In this country you are innocent until proven guilty, Jimmy Savile has not been found guilty in a court of law however the public and media refer to this situtation as he is deemed to be guilty of what he has been accussed of.
Shrug. People will all have their opinions.
I've frequently read here that those making accusations are lying frauds, for instance, just in it for the attention and money. Mysteriously the people saying that rarely seem to offer any evidence, though, and it's certainly not been "proven". So the accusations work both ways.
If anyone's concerned, though, why not just wait to see what the police say? That's why they're investigating, after all.
Well, it's not exactly like most cases is it? His offences were incredibly prolific. I don't think there's many left who are doubting his guilt with such a heavy body of evidence stacked against him. If there were actual videos of him abusing girls, would you still ask if it was fair for someone to be guilty without trial? Of course there are cases where the evidence is so overwhelming and concrete, that they can be proven guilty without need of a trial, and many people now see the Jimmy Saville case that way. Of course, were he alive, he would get a trial anyway, but he's not.
If there were actual videos of him abusing girls, would you still ask if it was fair for someone to be guilty without trial?
I don't quite understand the significance of this question. I'm prepared to accept the balance of probabilities based on the amount of testimony against him but I don't see how wishing proof that doesn't exist makes his case any sounder or less sound.
I don't quite understand the significance of this question. I'm prepared to accept the balance of probabilities based on the amount of testimony against him but I don't see how wishing proof that doesn't exist makes his case any sounder or less sound.
The OP asks if it right to convict someone without trial and there are clear instances where it would be ok in my mind, such as video evidence. I was responding to that.
The Saville case may not be as clear cut as having actual video evidence, but there is a large body of evidence against him nonetheless. This explains why so many accept him as guilty without trial. It just depends where you draw the line. I think in many peoples minds, his alleged offences were so prolifically reported that this would be seen as solid evidence to them, so that brings it back to the wider point I was making about whether someone can be guilty without trial, and I believe they can.
Comments
What the three little pigs didn't happen next you'll be saying little red riding hood was dressed in black!!
She got molested by the wolf allegedly, but the allegations didn't come out until the woodcutter killed it.
Court Wrong?
I've frequently read here that those making accusations are lying frauds, for instance, just in it for the attention and money. Mysteriously the people saying that rarely seem to offer any evidence, though, and it's certainly not been "proven". So the accusations work both ways.
If anyone's concerned, though, why not just wait to see what the police say? That's why they're investigating, after all.
The OP asks if it right to convict someone without trial and there are clear instances where it would be ok in my mind, such as video evidence. I was responding to that.
The Saville case may not be as clear cut as having actual video evidence, but there is a large body of evidence against him nonetheless. This explains why so many accept him as guilty without trial. It just depends where you draw the line. I think in many peoples minds, his alleged offences were so prolifically reported that this would be seen as solid evidence to them, so that brings it back to the wider point I was making about whether someone can be guilty without trial, and I believe they can.