Re:How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral
by tomatocracy on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @05:19AM
(#22245533)
What used to be called Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction nowadays increasingly attach at the point of arrest (and even more so at the point of charging, even if an acquittal is the outcome of the trial) because of publicity (names end up in the press often when people are arrested and then are available on Google forever) and the fact that they'll be listed on enhanced criminal records checks (needed for entry to certain occupations like teaching or in many cases financial services).
Re:How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral
by 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @12:02AM
(#22244175)
> The arrest rate isn't important, it's the conviction rate that you need to be presenting.
Emphatically disagree. A slogan of totalitarian government is “the process is the punishment.” — no conviction necessary.
Re:How knitters got knotted in a purity spiral
by kerkeslager on Wednesday February 05, 2020 @02:24PM
(#22250157)
> The arrest rate isn't important, it's the conviction rate that you need to be presenting.
Being publicly arrested and held against your will, even for only 24 hours, is still a very significant punishment. If charges are filed and then later dropped, they can hold you longer or require you to post bail. It can cause you to miss work, especially if you can't make bail. Frivolous arrests are definitely a form of punishment without trial.
There's a very low bar to being arrested in England. The arrest rate isn't important, it's the conviction rate that you need to be presenting. Also, the law is developing (because that's how a system with case law works) so you need to be showing what's happening now, not ten years ago.
That last link isn't a great example. She engaged in a long running campaign of harassment, using two twitter accounts to harass and defame someone, including leaking financial and medical information. There's a reason the Daily Mail isn't a reliable source for wikipedia. These conversations always seem to place the right of some cunt to behave like an utter cunt above the rights of all the people who have to interact with that person to be protected from protracted campaigns of harassment. The UK and EU sees protecting the rights of others, protecting them from harassment and defamation, to be a legitimate aim.
Here's the Crown Prosecution Service page for communications offences committed on social media: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/social-media-guideline...