• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Muliaina Arrested

William18 said:
I would employ someone found not guilty of rape but it would depend on other factors.

I think that in the court of public opinion people should be assumed not guilty until the trial happens. If the trial happens and someone gets off but there seems to be a high probability that they might have done it then they deserve to be judged on that.
Click to expand...

Well the court of public opinion is largely driven by media speculation and cultural assumptions. I think holding onto opinions of someone without taking a very vested interest in the case, and being presented every bit of evidence (not that which is only reported by the media) would be the only way that forming an opinion separate to the juries would be fair. For the most part, that just doesn't happen.
 
TRF_nickdnz said:
But the criminal justice system never rules people 'innocent' - simply not guilty. So someone who is undeniably innocent will be 'not guilty'. Because we are not privileged to all the facts surrounding a court case, we simply have to take the two as the same thing. Whether I would change my behaviour around someone who is proved 'not guilty', does not mean it is morally fair to do so - unless I am in possession of information in which I know the accused was wrongly acquitted.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Not guilty and innocent are two very different things, just for the record. There is a test in criminal law cases where you have to prove a certain act beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very high standard and it isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing the Westminster system has to perfect. If the prosecution isn't able to put forward a good enough argument, or even find pieces of evidence (that may exist but haven't come into their possession) then those would be barriers to reaching that standard. Innocent simply means there is something which puts you in the clear entirely, like a key witness or something. A lot of dodgy crooks have got off lightly in New Zealand's justice system as you well know. I doubt you'd invite them round for dinner - just because they got off means little in terms of the truth.

Anyway, I guess I'm sidetracking a bit here. The only point I wanted to make is innocent until proven guilty is fine; I was just speaking of society's attitude in general to rape. The burden of proof is fine, you can't work from the presumption that someone MUST have done it. But asking women what they were wearing, or instantly excusing someone because they're a sportsman is just rubbish. And it speaks volumes of how we mollycoddle certain people in society just because they're in the eye of the media, or play for our favorite club.
 
MotherRucker1 said:
Not necessarily. Not guilty and innocent are two very different things, just for the record. There is a test in criminal law cases where you have to prove a certain act beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a very high standard and it isn't perfect, but it's the closest thing the Westminster system has to perfect. If the prosecution isn't able to put forward a good enough argument, or even find pieces of evidence (that may exist but haven't come into their possession) then those would be barriers to reaching that standard. Innocent simply means there is something which puts you in the clear entirely, like a key witness or something. A lot of dodgy crooks have got off lightly in New Zealand's justice system as you well know. I doubt you'd invite them round for dinner - just because they got off means little in terms of the truth.

Anyway, I guess I'm sidetracking a bit here. The only point I wanted to make is innocent until proven guilty is fine; I was just speaking of society's attitude in general to rape. The burden of proof is fine, you can't work from the presumption that someone MUST have done it. But asking women what they were wearing, or instantly excusing someone because they're a sportsman is just rubbish. And it speaks volumes of how we mollycoddle certain people in society just because they're in the eye of the media, or play for our favorite club.
Click to expand...

Actually, the Westminster system of the "Beyond Reasonable Doubt" is a process that Defense and Prosecution tries to follow to win their case, and to uphold their ethics (which are dwindling more and more). In South Africa for example, you get 2 kinds of Rape, the normal Rape Crime, where the heinous act was done as we all know. And then we also have Statutory Rape, which is used in many other countries too. With Statutory Rape the accused just had to have sex with someone younger than 16 years to be convicted. If the Man for example had no idea that the girl was younger than 16, and that she consented to having sex with him, he'd still get a conviction against even though he's innocent of commiting the crime of Rape.

The term innocent isn't used that much by people in the law proffession. At least not here in SA. I think it's because it sort of has an absolute value connected to it, yet we all know not every person is completely innocent.

