@izabsmiling wrote:
No not reversed .
As it is suspension from certain positions once charged until a the matter is decided in a legal manner and depending on the outcome.
Does holding people in custody/giving bail conditions 'pre-court hearing' in a way lean towards guilt ?
Hi Iza,
You raise a good point as to why the reversal may not be a great thing to apply universally or at least without reserve.
I think that you may have guessed that this line of thought sprung from the doctor and the rope thread. If not, I'll confirm that is why I have begun to consider the validity of at least having the option of a reversal of the presumption in some circumstances.
Would suspension from certain positions be a bad thing in cases such as that?
Someone has made an accusation and produced photographic evidence. I'm not really aware of what technological possibilities surround photography, but I would think that verifying the authenticity of photographs would be a reasonably easy and quick thing to do.
Those particular photos, assuming they are authentic, showed evidence of a pretty unorthodox practise by a doctor against a child.
Lets say the accusations were made. The photographs produced and authenticated as being genuine. Based on the content of the photos, in my mind, there is reason to arouse suspicion that there could be some validity in the accusations which could warrant further investigation.
In a situation such as that, where the very nature of the job puts even more children at risk, wouldn't it be a good thing for the accused to have restrictions or limitations applied immediately, rather than allow them access to the vulnerable until such a time as an arrest is made, in this case 5 months later.
Maybe laws could be changed, so that instead of immediate suspension, perhaps something like "supervised whilst under investigation" could be an option. Something as simple as having a second, independent person present whilst the doctor continued on with their practise.
I don't know about most dentists, but mine always has another person in the room, (the nurse with the sucky thing) so that concept isn't too foreign,
In a situation like this, the restrictions would assist in the protection of quite a few children over a 5 month period.
During this period of investigation, the children are protected, but the doctor has the opportunity to present explanations for his actions and arguments as to why he should not be convicted. The prosecution also has time to investigate and determine what if any charges should be laid and presented before a court for a ruling. Just like they do now.
I realize that this would be difficult to substantiate or initiate without some kind of mitigating evidence to begin with.
I'm also thinking that new laws or at least precautions could be implemented to protect doctors from false accusations i'e make it mandatory to have a second person present. We put safety guards on machinery and equipment as a precautionary measure. Why not employ precautionary measures for the protection of the doctor and ultimately the child?
Some people can go their whole lives and never really live for a single minute.
