Dylan Brown Charged with Sexual Offence

[Mojo]

And done well to slip in a photo of Jack in the article too, who although was stood down under the same rule was under a much worse charge. By putting it in there people will paint Dylan with the same brush which is wrong IMO.

Yes. But JDB's case was dismissed twice. It was terribly protracted but the courts and the appropriate legal processes didn't find guilt.

Hypotheticals:

1. If he played for those two years and was ultimately found guilty, the NRL and the club would, justifiably, be subject to criticism.

2. if he was sacked or unpaid for those two years and was subsequently found not guilty - or case dismissed - the NRL and the club would, justifiably, be subject to criticism - and probably have to pay retrospective compensation.

Hence, the no-fault stand down policy. IMO, it was applied, and it worked, appropriately and correctly.

To be completely fair, given that JDB's case was dismissed, the media would be well advised to not continue referring to it.

 

[Mojo]

Jack continued to be paid and was extended by the dragons, do you think if he wasn’t paid that whole time he was stood down that the NRL wouldn’t be responsible for loss of earnings considering he was found not guilty?

actually - case dismissed - rather than not guilty

 

[Frailty]

Not to appear to be taking sides here, but do you know if those stats are for all allegations?

10% is a lot tbh. Although obviously that's just one end of the scale. I'd be curious to see how the profile of the accused affects the stats. You'd reckon it's probably going to increase?

10% is definitely the high-end - most research I have seen comes to figures towards the 2-4% range.

It's obviously are hard-thing to study and capture accurately, most will classify false accusations as ones that there are never any charges laid because of insufficient evidence, or ones where charges are dropped prior to any proceedings. This obviously has flaws on both ends of the spectrum.

As for where the profile of the accused affects the stats - I haven't come across any studies that focus on that. However, it would be very interesting because whilst it would be easy to assume that high-profile people would be targeted more, it can just be as safe to assume high-profile people are also more capable of not being charged (let's just look at the celebrity of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris who were able to commit offences for years with no charges).

 

[mozza91]

Players meowing at each other = code in crisis.

 

[Pneuma]

Bullshit, you can’t stop young people from having a life.
He should be playing with the CCTV footage not allegedly not proving the charges. It doesn’t mean that he’s innocent.

Sure. Great sentence that second one by the way. I’m sure it meant something.

 

[Danish]

10% is definitely the high-end - most research I have seen comes to figures towards the 2-4% range.

It's obviously are hard-thing to study and capture accurately, most will classify false accusations as ones that there are never any charges laid because of insufficient evidence, or ones where charges are dropped prior to any proceedings. This obviously has flaws on both ends of the spectrum.

As for where the profile of the accused affects the stats - I haven't come across any studies that focus on that. However, it would be very interesting because whilst it would be easy to assume that high-profile people would be targeted more, it can just be as safe to assume high-profile people are also more capable of not being charged (let's just look at the celebrity of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris who were able to commit offences for years with no charges).

so the implication of that definition of “false” accusation is that any accusation that simply leads to a court case are considered “true”?

 

[Mojo]

10% is definitely the high-end - most research I have seen comes to figures towards the 2-4% range.

It's obviously are hard-thing to study and capture accurately, most will classify false accusations as ones that there are never any charges laid because of insufficient evidence, or ones where charges are dropped prior to any proceedings. This obviously has flaws on both ends of the spectrum.

As for where the profile of the accused affects the stats - I haven't come across any studies that focus on that. However, it would be very interesting because whilst it would be easy to assume that high-profile people would be targeted more, it can just be as safe to assume high-profile people are also more capable of not being charged (let's just look at the celebrity of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris who were able to commit offences for years with no charges).

Agree. Matters of accusations, charges, allegations, innocence, guilt are all judgment calls. That's why they go before judges and juries, who hear the evidence. Even at that point, guilt or innocence is still a matter of personal opinion. The legal system is intended to ensure that the opinions of those who are authorised to make the judgments are properly informed (whether it does so or not is a different debate). The point is that it's not reasonable to form an opinion otherwise.

