3 ms·

In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a

In the event that happens, it does not rule out krisoft's hypothesis about the purpose of these inquiries. I would point out that if criminal proceedings are a possibility, the presumption of innocence will have the consequences listed in krisoft's post, and while these consequences are convenient for the people and institutions directly and tangentially responsible, it does not follow that this convenience is the inquiry's only purpose. Is there a serious possibility of criminal prosecutions arising from this inquiry? if not, then conducting them as if that possibility existed might itself be seen as a delaying tactic.

petesergeant 2y ago
Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
- mannykannot 2y ago
  I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
- krisoft 2y ago
  > I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
  - petesergeant 2y ago
    Nothing springs to mind, and I’m too lazy to research it, but in lieu, here’s an interesting adjacent article: Why the next Westminster scandal is already here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-westminster-scandal-is-already-here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-we...

petesergeant 2y ago

Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions. If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.

mannykannot 2y ago
I imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
krisoft 2y ago
> I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
- petesergeant 2y ago
  Nothing springs to mind, and I’m too lazy to research it, but in lieu, here’s an interesting adjacent article: Why the next Westminster scandal is already here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-westminster-scandal-is-already-here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-we...