4 ms·

Being a victim of a crime has always meant some loss of privacy. If you are murdered, they will conduct an autopsy of you to determine how you died and possibly

Being a victim of a crime has always meant some loss of privacy. If you are murdered, they will conduct an autopsy of you to determine how you died and possibly a toxicology study to determine what drugs you had in your system. If you were raped, getting a rape exam done is recommended to document injuries and collect DNA samples. If you report your child was kidnapped, the police will likely closely examine your home for clues. How is this any different?

lallysingh 8y ago
If your car is stolen, it's reasonable that your Google docs are read?
- Zenst 8y ago
  Whilst this law was born out of issues in recent false rape instances and it's intention is with that in mind. You raise a fair point, though I'm sure that use will not transpire - what guarantees does it give that it could be for any reason. Heck, budget cuts, i'd not be supprised if some local regional force mandate its usage just to reduce crime reports, gaming the stats just enough so that can keep their jobs and pension ticking over.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
  If you say your child was kidnapped, I bet that your Google docs might be read.
  - colejohnson66 8y ago
    But why. What use would my Google Docs have?
    - pmichaud 8y ago
      Often when children go missing the parents are responsible or complicit in some way. People write things down all the time -- a google account may contain incriminating emails, IM messages, or other documents such as journal entries. I'm squicked out about the invasion like many are, and if I thought about it carefully I expect I would come out against the idea, but I can actually see the case for this invasion.
      - jhayward 8y ago
        > Often when children go missing the parents are responsible or complicit in some way. In that case, they are being investigated as suspects and should obtain all of the due process that suspects are afforded under the law. Reasonable suspicion, warrants, etc. should all be obtained - not "we won't investigate the crime unless you surrender your rights and permit us to investigate you as a suspect without warrant or cause."
  - natch 8y ago
    That's different, because it's a dynamic situation with another person at risk where clues could help recover that person safely.
- tus87 8y ago
  Well let's see....someone reports a car as stolen but... - they have no evidence they ever had a car - bank records do not show evidence of any purchases of a car or insurance - registration records do not support the person had a car registered to them The yes the police will probably start investigating them for fraud as they do many of thousands of times are year, and they may well seek forensic computer evidence.
Zenst 8y ago
Valid points that many may disdainfully overlook. But nonetheless, still valid. But sex crimes do have a stigma in society and there is for many a reason, though mostly though historical injustices and injustices that still transpire today have produced. This the tendency to lean towards guilty until proven innocent, over innocent until proven guilty, can and do play out socially and in a majority of people's mindsets. Equally there have in the UK, there have been cases of false rape claims, for various reasons and access to all information pertinent in establishing a crime is what the law and justice demand. Whilst many may feel such actions as a blanket are bad taste, there have been instances in which justice would of been perverted had it not been forthcoming and justice for all is what is needed. Will this or any of the examples you outline hinder justice - nope. But if those examples are hindered, then justice suffers. Also worth noting that with this law, it will in instances help support the case and expedite it, think about domestic abuse here. So whilst it may leave a bad taste and for some victims, feel like an intrusion into their life, it is an intrusion that is in there best interest to help bring about swifter justice. If anything it just formalises full-disclosure and supeaner avenues and bureaucracy in courts - hence speeds up justice. Which is in everybody's interest.
- DanBC 8y ago
  > This the tendency to lean towards guilty until proven innocent In England there are over 150,000 rapes each year (From the annual crime survey). Only about 5,000 are prosecuted, and only about 2,500 are convicted - and many of those are people pleading guilty. For the last year we have figures for there were 4517 prosecutions, 2635 convictions and 1882 unsucessful prosecutions. Of those convictions there were 1,522 people pleading guilty, and 1,112 people found guilty at trial. (One person found guilty in their absence). These numbers don't appear to support the idea that people are seen as guilty and have to prove their innocence.
  - tus87 8y ago
    Seen as guilty by who? We know the police do, as they admit as much. They explicitly say they have a policy of believing the victim at which point they sign up to the prosecution rather than investigating both sides. This is not in dispute - they openly admit it, usually as a reassurance to "victims". By the courts? Well if you look at the carriage of a trial, the fact the accuser gets to give evidence over a TV, advice to juries about "myths" (but never the myth that women never lie about rape), tight controls over what evidence the defense can even raise or how they can test the evidence against them (but not the prosecution)...the system is stacked against the accused in a way that is miles away from a fair trial. Simply allowing a trial without evidence could be said to be guilty until proven innocent. The jury? Well that varies, but given the proportion of not guilty verdicts, thankfully not most of the time. Juries aren't perfect, but the reason we have them is to protect the accused from people like you. If you had an ounce of self awareness you might put yourself in Mark Pearson's shoes and ask, if that was you, would you still be shilling for the CPS? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-accused-of-sexually-assault-on-actress-wants-apology-from-cps-over-bemusing-case-a6877036.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-...

lallysingh 8y ago

If your car is stolen, it's reasonable that your Google docs are read?