 

[Maximus]

Y

Your right , I don’t want to understand how someone can make false accusations and ruin people’s career, marriage and family, that doesn’t sound like a just world to me.

Being found not guilty doesn't make an accusation false.

 

[Mojo]

Y

Your right , I don’t want to understand how someone can make false accusations and ruin people’s career, marriage and family, that doesn’t sound like a just world to me.

A person can be sued for making false accusations.

Re: 'ruin people’s career, marriage and family' - hence the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

It is people who decide innocence or guilt and broadcast their ill-informed opinions without having the knowledge or proper authority to do so that cause such 'ruin'. It's those prejudices and egomanias that empower false accusers (This being true whether it's a matter of mere gossip through to the the worst of crimes).

 

[Bazal]

As for where the profile of the accused affects the stats - I haven't come across any studies that focus on that. However, it would be very interesting because whilst it would be easy to assume that high-profile people would be targeted more, it can just be as safe to assume high-profile people are also more capable of not being charged (let's just look at the celebrity of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris who were able to commit offences for years with no charges).

Yeah I don't think you'll ever get clear and accurate stats on any of it, especially the super high profile who can just pay for it to go away. Still it'd be interesting. There are plenty of scummy people who would be keen for a quick buck and think the VP of a national bank or a partner at an international law firm might pay for allegations to go away, false or not, rather than facing the sack as it goes through the process.

This is a tangent though, I'm not suggesting it's the case here either way

 

[Bazal]

If a contract ends, it ends. Full stop. You can't sue someone for not giving you a contract.

Well you can, just not for the reasons he's talking about

 

[Last Week]

It's quite a grey area... it's not always lawful to terminate someone just because they were charged with a crime

Not uncommon either.

Happens all the time with cops that are charged, teachers, happening to Paul Kent now.

Can you imagine the lawsuit that would follow should an employer sack someone who is later found not guilty?

Let alone the prejudice that could occur should an employer prejudge a person's guilt before a jury, judge or magistrate.

 

[Frailty]

Yeah I don't think you'll ever get clear and accurate stats on any of it, especially the super high profile who can just pay for it to go away. Still it'd be interesting. There are plenty of scummy people who would be keen for a quick buck and think the VP of a national bank or a partner at an international law firm might pay for allegations to go away, false or not, rather than facing the sack as it goes through the process.

This is a tangent though, I'm not suggesting it's the case here either way

I think it's important to note there is a significant difference between civil and criminal matters. The idea that victims of sexual abuse are doing it for financial gain when it's in a criminal proceeding where they don't actually gain anything is ridiculous.

 

[Mojo]

Well you can, just not for the reasons he's talking about

Of course - but I didn't want to mention in case another irrelevant discussion ensued.

 

[Frailty]

so the implication of that definition of “false” accusation is that any accusation that simply leads to a court case are considered “true”?

I mean, if that's what you want to take away from it. As I mentioned, it depends on the study because it's quite difficult to class what exactly determines a false accusation. It would be reasonable to assume that there are sexual assaults that occur where there isn't sufficient evidence to lay charges so they're not really false accusation - so it works both ways.

However, since you folks love to keep persisting with the 'innocent until proven guilty' line, then you must apply that to accusing anyone of making a false accusation. Unless they are proven guilty of doing so (and remember it is a criminal offence) you must presume their innocence.

 

[Bazal]

I think it's important to note there is a significant difference between civil and criminal matters. The idea that victims of sexual abuse are doing it for financial gain when it's in a criminal proceeding where they don't actually gain anything is ridiculous.

Sadly it does happen. There was a semi recent case of rape allegations against a college student (I think) in the US who committed suicide as a result, and the alleged victim came out some time after and admitted to making it up. Although I think that was more personal than for gain, I don't follow criminal law closely so stand to be corrected.

But yeah it's unbelievably rare. The incels of the internet seem to think false rape allegations are happening every weekend for some reason.

