Wary Wolf said:
Isn't this a criminal case though? As such, they don't generally have 'settlements' rather, plea bargains.
I think Seth just meant it in the lay person sense. The same way I use "plea bargaining" sometimes on here to describe a certain set of actions that have nothing to do with the legal system, but which form a parallel to "pleading out."
Also, this kind of order is listed in the article as civil, and my 2 minutes on Google seems to back this up. In other words, such an order is not a criminal deal. Now, things tend to work at least slightly different in the UK than in the States, but such civil rulings are often made not due to conviction, but because of a present threat. I mean, this looks like a restraining order, which are sometimes offered in the US as a form of punishment or in conjunction with plea bargains. So this could still be part of a plea agreement maybe? Except the article says he was acquitted.
I agree we don't have all the facts, and if this is actually true (I agree with Miss Amyss, this is likely click-bait), hopefully an actual protest will occur.
Hm. Miss Amyss. I approve.
Where was I? Oh yeah.
The largest problem is that we don't have the facts. This could well set a precedent, but we don't know for what. Are guys going to be hit with these willy-nilly? Is it a precedent that someone considered a specific and significant threat might be treated as one? We don't know. Your last link in the first post refers to these as being used in cases where people are found not guilty due to insanity or handicap, but that doesn't end any particular danger they might pose to the populace. In the US, a person who murders someone and is declared not legally competent can still be remanded into the custody of a psychiatric facility, and I'm fine with that. Or the equivalent. But did that happen here? We don't know.
Was this guy innocent, or does he have a habit of not understanding what "no" means and got off on those grounds? Is he truly a victim, or is he a threat at large? We don't know.
JimB said:
Since the article cannot or will not discuss the particulars of the case, nor the reason for the special orders, I must say this seems like a completely useless story, being told only to generate outrage by the incomplete picture; and I thank Wary Wolf for the diligence of finding the law surrounding the orders to provide a more complete picture. The inference I feel left to draw is that the man in question has sexual tendencies that can be seen as predatory toward vulnerable women/children, and the courts have chosen to monitor him for a few months to make certain his lovers are not victims, but who knows if even that's right.
I mean, basically this. It's hard to know anything from the details given. The lack of detail actually seems quite irresponsible fro a journalistic standpoint.