Zenst 8y ago
Whilst this law was born out of issues in recent false rape instances and it's intention is with that in mind. You raise a fair point, though I'm sure that use will not transpire - what guarantees does it give that it could be for any reason. Heck, budget cuts, i'd not be supprised if some local regional force mandate its usage just to reduce crime reports, gaming the stats just enough so that can keep their jobs and pension ticking over.
RcouF1uZ4gsC 8y ago
If you say your child was kidnapped, I bet that your Google docs might be read.
- colejohnson66 8y ago
  But why. What use would my Google Docs have?
  - pmichaud 8y ago
    Often when children go missing the parents are responsible or complicit in some way. People write things down all the time -- a google account may contain incriminating emails, IM messages, or other documents such as journal entries. I'm squicked out about the invasion like many are, and if I thought about it carefully I expect I would come out against the idea, but I can actually see the case for this invasion.
    - jhayward 8y ago
      > Often when children go missing the parents are responsible or complicit in some way. In that case, they are being investigated as suspects and should obtain all of the due process that suspects are afforded under the law. Reasonable suspicion, warrants, etc. should all be obtained - not "we won't investigate the crime unless you surrender your rights and permit us to investigate you as a suspect without warrant or cause."
- natch 8y ago
  That's different, because it's a dynamic situation with another person at risk where clues could help recover that person safely.
tus87 8y ago
Well let's see....someone reports a car as stolen but... - they have no evidence they ever had a car - bank records do not show evidence of any purchases of a car or insurance - registration records do not support the person had a car registered to them The yes the police will probably start investigating them for fraud as they do many of thousands of times are year, and they may well seek forensic computer evidence.

Zenst 8y ago

Valid points that many may disdainfully overlook. But nonetheless, still valid. But sex crimes do have a stigma in society and there is for many a reason, though mostly though historical injustices and injustices that still transpire today have produced. This the tendency to lean towards guilty until proven innocent, over innocent until proven guilty, can and do play out socially and in a majority of people's mindsets. Equally there have in the UK, there have been cases of false rape claims, for various reasons and access to all information pertinent in establishing a crime is what the law and justice demand. Whilst many may feel such actions as a blanket are bad taste, there have been instances in which justice would of been perverted had it not been forthcoming and justice for all is what is needed. Will this or any of the examples you outline hinder justice - nope. But if those examples are hindered, then justice suffers. Also worth noting that with this law, it will in instances help support the case and expedite it, think about domestic abuse here. So whilst it may leave a bad taste and for some victims, feel like an intrusion into their life, it is an intrusion that is in there best interest to help bring about swifter justice. If anything it just formalises full-disclosure and supeaner avenues and bureaucracy in courts - hence speeds up justice. Which is in everybody's interest.

DanBC 8y ago
> This the tendency to lean towards guilty until proven innocent In England there are over 150,000 rapes each year (From the annual crime survey). Only about 5,000 are prosecuted, and only about 2,500 are convicted - and many of those are people pleading guilty. For the last year we have figures for there were 4517 prosecutions, 2635 convictions and 1882 unsucessful prosecutions. Of those convictions there were 1,522 people pleading guilty, and 1,112 people found guilty at trial. (One person found guilty in their absence). These numbers don't appear to support the idea that people are seen as guilty and have to prove their innocence.
- tus87 8y ago
  Seen as guilty by who? We know the police do, as they admit as much. They explicitly say they have a policy of believing the victim at which point they sign up to the prosecution rather than investigating both sides. This is not in dispute - they openly admit it, usually as a reassurance to "victims". By the courts? Well if you look at the carriage of a trial, the fact the accuser gets to give evidence over a TV, advice to juries about "myths" (but never the myth that women never lie about rape), tight controls over what evidence the defense can even raise or how they can test the evidence against them (but not the prosecution)...the system is stacked against the accused in a way that is miles away from a fair trial. Simply allowing a trial without evidence could be said to be guilty until proven innocent. The jury? Well that varies, but given the proportion of not guilty verdicts, thankfully not most of the time. Juries aren't perfect, but the reason we have them is to protect the accused from people like you. If you had an ounce of self awareness you might put yourself in Mark Pearson's shoes and ask, if that was you, would you still be shilling for the CPS? https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-accused-of-sexually-assault-on-actress-wants-apology-from-cps-over-bemusing-case-a6877036.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-...