Before you do that "The controversial not proven verdict is to be scrapped in Scottish courts as part of sweeping reforms to the country's justice system"
Benjamin Mendy - Not guilty on re-trial | NOT a thread about MG
- Thread starter Chief123
- Start date
That and the nature of the crime itself. Trying to prove with certainty than rape occurred rather than consensual sex is very difficult as there will often be no physical evidence and no other parties present other than the accused and accuser. And the nature of consent is such that things can be consensual (or appear consensual) all the way until they're not.
And the understanding that rape is inherently an extremely difficult crime to secure convictions on is why people are particularly sensitive to the point that a not guilty verdict does not mean someone is innocent, nor is there a requirement on people to believe someone is innocent just because they weren't convicted.
I've not followed this case but him being found not guilty doesn't automatically mean the accusers were lying. It could be a lack of strong evidence, it could be that what he did was wrong/immoral but on the legalities, he didn't commit a crime. It could even simply be a case of being up against a better set of lawyers.
I think he should now move on and continue playing but the notion that the accusers were lying is dangerous thing to say imo.
But, But, me and a few of the guys at the local pub have built a Diy Gallows in the local park ,what are you we going to do now? the internet says yes and the courts say no ,We're so confused.
Why do UK courts specifically use the words not guilty instead of innocent when passing sentence my friend?
Doesn’t change anything said in that post
Wrong/immoral but didn’t a crime? This isn’t really a thing in a rape case.
Fact is in these cases people are quite obviously assumed guilty by the public unless proven innocent (which can never happen)
Fact is in these cases people are quite obviously assumed guilty by the public unless proven innocent (which can never happen)
Glad you subbed in for him.
Why can we deny suspects who are 'innocent until proven guilty' bail and remand them in prison until trial?
Spoiler.
The answer is because it's much more complicated and nuanced than you either understand, have considered, or want to admit.
The answer is because it's much more complicated and nuanced than you either understand, have considered, or want to admit.
You can only do that if the prosecution has strong evidence to suggest they are a risk to public or a flight risk. E.g strong evidence of guilt
Denial of bail is not the norm at all
Because the prosecution doesn't presume that they are innocent. Otherwise they wouldn't be prosecuted.
Do you know the difference between a charge and a trial?
Like Mendy was?
I do.
I assume so yes. Said evidence didn’t stand up under scrutiny during the trail. Specifically evidence to the contrary came to light.
Of course people can get a not guilty verdict and still be guilty as hell (Im not saying thats what happened here)
That doesn’t change the fact that in the eyes of the law you are innocent until proven guilty
It also doesn’t change the fact that irresponsible journalism means in these types of cases people are usually assumed guilty by the public before proven guilty
So you know the answer to your question then?
I assume the poster was referring to the earlier quote from the guardian that was posted...
Quite! One of the many ways that the presumption of innocence, which is definitely a legal principle in the UK, isn't just as simple as 'you were innocent before and therefore you are innocent after a not guilty verdict.'
Well of course the prosecution doesn’t but are we now saying the prosecution is the law? And is always right?
The fact they can be wrong is why the presumption of innocence exists
Irrespective of a report, a 28 day or an overnight charge as the means to arrive at court the point is that we actually infringe on the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' in lots of different ways deemed acceptable by the court/crown at different stages of the process.
Whilst what @The Original said was on the face of it factually correct when considering the start and end of a trial, the final conclusion is quite misleading or at least a very very narrow, black and white view of things.
The end result of which arrives back at exactly why the court determines Guilty or Not guilty and not 'innocent'.
I agree! Similarly jurors can be wrong, a judge can be wrong, witnesses can lie, evidence can be lost or damaged, a police officer can overstep their powers and let a guilty person off and a victim down due to poor processes, a particularly good defence lawyer can obscure fact and generate sympathy.
It's far from a perfect system!
Being found not guilty means just that. It can of course be a very strong indicator of 'true' innocence. It can also just mean the quite high bar of reasonable doubt wasn't passed and it's therefore not right to determine guilt.
