I’m no legal expert so
my terminology may lack some expertise. One thing that’s struck me this week
over John Terry, is that a court of law could not find him guilty due to the
need to be beyond reasonable doubt. The FA could however rule him guilty on the
mechanism of in all probability.
This got me thinking
about the law of the land with regard to racism and sexual assault/rape cases.
Very often, the nature of the evidence may mean there is insufficient
conclusive evidence to remove reasonable doubt. So what if we flipped these to
“in all probability”?
The issue is the
defendant… it may never be considered appropriate to imprison based on
probability. So perhaps courts need a two tier punishment system, and a jury
can decide on both counts within the same court case.
If a conviction beyond
reasonable doubt can be achieved, then go with the imprisonment option. If the
evidence falls short of such a conviction, then at least an “in all
probability” guilty verdict could be given. The penalty would be less (and in
the scheme of things obviously still not sufficient for someone getting off
committing such vile crimes), and could be in the realms of fines, sex offenders
register, criminal record, even suspended sentences and probably other
sanctions that my non-legal mind can’t think of.
At the very least this
would give a criminal record and ensure someone who very likely perpetrated the
crime, does not get a not-guilty verdict. I think however, it may be hard for
the victim to support the case if they felt their assailant was likely to be
out on the street after a probability ruling, but then that happens when they’re
found not guilty too.
