Source
r/MensRights•
njullpointer

good news [/s]: innocent man banned from having sex without notifying police 24h beforehand indefinitely, has this sentence reduced to only 2 years! Maybe!

False Accusation

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5228415/York-father-indefinite-sex-ban-reduced-two-years.html

An innocent man originally accused of rape, eventually exonerated, had his indefinite ban on having sex (without notifying police 24 hours beforehand) slightly overturned... he now only has to notify police 24 hours in advance when he wants to have sex for the next two years!

Isn't that great!

I mean I know the judge called this innocent man "dangerous" and denied said innocent man a basic human right, but at least it's only for two years! Maybe! Unless the police petition to have it extended!

*EDIT: Apparently the title wasn't descriptive enough. Sorry folks, trying again.

EDIT2: Just in case things weren't clear enough, the man in question was tried twice - the first time without reaching a verdict, the second find finding him innocent. Despite this, he has draconian measures placed upon his life which has made him practically unemployable (having to hand over electronic devices so the police can snoop on his browsing habits and so on). He was an IT consultant. I gather from later articles that he's now homeless. Great job, UK justice system! You found a man innocent and yet still found a way to 1984 his life into ruins.

Posted Jan 3, 2018, 4:10 PM UTC · edited

8824
Lethn•

It is becoming clear that the police in the UK are a serious problem for men as well as the education system and are incapable of being professional, both need to be dealt with. Hopefully with the momentum built up from other cases that have been struck down he should have an easier time doing something about these scumbags.

I remember reading about this story awhile back.

24
njullpointerOP•

it's the cultural marxists that have infected every level of the british system of government: the police are being pressured to get convictions because in somebody's mind, people being accused of rape and not being found guilty equals a low conviction rate, equals a low rate of convicting rapists. The same bullshit is everywhere, which is why boys are failing at school because school is built to help girls, why girls are going to university in far higher numbers than boys, yet we still only hear about girls needing more help, why women get 1/5 of the sentence for the same crime, if that... everything is broken, right now, and it's awful.

7
The__Tren__Train•

'oh, you're innocent? well, your punishment stands anyways'

literally society saying 'fuck you, men'.

go your own way.

12
omegaphallic•

It's an extreme abuse of power and if I had a willing woman I'd call them on it.

1
MelissaClick•

This guy was on trial for 3 separate rapes, and these case were thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct (not based on conclusions from the facts of the case). [Had this confused with a different case.]

He wasn't convicted, but I'm not so sure about "innocent"...

-1
bufedad•

He wasn't convicted,

important part

but I'm not so sure about "innocent"...

not the important part.

What you are or aren't sure about is not what's important, what's important is whether he's been found guilty in a court of law.

He hasn't. He hasn't been retried. Punishing someone without due process is immoral.

1
MelissaClick•

Well, it technically isn't a punishment.

I mean I basically agree that you have to have due process and the only way to enforce that is to throw out the result when due process is violated.

But, on the other hand, this guy is very likely a dangerous rapist and there is a pretty substantial public interest in keeping him away from women. Much like how a psychiatric commitment -- based on a demonstration of future danger to self or others -- is a separate thing from a conviction for a past crime -- this public interest is separable from the public interest in punishing previous rapes (which, I agree totally, is now completely superseded by the public interest in enforcing due process requirements).

Basically I agree we can't put him in jail, because he was acquitted -- but we don't need to let him rape more women just because he was acquitted. Ideally we find some way to keep him from raping more women.

-1
bufedad•

Well, it technically isn't a punishment.

The hell it isn't.

But, on the other hand, this guy is very likely a dangerous rapist

Says who? Have you seen any evidence to suggest that? No. you haven't. You are making assumptions that because he was charged, he must be guilty.

1
MelissaClick•

Of course, it's experienced as punishment. So would be psychiatric commitment. But the rationale isn't the same as the rationale for punishment.

But, on the other hand, this guy is very likely a dangerous rapist

Says who?

The judge who issued the initial court order and the panel of one judge and two magistrates who heard the appeal.

You are making assumptions that because he was charged, he must be guilty.

I am making assumptions. Obviously, I don't know what really happened. (Neither do you.)

However, it's not an assumption based on the fact that there were charges. There is a lot more information to go on in this article.

The article could be completely wrong for all I know -- or it could be correct, and the courts wrong. The courts could have made some terrible error. They could even be acting out of deliberate malice. I don't deny such possibilities.

The argument I'm making is based on the assumption that the facts are as the court found them. Everything I say is conditioned on that premise. It could be wrong, I think it is only probably true (which is what I said).

0
njullpointerOP•

If you have more information on it, please do link it, but unfortunately that's kind of what "innocent" means. You can't just go around punishing people you think might not be innocent just in case... and when one trial falls apart and the next one unanimously finds you not guilty then you're... not guilty.

1
MelissaClick•

Well I just looked for the source of that and it turns out I was thinking of a completely different case. My mistake.

Nevertheless, it isn't as punishment for past acts that the order exists. It's because of future probabilities. These aren't what the court ruled on in acquitting.

1
njullpointerOP•

We don't punish people who haven't done things arbitrarily. We just don't. It goes against the core values of our very civilization. It's different if you're talking about somebody who, after being examined by actual experts in their field, is pronounced a clear and present danger to themselves or other people, but a judge is not the right person to do that, and especially not "because I don't like that guy".

What the hell is wrong with you, sincerely, somebody who thinks the rule of law should be fair and just.

1
MelissaClick•

We don't punish people who haven't done things arbitrarily. We just don't. It goes against the core values of our very civilization.

This isn't punishment.

It's different if you're talking about somebody who [...] is pronounced a clear and present danger to themselves or other people

Right. That's not about punishment. That makes it very different.

a judge is not the right person to do that

Maybe not. Psychiatric commitment often requires a jury. This is less severe than psychiatric commitment, and is more similar to various restraining orders which are more commonly issued by a judge. But still... it is basically unprecedented.

To argue that this kind of ruling requires a jury finding is a reasonable enough argument. I don't really have an opinion on that level of detail. I'm just defending the general principle here that there is a public interest in restraining this guy (somehow) even if there's no conviction for any past crime.

1