You can't, without having been in Mendy's mansion, or at the least heard every shred of evidence come to an informed opinion. So saying he is innocent and exonerated is totally silly. Similarly saying he is still definitely guilty is even more silly and probably worse!
It's crazy how many people are trying to twist the verdict, while we were all on a witch hunt a man lost almost 2 years of his life, the evidence points to Mendy being immoral and not a good person but to the girls being similar.
The idea that were going to still presume guilt is kinda sad
The idea that were going to still presume guilt is kinda sad
You need a long hard look in the mirror...
Case in point. What an inherently idiotic question. Just because I don't buy your fallacious premise we should pretend everyone accused of rape is guilty regardless of what happens in the courts of law, you take the extravagant leap of imagining that is 'proof' that I 'think less than 1% of reported rapes actually happened". Right.....Zero self awareness completely....
Because "those of us with brains" understand by it's very nature Rape and sexual assault is literally the hardest crime to persecute due to several factors: Thanks first to cultural stigma that breeds false narratives like "guilty till proven innocent", " women never lie about rape", 'men can't be raped", the victim must have caused it (literally the worst of the lot!) Etc. Then the inherent problem of it being a one person's word against another's type of crime. Then the fact it carries inherrent overwhelming shame for victims, the kind of shame the makes them desire NEVER to divulge fully the deed. Especially in public. Yet because its a serious crime details must be divulged and heftily investigated creating an inherently harrowing legal process from start to finish for any victim in involved. Which all lead to inherent barriers to even reporting about the crime. Yet that's just scratching tip of the damned icberg....
We thus also understand because how damned hard it is to persecute. There do exist nefarious people in our populace who do take advantage and wield it as a weapon to ruin peoples lives. We don't pretend they don't exist because 'statistics".
Its like some of you actually naively believe humanity has ever successfully tallied the statistics of how we lie as a species. That we can cite how much we actually lie about serious crimes that we can accurately state how much sexual assault or rape is or isn't lied about.
Because the evidence in all likelihood was faulty obviously. 9/10 times the average person charged with over 5 counts of a serious crime are found guilty because the evidence is overwhelming from that many counts of ANY said serious crime. There isn't ANY good grounds to believe rape should be different. You'd have to make some fantastical gymnastic leaps of logic to believe a charge of 9-10 counts of a serious crime passing through 2 juries, via 2 trials and hefty investigation miraculously let an ordinary human walk free when they were guilty as sin.
That's rich coming from you. So eager to believe "the legal system doesn't work" because you buy into groundless assumptions like "sexual assault can never be lied about". I bet you also naively believe rich people can never be convicted because they can buy the best defence too.......
Frankly I don't give a flying fig If anyone thinks me simplistic for being a stickler for the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". I could careless about the court of public opinion because its always based on the fallacious reasoning of argumentum ad populum and the majority is next to never right about anything. Especially legal matters. So I'm not going be deceived into feeling shame about it just because some random human over the net, who neither investigated nor sat through hours and hours of the prosecution of the criminal case believes I should still count a person who won their day in court as the loser.....
What witch hunt? We weren't allowed to talk about him when the trial was ongoing.
Your club are the ones who suspended him without pay and acted like he never existed.
I for one haven’t said anything about Mendy being innocent or guilty expect to say in the eyes of the law he is innocent.
However I think public opinion has mainly been swayed by biased reporting which presumed his guilt
Which is why my opinion of the reporting and media around this has been highly irresponsible.
Bottom line. Being immoral and repugnant in ones private behaviour and standards isn't a pass for any of us to brand someone as "inherrently guilty" regardless of what pans out in a court of law.
Have I offered an opinion on whether I think he's guilty?
I'm just trying to help people understand that not guilty doesn't mean innocent. I have no idea as to whether Mendy is guilty or not, for the 2 victims who seem to have evidence displayed that seriously damages their credibility I would likely have reached the same conclusion as the jury... Though we don't have the rest of the evidence that is very very damaging to their allegation.
