Fair points about it not being the system that's broken but I believe it IS the system itself which has become so screwed up that it can be abused by people with the wrong motives.

For example, the law being changed by then Home Secretary Michael Howard in the 90's enabling convictions of historical claims of abuse without any evidence was needed because innocent children, abused years earlier by vile men and women in care homes, wanted and deserved justice years later, when there was never any evidence.

But this has been so abused by villains looking to invent or exaggerate in order to get money or revenge or sympathy or whatever, that it is now producing hundreds of cases of miscarriages of justice.

And police saw a potential rise in conviction rates by helping false accusers.

As did the CPS.

And the media.

The law, changed for the best of reasons, is now actively promoting crimes.

There is and has been a problem with some people doing amoral things that are within the law.

There is and has been a problem with some people being amoral and "adjusting" evidence to fit a crime.

In our Courts people are paid to present a case for or against, often using careful language to reinforce their particular stand.

The accuser has an agenda.

The accused has an agenda.

With all these variables at work the outcome can very easily be a falsehood. It is the nature of the beast (Beast it is).

I can see many wrongs with this situation but I cannot see the right. I do not know how it can be universally improved.

We can tinker with wording so in a particular case the wrong is avoided but how do we do this for all?

Unfortunately what ever the system is it is still peopled by people and people will be people.

At best I feel we can minimise the wrong, not eradicate it and it will be ever thus.

I do not feel it is something we should shrug our shoulders over and say "Oh well, life's not fair". So what do we do, what can we do? We can speak and write, not on single cases but on the whole. We can take responsibility for our society, collectively we have the Justice system we deserve. When we see the wrong we must speak not shout, reason not rant. We must not become the people we despise.

By enlightening others on how the law works, how much Justice costs (Monetarily, physically and spiritually) and what could happen to any one of us perhaps we can creep a little closer to something we ought not be ashamed of anymore.

The rot is a symptom of us.

So the alternatative is zero justice for abused children, and let the guilty whose crimes are conveniently massaged by the hands of time walk free?

Hundreds of cases? How do you know? And how are you so sure that the child abuser isn't lying? And how can you determine which former child is telling lies about abuse? What if they are telling the whole truth?

In one stance you say it's a 'goof thing' and then say it's 'all rubbish' and the children now adults are liars?

Which is it to be?

Exactly the point Ivor - it's the system which is broken, not the law.
And Zoo, I agree, we need to put solutions in place which can still bring justice for the abused and protect the vulnerable whilst blocking the false accusers and those who promote indignity as a means of gain.

Zoo - you hit the nail on the head. The gradual moral decay of humanity, over many years, has been and remains the real problem.

I think we need to get back to basic principles - which is the point of the discussion.

And for me the worst aspect (which seems trivial) is the inflation and exaggeration that time, selfishness,, imagination and greed encourages.

All of which is promoted by the media.

As I keep saying, the vital thing these days is...

"Is it a good story?".

This area in particular demonstrates why there were, for many centuries, safeguards built into British Law to limit the chances of wrongful conviction. The Burden of Proof was on the prosecution for good reason. All persons were presumed innocent until proven guilty, for good reason. It is a far worse offence for the system to permit the conviction of an innocent person than to permit a guilty person to go free. The guilty person has already commited a crime. That cannot be changed, but the authorities have been alerted and the chances of a further offence can be reduced. On the other hand, an innocent person has done nothing, and the ordeal of being wrongfully convicted can cause irreversible devastation. We expect people to suffer at the hands of criminals, because such is the nature of crime. We do not expect, and should tolerate, people suffering at the hands of the legal system without evidence of a wrongdoing.

Michael Howard undermined the basic principles of British Common Law. He publicly acknowledged he had no concern for the "so called victims of the justice system."

The law must be objective and dipassionate. It must consider both sides as equal in a dispute and make judgements based on the facts alone. This puts everyone on the same level, which is the only fair way to operate.

On the question of whether there have been hundreds of cases of miscarriages of justice. One only has to observe the number of convictions overturned by the Court Of Appeal. Over the last decade there have been at least a hundred cases reported in various media, although most of these only make the local side columns. Many never get reported in the media at all. Each time a high profile "child abuse" conviction is overturned, the media call it the "Tip of the iceburg." - then they switch their attention back to Beckham, Doherty and Winehouse.

Well said, Cat.

Obviously another area where the law has been "tammpered with" is the new 2thought crimes" which reduce any burden of guilt being put on the prosecution and assume guilt unless the accuser can prove themselves innocent. Obviously in many cases you CANNOT prove a negative - so the entire system is stacked against you.

Let's get back to BASIC law - a person is INNOCENT UNTIL proved guilty, and let the accuser carry the burden of proving the guilt.

The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?

That is why Howard changed the law - without thinking through the likely ramifications.

The problem is, how does the 30+ yr old person prove that they were molested all those years ago, and why did they wait until after the huge boost in compensation rates to make their allegation? Also, how does a falsely accused person prove they did not commit some alleged crime 30 years ago, and why should they have to? It's difficult enough to prove you did not do something yesterday.

This raises the quesion of whether there should be a statute of limitations on certain crimes.

JK2006 wrote:
The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?

The unpalatable answer to that question is "They can't".

If there is no evidence for a crime there is no crime. Just because a particular crime is abhorrent we can't change that principle.

..in some ways I regret typing that, but it is true.

Well said, Cat.

Obviously another area where the law has been "tammpered with" is the new 2thought crimes" which reduce any burden of guilt being put on the prosecution and assume guilt unless the accuser can prove themselves innocent. Obviously in many cases you CANNOT prove a negative - so the entire system is stacked against you.

Let's get back to BASIC law - a person is INNOCENT UNTIL proved guilty, and let the accuser carry the burden of proving the guilt.

JK2006 wrote:
The problem remains ITK - how does someone molested as a little child with no evidence at all get justice 30 years later?

That is why Howard changed the law - without thinking through the likely ramifications.

Its very hard to see how this could be framed in law - without taking away normal rights of the accused (and thus reducing his possible defence and making it more likely than an innocent person will be convicted).

This is not going to please some posters here - but it may be that this is something that the molested will just have to "put up with" (just as they have to "put up with" having awful parents who don't take care of them / or having been born with an incurable disease).

At the end of the day it's up to the parents to PROTECT their children - reducing the barrier for conviction (so no evidence is needed at all) does not solve a crime - it just creates a new one.