On May 20, 10:15 am, Dissenter wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 17:00:25 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
> wrote:
> >On May 19, 11:51 pm, Dissenter wrote:
> >> On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:17:15 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >On May 19, 7:38 pm, Jeremy wrote:
> >> >> Is MAPPA used for convicted . offenders only or can it be applied
> >> >> to non convicted offenders the police believe to be high risk?
> >> >The former.
>
> >> >How would a non-convicted person be deemed any risk?
>
> >> By being accused by someone?
> >Yes, it would go as soft intel, but risk is made by a formal
> >assessment, all else is hearsay.
>
> How does this "formal assessment" work, and does the 'accused' have
> any right to challenge it, or even know that it is taking place?
>
> --
> Dissenter
I am speaking of formal risk assessment, carried out by the
authorities, post-guilt (and before). Yes, the subject is well aware
of it !!!
What they say, goes, but, of course, it may be interpreted, in many
ways, later, by courts/history etc.
Everyone is a risk in plod's eyes.
WM |