Rolf Harris found guilty

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

Despite what 'causes' a behaviour, it is up to society to dictate what is criminal.

There are no circumstances where society is going to look at rape and abuse as non criminal.

End of.

 

[grahame]

Re: Re:

Despite what 'causes' a behaviour, it is up to society to dictate what is criminal.

There are no circumstances where society is going to look at rape and abuse as non criminal.

End of.

Except where religion leads people to believe that non-believers are sub-human, and women as second class citizens whose opinions are worth 1/2 that of a man.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

A century ago homosexuality wasn't viewed as a different sexuality, but as an act of criminal depravity. I'm not going to try and predict what societies views of sexual behaviour will be in the future, because past history shows that predicting tomorrow's normality by looking at today's social standards doesn't work

 

[highlandsflyer]

Re:

A century ago?

It is perfectly possible to identify trends in societal norms. The trend is definitely towards sex crimes being tolerated much less. I see no reason to expect anything to change that. I guess I have faith in humanity.

 

[konatime]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/1094 ... males.html

 

[highlandsflyer]

"It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular." ..from the linked article.

I still see no evidence there is a 'prevalent' view on this issue, other than that sexual abuse is exactly that and abhorrent.

 

[technodup]

]That cuts both ways, e.g. the recent Oxford union president called a rapist and proved not to be.

But was he proven innocent? I thought the case was abandoned through lack of evidence.
Not quite the same thing.

True, it didn't go to court iirc. Therefore he's innocent.

Proven innocent or innocent until proven otherwise amounts to exactly the same thing. And casting aspersions for the rest of his (or anyone's) life because of claims so weak a court wouldn't look at them isn't the way to go imo.

FWIW I read (one of?) the accusers was basically a boot who thought there was some glamour in shagging the Union reps. Granted this is Oxford but ffs, I've heard it all now.

 

[highlandsflyer]

I agree wholeheartedly that we should define not guilty/not taken to court differently. Of course we have Not Proven here. Which is a slightly worse result than Not Guilty.

 

[suburbanreuben]

I agree wholeheartedly that we should define not guilty/not taken to court differently. Of course we have Not Proven here. Which is a slightly worse result than Not Guilty.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I'm sure the OU president is relieved it's over,but there will surely be moments (if he is indeed innocent) when he wishes he had had the chance to properly clear his name in court. Unless the "evidence" or lack of it is aired publicly there will always be doubters.
Anonimity until Court?

 

[CTK]

Proven innocent or innocent until proven otherwise amounts to exactly the same thing. And casting aspersions for the rest of his (or anyone's) life because of claims so weak a court wouldn't look at them isn't the way to go imo.

FWIW I read (one of?) the accusers was basically a boot who thought there was some glamour in shagging the Union reps. Granted this is Oxford but ffs, I've heard it all now.

Funny what you choose to believe.