a living person charged with an offence. And even in criminal courts not all jurisdictions provide a binary choice - as you are well aware in Scotland there are 3 outcomes, guilty/not guilty/not proven. A not proven verdict will mean that the accused is acquitted, it does not mean the person is presumed guilty, or not guilty.

[Nearly Sane]

Wrong
Completely wrong.

The notion that a particular act from someone accused of that act is out of character or otherwise is entirely relevant as evidence in a court of law. It is, of course, nowhere close to being determinative, but it is relevant. So, for example, were someone to be accused of violent assault character statements indicating that he had never been violent, had no reputation for violence would act to cast some doubt on the validity of the accusation. The converse is true - if the accused had a longstanding reputation for being a violent thug then that supports the plausibility of the accusation, albeit it would still need to rest on specific evidence in that particular case.

This happens all the time in courts of law.

Which 'particular act" was being referred  to in Floo"s post?

[ProfessorDavey]

Which 'particular act" was being referred  to in Floo"s post?

I think the point being that the accusations against Heath are related to sex abuse. While in no way determinative it is entirely relevant to bring to a court of law (whether a criminal court involving a living defendant charged with an offence, or a finding of facts investigation where the accused is dead) evidence that the accused had a reputation as a sex pest (for example). Again it would never be determinative, but would support the notion that the accusation is plausible in a manner that it might not be were the alleged act to seem entirely out of character.