Beyond that, for the other girls I cannot say. It's either foolish or arrogant to do so. We don't find people innocent, we find them not guilty.
It's dangerous to think we do and then use that as a reason to attack other posters or even worse, the victims. Similarly maintining that he is definitely guilty is mental and stupid - though I don't really see people doing that. Would be happy to see quotes otherwise though.
Last edited:
Given you used quote marks I assume someone actually said this?
There has long been a thought that cases like sexual assault and rape etc. Would work much better if there could be total anonymity for essentially all parties. Protects art 6 rights of the accused and obviously is better for the victim.
With high profile people especially it's just impossible, there's also bail and remand for dangerous people and a myriad of other issues. Much like Hew Edwards, politics and basically everything if we didn't have 'the media' nearly everything would probably be better.
However even without bias the inference will always lean toward guilt, when someone is arrested, charged, remanded, those things don't happen for no reason, they are backed up by reason and evidence. Clearly that evidence is not always sufficient under the full spotlight of a trial to convict, but also the standard of proof isn't as high for some of those other actions - like the OJ Simpson example someone gave earlier.
It's just another reason why sticking so steadfastly to innocent until proven guilty just doesn't really work in reality, in all cases, as it's really quite complex.
So while your technically right, should we not be assuming innocence and treating Mendy as absolutely innocent given the outcome. Therefore we should presume innocence.
To do otherwise would be to leave a stain hanging over everyone with a not guilty verdict ever. It's kinda weird to take a not guilty verdict as a maybe he did it in my humble opinion even though I get where you're coming from.
That implies anyone brought up on something can never be seen the same again or am I missing something.
Not sure if posted
The most honest legal answer is maybe he did it or maybe he didn't, either way he has not been found guilty. From the public standpoint unless I missed some reports there is very little to have a strong opinion on the entire picture.
It's one of those cases where you just go with no guilty and move on.
I don't mean here specifically but he was presumed guilty from day 1 (myself included), he was hung by the court of public opinion (again myself included)
If only the world was that black and white. As it stands, shades of grey do exist, so it's not as simple as that.
Note that I'm not talking about Mendy here, just in general. Mendy being found not guilty of rape does not mean there are now seven women guilty of making false accusations. If a person accused of rape was, in fact, proven innocent through a not guilty verdict, it stands to reason that the case(s) against their accuser(s) would be open and shut. But they aren't, because not guilty is not the same as innocent.
This thread alone has some shocking takes. “Rape cases are hard to prove” so feck it he’s guilty anyway.
I get ya but that's a hell of a thing for Mendy to carry round his neck for the rest of his days and anyone found not guilty.
From here forward he's just maybe a rapist with no way to completely clear his name... doesn't sit right with me.
We should assume nothing. We simply can't and won't know, when you slant it either way it's bias.
My own approach would be to say I don't know. I wouldnt offer credit and say he is innocent or assume any stain or guilt. It's just neutral.
Also everyone will make up their own mind anyway, I don't really like this generalized rule that puts the criminal court above everything else. You don't need a jury to tell you City played well at the weekend or who you think you should sign in the summer. You are allowed to have your own opinion on the matter, as long as it's reasonable and acknowledges that you probably hold like 2% of all the facts!
It probably reads like really silly semantics but it is actually a really important distinction. Not as a way to continue to harass someone as guilty just because you don't like their conduct.
Ask yourself, has the court ever and can the court get it wrong, either way? Of course. It's also about respecting the victims allegations, ie. We aren't saying you are a lying but we can't find in your favour and also about focusing on standards of evidence, not on guilt vs innocence.
Instances were there is really strong evidence that brings the integrity of a victims allegations are tough, especially with a rape case, people obviously will be very angry about that, worth bearing in mind that doesn't represent every victim in this case - it appears and certainly not every victim of all other crimes!
Agreed. In a perfect world, he should've had a right to privacy, but that was always going to be difficult in such a high profile case.
They're synonymous, aren't they? The definition of innocent is not guilty.