Also when trying to prove something beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't always result in getting off scott free. Look at Oscar Pistorius' trial as an example. The Defense proved beyond reasonable doubt that Oscar wasn't guilty of the act of Murder, yet the Judge ruled that he was guilty of Manslaughter, which wasn't an original count of what he was accused of. There are 2 factors to consider, a rule of law and a rule of fact, and sometimes the considerations brings out other penalties or crimes.
 
too many barrack room lawyers here.
half the lies people tell are not true !!!!
innocent until proved guilty
accused has the right to face his accuser
not guilty equals innocent.
accused has the right to be judged by his peers
prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
thats the system in the uk..........harsh sometimes but hard to see it can be any other way.
regarding not employing someone because they had been accused of a crime. the employer could possibly fall foul of employment law if it could be proved.
being arrested means very little, it just means you can be held and questioned.
you still have the right to remain silent but with a caveat.
 
steve9145 said:
too many barrack room lawyers here.
half the lies people tell are not true !!!!
innocent until proved guilty
accused has the right to face his accuser
not guilty equals innocent.
accused has the right to be judged by his peers
prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
thats the system in the uk..........harsh sometimes but hard to see it can be any other way.
regarding not employing someone because they had been accused of a crime. the employer could possibly fall foul of employment law if it could be proved.
being arrested means very little, it just means you can be held and questioned.
you still have the right to remain silent but with a caveat.
Click to expand...

Actually, An attorney may turn down a client if he/she feels that he can't properly defend the client. Whether it is ethics, moral standpoint or for financial reasons... In SA, we even have the right to excuse ourselves as the client's attorney when the court appoints us as the defendant's attorney.

Advocates are a whole different story though...
 
steve9145 said:
too many barrack room lawyers here.
half the lies people tell are not true !!!!
innocent until proved guilty
accused has the right to face his accuser
not guilty equals innocent.
accused has the right to be judged by his peers
prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
thats the system in the uk..........harsh sometimes but hard to see it can be any other way.
regarding not employing someone because they had been accused of a crime. the employer could possibly fall foul of employment law if it could be proved.
being arrested means very little, it just means you can be held and questioned.
you still have the right to remain silent but with a caveat.
Click to expand...

Backroom lawyer? Tell that to my backroom student loan debt after studying Law for 4 years. Just trying to add to some reason to the conversation rather than assumptive nonsense.
 
steve9145 said:
too many barrack room lawyers here.
half the lies people tell are not true !!!!
innocent until proved guilty
accused has the right to face his accuser
not guilty equals innocent.
accused has the right to be judged by his peers
prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt
thats the system in the uk..........harsh sometimes but hard to see it can be any other way.
regarding not employing someone because they had been accused of a crime. the employer could possibly fall foul of employment law if it could be proved.
being arrested means very little, it just means you can be held and questioned.
you still have the right to remain silent but with a caveat.
Click to expand...

You are a backroom English student by the looks of it.
 
'Half the lies people tell are not true' sounds so daft it could be a highly intelligent philosophical position.
 
Tigs Man said:
Doesn't sound good.
Click to expand...

No not at all. According to Walesonline, Mils will attend Cardiff magistrates Court on August 7th. The police made a point of saying '16 years old or older' in the statement. Is that just standard practice, or were they hinting that she was young?
 
Bluemoon said:
No not at all. According to Walesonline, Mils will attend Cardiff magistrates Court on August 7th. The police made a point of saying '16 years old or older' in the statement. Is that just standard practice, or were they hinting that she was young?
Click to expand...

Think that is standard procedure.
 
No major updates on this, but for anyone interested, Muliaina has appeared in court to confirm his personal details. He is on unconditional bail and will reappear in court on September 7.

"He is accused of sexual assault after "intentionally touching a woman, 16 or over, and that touching was sexual and she did not consent and he did not reasonably believe that she was consenting"."

At this stage his legal team have opted not to enter any plea. Not sure why, there is probably a valid legal explanation but he is 'expected' to plead not guilty when he is next there.
 
He was never asked to enter a plea. It's been made clear he will plead not guilty when asked and that his lawyers have strong evidence of their own to back up his version of events
 
This is really odd, goes against his personality, I don't believe he's guilty.
 
Charges have been dropped for a lack of evidence.

Apparently the original claim was for touching a 19 year olds bottom in a nightclub.

Don't get me wrong - any unwanted sexual contact isn't cool. But it seems a very extreme reaction (arresting him and dragging him out of a stadium with media attention) - I assumed it was something a bit more insidious. Either way he maintained his innocence and the charge was dropped.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Gavin
Pocock arrested - ARU warning
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
steve9145
S
iINDOMINUSxx
Tuilagi Arrested in Dublin
2
Replies
20
Views
8K
nickdnz
N
psychic duck
Former Springbok prop arrested for an on-pitch incident
Replies
3
Views
2K
TRF_heineken
TRF_heineken
lucky number 7
Munster player arrested
Replies
17
Views
3K
lucky number 7
lucky number 7
D
Bull prop Bees Roux arrested
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
TRF_Ezequiel
TRF_Ezequiel

Latest posts

Top