Since When Did The Law Blame The Victim For The Guilt Of The Guilty?

[LoneWolf]

What happens if the police are looking for a Rapist and you fit the discription given, the police arrest you but are later cleared. And then at some point you apply for a job which does not come under the Rehab of offenders Act.

The stigma of even being arrested for Rape, some people will still point you out as the rapist. Another point Police will always pick up a person thats been arrested for rape when ones been committed in thier area.

 

An arrest record is just that ..a record of an arrest or arrests.

The world isnt such a big bad place as you seem to imagine it is. In the circumstances you describe, where police checks prior to engagement are required, there are other checks and balances available.

Just think about what it is you are saying. Would you really be happy for a social worker or a teacher to be employed without a police check ? The majority of people wouldnt be happy and I can imagine the howls of protest if such checks hadnt been carried out.

It isnt adequate in some circumstances just to check a conviction record.

Ian Huntley is the obvious example. Had his arrest record been properly checked he would not, in all probability, have gained employment at a school and would not have been in a position to do what he did.

You do recall the outraged protests that his arrest record had not been checked?

Im sorry Skeat but this time you dont have a reasonable case to argue. Arrest record checks are legitimate and important in certain circumstances. I believe those circumstances are defined by statute and regularly reviewed.

[Albert Tatlock]

What happens if the police are looking for a Rapist and you fit the discription given, the police arrest you but are later cleared. And then at some point you apply for a job which does not come under the Rehab of offenders Act.

The stigma of even being arrested for Rape, some people will still point you out as the rapist. Another point Police will always pick up a person thats been arrested for rape when ones been committed in thier area.

 

An arrest record is just that ..a record of an arrest or arrests.

The world isnt such a big bad place as you seem to imagine it is. In the circumstances you describe, where police checks prior to engagement are required, there are other checks and balances available.

Just think about what it is you are saying. Would you really be happy for a social worker or a teacher to be employed without a police check ? The majority of people wouldnt be happy and I can imagine the howls of protest if such checks hadnt been carried out.

It isnt adequate in some circumstances just to check a conviction record.

Ian Huntley is the obvious example. Had his arrest record been properly checked he would not, in all probability, have gained employment at a school and would not have been in a position to do what he did.

You do recall the outraged protests that his arrest record had not been checked?

Im sorry Skeat but this time you dont have a reasonable case to argue. Arrest record checks are legitimate and important in certain circumstances. I believe those circumstances are defined by statute and regularly reviewed.

The Huntley case demonstrated a lack of 'joined up thinking and lack of communication' between police forces, especially when there were numerous incidents that had not been 'joined up' which clearly, with hindsight, demonstrated Huntley's pattern.

 

I would agree with your sentiment, but this still leaves any person accused of a single event, initially arrested, and then proven innocent during an investigation (e.g. a teacher accused maliciously by a student, a man falsely accused of rape by an ex-partner etc.) in no-mans land. This effectively 'criminalises' many innocent people and can stop them living their life as they wish to do so i.e. emigrating. Whilst such records should be maintained, and probability dictates that 'a pattern is emerging' when a second such record appears, it is these single events (the first) that require fairer treatment.

 

Perhaps, in recording and 'publication' terms, the answer lies in redefining arrest as, something like say, 'provisional arrest' and 'confirmed arrest' (which hold equal status in terms of the ability to detain). A single 'provisional arrest' would not affect you and not become 'official' whereas a 'confirmed arrest' would become 'official' after going to court and being found guilty, OR become 'confirmed' whenever a second 'provisional arrest' goes on your record - indicating a possible pattern (even though at that stage unarrestable). Perhaps in recording and 'publication' terms, the criteria might even be 'possible pattern'.

 

Like it or not, there are incompetent investigators and there are malicious people in the world, and only doing something like this will give us protection if any one of us fall into their path - which for innocent people becomes a matter of probability, and not fair treatment under the law, as it should be.

[Theskeat]

Are you on mod preview or something?

 

Your posts just seem to appear from nowhere at present!

 

 

I have been on ones for some time????????????????

[Theskeat]

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/sto...1664759,00.html

[ans]

Your posts just seem to appear from nowhere at present!

 

Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

[Declan]

You have to wonder what the posts that don't get through are like.

[ans]

Usually bullshit.

[LoneWolf]

http://society.guardian.co.uk/children/sto...1664759,00.html

 

Anyone authorised to make applications to the CRB for record checks is obliged to adhere to a code of practice which basically ensures information given by the CRB is used sensibly and fairly.

I know it doesnt quite fit into your world view of things, but that is fact.

I cant see why anyone should be overly concerned by a sensible precaution.