Amazon.com Widgets

A man cleared of rape who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex is to go on hunger strike in protest over the ruling. Is this ruling going too far?

A man cleared of rape who must give police 24 hours’ notice before he has sex is to go on hunger strike in protest over the ruling. Is this ruling going too far?
  • Not guilty is not guilty.

    I was always under the impression that a Not Guilty verdict meant just that. It isn't really possible to be a little bit guilty - you either are or you are not - so why should an acquitted person have to have a little bit of a sentence? I think that ruling is very much a step too far and should be revoked.

  • I agree that this ruling goes too far.

    England and Wales allow for courts to issue Sexual Risk Orders (SROs) about people who are deemed to be a risk, even without a conviction. The concept of innocence before proven guilt is a powerful one, but this seems to violate that principle. The man was accused of rape but was then cleared, and so he should return to the same presumption of innocence that everyone else has.

  • Yes, ruling goes too far

    Certainly in this particular case I believe that the ruling goes too far. The accused gentleman was never proven to be guilty in a court of law so I do not feel that he should have his liberty curtailed. I feel that the principle of innocent until proven guilty should apply here.

  • The ruling is not going too far

    The ruling is not going too far. This is actually a good technique to make the man aware that others will be aware of his activity. It will surely make the man look out for both himself and the woman. The police might follow up with the two just to make sure all is OK.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.