See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/6037701.stm
This is England and has always been a cause of ill-feeling and malicious complaints (sometimes intisgated by politicians and business rivals against their enemies) can result in victims being banged up even though they have not done anything wrong, but just annoyed people who have misused their power. Anonymous people also campaign against other political opponents by making malicious complaints and the Police target people. This is England.
There are other tricks used to stitch your enemies as well. Beware!
2006-10-10 21:29:54 · 13 answers · asked by Perseus 3 in Social Science ➔ Sociology
Fact. If a woman were to accuse me of rape I would be banged up immediately. I may lose my job or damage my business or lose my home as a result, It could actually ruin my life. this makes a mockery of the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Fact. It is not uncommon for women to make up the most outrageous lies about men for manipulatory purposes.
Fact. If I were to accuse a woman of raping or sexually abusing me I would not be taken seriously.
Where is the justice and common sense?
2006-10-11 00:14:35 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Good question.
I believe that if there is a perceived possible danger to the public, then this is justified. There may well be (and probably are) misuses of power, and there is always the risk that innocent people are locked up, either through incompetence / mistakes within the police and judicial system, or through deliberate malicious campaigns.
But the real issue lies in making sure this doesn't happen, and punishing offenders in the latter case, rather than having a global no-remand policy, which would run the risk of violent criminlas re-offending or absconding.
I do believe however that there should be a full and generous compensation scheme for those who are remanded and subsequently found to be not guilty.
2006-10-10 21:37:10 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
What are the alternatives?
Being remanded in custody is dependent on the seriousness of the crime under investigation. Only a judge can fix bail (NOT the police) but the police can voice their objections to it on a variety of grounds, including the possibility of absconding or interfering with (i.e. threatening or pressurizing) witnesses. Their objections are usually noted within the criminal justice system.
Is there another way that would be completely free from possible abuse?
2006-10-10 21:39:54 · answer #3 · answered by Bart S 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you've been charged with an offence and there's a chance that you will do the disappearing trick before your court appearance you WILL be held in custody, otherwise you'll be allowed your freedom but with some kind of bond (bail, passport withdrawal etc).
Similarly, during lengthy court proceedings the same conditions will apply, even if you're on a murder charge sometimes. They have to be absolutely certain that you won't abscond before they let you out, and sometimes they'll keep you locked up just for your own protection - as in the case of paedophiles etc.
2006-10-10 21:48:19 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I honestly believe Tiger Lilly. the girl displayed what's certainly-known in ordinary parlance through fact the Nutter on the Bus Syndrome. we've all been conscious approximately it as a while or different . The rants would be directed at human beings imaginary or genuine or at inanimate products. ok, so victims of the syndrome is probably no longer working on finished cylinders yet oftentimes talking they're danger unfastened, if annoying and rude. i won't have confidence on the flexibility of what I observed on the video that she required her being sectioned or remand . the youngster replace into no longer endangered and actual did no longer understand the import of what she replace into asserting. That way insanity dwells- and not hers!
2016-12-08 12:41:45 · answer #5 · answered by casco 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In some cases there is a definite need to have suspects remanded in custody. Mainly when there could be a danger to the public (e.g. they are suspected of being a serial killer), or if there is a good chance they will jump bail and not turn up to court.
If neither of thsoe apply, then it is probably much fairer not to remand people in custody. After all, our judicial system is supposed to presume you innocent until proven guilty.
2006-10-10 21:41:32 · answer #6 · answered by Steve-Bob 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Doesn't it depend on what they are accused of, if someone has been accused of rape, murder, manslaughter then surely they deserve to be kept in remand until the trial, if it proves that they were guilty then they are better being kept off the streets.
I think there are some petty crimes where the accused shouldn't be kept in remand, but in the cases of them skipping bail and the such the tag system should be used, at least then the police will have more control on getting repeated criminal to court for their trials.
2006-10-10 21:39:31 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It all depends on what the crime is. If not read your link but if some people are bailed what are the chances of them turning up for the trial is they know they are going away to prison?
2006-10-10 23:45:56 · answer #8 · answered by Tabbyfur aka patchy puss 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If it is not a heinous crime than yes I think it is wrong to remand a person over to the police. They will beat a confession out.
2006-10-10 21:46:01 · answer #9 · answered by noreenwhite 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Fully agree with 'Bart S'.
Are you talking about a case in the news?
2006-10-10 21:47:38 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