marvin
New member
If someone accused you of doing it in 30 years time?
I have been reading through Jonathon King's website again (I do this a couple of times a year or so as he is posting a diary from prison) and it got me to thinking, again.
Forget whether you think he is guilty or not, in this it really matters not.
But, the offences he was accused of committing were apparently up to 32 years ago, non are less than 20 I think, something like that.
Now the accuser/s has/ve not had to prove that he did do it on that day. (Or even in that year as in the case of some of them the dates of the offence was moved when it was proven that events could not have been so due to them mentioning certain TV programmes that were first broadcast some months later.)
Could you prove that if accused in 30 years time of some heinous crime that you did not do it, could not have done it.
It seems in sex crimes, or at least some of them, we have turned justice on its head and it is up to the accused to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are innocent and not as is the case normally accepted that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just a thought.
I have been reading through Jonathon King's website again (I do this a couple of times a year or so as he is posting a diary from prison) and it got me to thinking, again.
Forget whether you think he is guilty or not, in this it really matters not.
But, the offences he was accused of committing were apparently up to 32 years ago, non are less than 20 I think, something like that.
Now the accuser/s has/ve not had to prove that he did do it on that day. (Or even in that year as in the case of some of them the dates of the offence was moved when it was proven that events could not have been so due to them mentioning certain TV programmes that were first broadcast some months later.)
Could you prove that if accused in 30 years time of some heinous crime that you did not do it, could not have done it.
It seems in sex crimes, or at least some of them, we have turned justice on its head and it is up to the accused to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that they are innocent and not as is the case normally accepted that the prosecution has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Just a thought.