Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Well it appears no action is being taken against Jim Davidson.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23787754
One of the things which bothers me about all this is that any number of people have or are going to have their names associated with this abuse and for those who're innocent there's virtually no way they can ever prove it. If it isn't incumbent upon the CPS to clarify just what they mean when they say 'insufficient evidence' perhaps it ought to be. It seems to me that the term 'insufficient' is extremely vague and doesn't allow the public to distinguish between 'virtually no evidence' and 'not quite enough evidence' for example. |
I think the CPS should simply say there is no case to answer. Saying insufficient evidence does give the impression there was something dodgy but not enough to go to court and thus leaves a suspicion of guilt on the person. We can't have a scenario where someone has such an accusation levelled against them stick because of the whims of the CPS. If there is no court trial there is no guilty verdict and if there is no guilty verdict then you're presumed innocent.