 

[Frailty]

Sadly it does happen. There was a semi recent case of rape allegations against a college student (I think) in the US who committed suicide as a result, and the alleged victim came out some time after and admitted to making it up. Although I think that was more personal than for gain, I don't follow criminal law closely so stand to be corrected.

But yeah it's unbelievably rare. The incels of the internet seem to think false rape allegations are happening every weekend for some reason.

I never meant to insinuate that false accusations don't happen at all. That would be a foolish stance to take.

My point is there is a significant difference between a civil and criminal matter. In criminal matters, it is up to the police to lay charges and prosecute them. There isn't a financial gain for the victim in this instance. Even if the victim refuses to give evidence, the police can proceed with proceedings if they have enough evidence.

When it comes to civil matters, that's a different story that isn't relevant in this case.

 

[Mojo]

so the implication of that definition of “false” accusation is that any accusation that simply leads to a court case are considered “true”?

Of course, an accusation is a prerequisite for a court case. A court case exists in order to judge the truth or otherwise of the accusation. So, the existence of a court case implicitly doesn't confirm that the accusation is "true". Nor does it confirm that it's "false". An accusation can be "true" and the court case can still lead to a innocent verdict. A "false" accusation, for obvious reasons, is less likely to result in a guilty verdict. The burden of proof is with the prosecution so a "false" accusation is likely to be a waste of time and money.

Nothing is as simple as black and white though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't need courts and judges etc. We could just 'burn the witch' because we're all on the same page about what's right and wrong, aren't we.

 

[Bazal]

I never meant to insinuate that false accusations don't happen at all. That would be a foolish stance to take.

My point is there is a significant difference between a civil and criminal matter. In criminal matters, it is up to the police to lay charges and prosecute them. There isn't a financial gain for the victim in this instance. Even if the victim refuses to give evidence, the police can proceed with proceedings if they have enough evidence.

When it comes to civil matters, that's a different story that isn't relevant in this case.

Yeah I didn't mean to imply you did insinuate that either tbh. Just interested in the discussion really

Employment law is pretty much my 9-5 these days and even though it's almost exclusively civil you still get plenty of people who have no idea what that means, think it's criminal, and are looking for a pay out. And more often than not the allegations are misguided or totally false. Very different allegations obviously...although you'd be surprised lol.

Anyway I think ultimately we're both saying much the same thing when it comes to false allegations in a serious criminal area, I'm just more cynical about the lengths some people might go to.

 

[Danish]

I mean, if that's what you want to take away from it. As I mentioned, it depends on the study because it's quite difficult to class what exactly determines a false accusation. It would be reasonable to assume that there are sexual assaults that occur where there isn't sufficient evidence to lay charges so they're not really false accusation - so it works both ways.

However, since you folks love to keep persisting with the 'innocent until proven guilty' line, then you must apply that to accusing anyone of making a false accusation. Unless they are proven guilty of doing so (and remember it is a criminal offence) you must presume their innocence.

Oh I do. I think most cases are simply neither true nor false. It’s impossible to prove either way. Cases thrown out before reaching the courts aren’t necessarily false and cases that make it to trial aren’t necessarily true.

the only one we can really assume are true are those that attract conviction. The only ones we can assume are false are ones with absolute proof that the person was lying (which I assume is not often able to be done).

Of course, an accusation is a prerequisite for a court case. A court case exists in order to judge the truth or otherwise of the accusation. So, the existence of a court case implicitly doesn't confirm that the accusation is "true". Nor does it confirm that it's "false". An accusation can be "true" and the court case can still lead to a innocent verdict. A "false" accusation, for obvious reasons, is less likely to result in a guilty verdict. The burden of proof is with the prosecution so a "false" accusation is likely to be a waste of time and money.

Nothing is as simple as black and white though, is it? Otherwise we wouldn't need courts and judges etc. We could just 'burn the witch' because we're all on the same page about what's right and wrong, aren't we.

you are basically in agreement with me.

outside of guilty verdicts it’s pretty much a fool’s game to try and apply any statistical analysis to true and false accusations. So applying any number to such things is pointless