according to Maura McGowan.
that seems sensible
not every accused man/woman is guilty and this kind of accusation isn't easily forgotten
and a staunch feminist girl I was friends with exploded with rage on FB.
I said it was good as it meant that we only expose these people once they've been proved guilty by law.
Apparently, that meant I was protecting rapists. Whereas of course, it meant I was protecting the rights of the accused until proven guilty by a jury.
I genuinely did not mean to respond to this post.
Is this some DiS conspiracy or something?
and why should we not have the right to know the results of a trial?
in knowing someone hasn't committed a crime?
Isn't there a public interest in an open and transparent legal system?
just not necessarily who was found innocent.
I don't think it should just be for rape.
which would assist both those falsely accused and those seeking justice?
But I think all arrested people should do.
trial by jury and all that
given i have no faith in the general public anyway. stopping tabloids doing shit like that seems like a tangential benefit
oojimaflop's idea of anonymity until an actual defendent is interesting
You only become a defendent if there is a case to answer (this doesn't automatically imply someone is guilty of course). The best way to nip false accusations in the bud would be to prevent an initial burst of publicity.
Or Robert Murat
Jefferies was never charged but was arrested.
Stagg was charged and acquited.
Murat was listed as an official suspect under Portuguese law.
that trial-by-media can ruin many different people's reputations.
But I'm trying to stress that they are all techincally different in terms of how they legally proceeded- for example, Murat's case came about under the differences between Portuguese law and our own. Even if we changed our law, it would still have happened. I'm arguing that the restriction should be placed at arrest, not when someone is charged.
WHO GIVES A CUNT ABOUT THREE PEOPLE!
I'll kill three fucking wretched cunts! Only three! Who cares about 3! FUCK THEM. I only care if it's like thousands.
Also, these are the only three people ever that it's happened to!!!!11 Just them!!! Fuck all those other twats who got falsely accused. Fuck all the injustices over the 20th century, it's just these 3!!!! Not only that, it's only three lives ruined! WHO GIVES A CUNTING FUCK!
3? Ha! Why would anyone care about THREE STINKING LIVES?
killed Millie McCann.
and alot of people believe there's no smoke without fire and all that nonsense
but given (we can safely assume) that many rapes and sexual assaults go unreported, and that the majority of complaints made do not go anywhere in either the public or legal spheres, I don't really understand why there's any grounds swell in favour of this sort of move.
i can see the pros and cons of both, i think PROBABLY that transparency is the better case scenario, not ideal tho.
someone accused of a crime will be splashed all over the front of the papers
but if they're found innocent then the verdict doesn't have half the publicity so the public are left with a lasting impression that 'no smoke without fire' or that they got away with it somehow
but i also get all the arguments about barriers to victims coming forward.
not sure there is an ideal solution really
not like anyone's lives have been ruined by false accusations and the press dragging them through the mire
not like any juries have been prejudiced by media attention
Imagine all the extra cost and paperwork involved when the rapist's anonymity is lifted which leads to other previous victims coming forward and thus having to start fresh proceedings. It's giving me a headache just thinking about it. Plus it doesn't seem very nice for the victim.
does anyone have the link to Lucien's flowchart?
where the respondent was known as 'X'. He was legally anonymous. However, as he was the one standing in front of the judge having his photo taken with his arm round the shoulders of his lawyer, you kind of worked out which one was him.
thinking of the real victims in sex crime cases for once.
that weren't guilty.
That's important too, right?
Oh aye, they weren't convinced by the research. As there's no research whatsoever here into the harm caused by non-anonymity of defendants, I'm afraid I'm going to have to remain unmoved.
Exactly agree with you though. As someone said in the last thread (i think), the presumption should always lie that the victim isn't lying that a crime has been committed.
The legal system has, and will continue to make presumptions in that way. The big problem is the way the press, and now social media, go over the top when an arrest, or a charge is brought forward. I agree that, in a limited number of cases, this is a serious problem.
But I can see more problems from effectively making courts and charges hidden. What about the cases where someone is charged with rape, which gives other victims the encouragement to come forward? That could be the difference in someone being brought to Justice and not.
The number of people publicly implicated in an accusation of rape or sexual assault who are not later successfully prosecuted is pretty much negligible.
It's a valid suggestion to protect these people.
Like Craig Charles for example.
Without significant and reliable evidence, there's no way to justify the time and expense it would take to change the system.
#The number of people... is pretty much negligible#
#Yes but what about this one exception?#
then used a notable example.
You can pretend I said otherwise if you like though.
You know, pointing out the exceptions - those who have their lives ruined by being accused of things that they are innocent for - is an important thing to do.
don't worry yourself.
but either do not report the incident or are unable to pursue a successful prosecution is significantly larger than the number of people who are incorrectly publicly implicated by an accusation of rape or sexual assault?
the problem is the attitude of the press on the way they report these things, not that a charge is public in the first place.
even though we are both speculating here in the absence of stats.
but we can leave that to the side momentarily, I'm sure. What would be far more interesting would be discussing how you would reconcile acceptance of the above fact with the notion that the small number of falsely accused need protection the likes of which is not afforded to the actually raped.
I'm not saying it's not true, I'm saying you are most probably are right, but opinion needs to be backed by evidence, else we're both spouting worthless conjecture.
In relation to your second point, I'm pretty sure the identity of the victim is protected. I assume you're talking about after the accused is found innocent.
I'm not sure what happens there. I'd assume the identity of the victim can be revealed as according to the judicial system, they will not be considered a victim as a crime did not take place. Is this right? Probably not. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be protected as well. Of course they should.
It's pretty difficult to talk about details when no-one can produce, or will look for stats, or is there a source of authority here about legal protocol.
All I'm saying is it's worth protecting those falsely accused of serious (sexual and non sexual) crimes.
I can't see why this has got everyone so angry.
there aren't many stats. You might like to read this parliamentary debate though:
It would only be if the accuser was found to be making malicious allegations or committing perjury etc that it would be lost (can also be lost if the person dies, if the crime was committed abroad, or if they willingly volunteer to surrender their anonymity, for example if they want to speak to the press).
Example - this case (which happened at my uni) - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-528568/Why-Cambridge-graduate-trial-sex-assault-drunken-night-passion.html
If you google his name this is still the first thing that comes up, but I still don't think there's enough cause to change the law.
which victims of every other crime do not possess. As a reporter covering a rape case in court, I could not name the victim, whereas I could name the defendant.
up until you are blue in the face, and I have no doubt that being falsely accused was horrible, but
a) he would still have to go through most of the pain of being falsely accusded in the first place.
b) His career wasn't tarnished by it. The acquittal cleared his name.
who spent time in prison, was all over the tabloid press as a rapist and had to go through an entire trial to clear is name was ok?
His name is still linked to rape, and always will be.
If his identity was protected, a lot of those problems would never have happened.
Surely you can see this is a reasonable point?
What happened was completely horrible for him, and he genuinely has my every sympathy. His name should not have been dragged through the muck like that, but that is as much a question of media ethics.
But, if he was granted anonymity (whatever that means), he still would have had to have gone to prison and have a trial to clear his name.
but for every example we remember (Murat / Jeffries / Stagg / Kelly / Charles) because they're famous, there's many others in the papers (especially local) that we don't even think about.
With anonymity of the accused, this isn't an issue. Lives aren't ruined by false accusation / bad evidence. Until they're found guilty, then fine, let the world know. Innocent people do get arrested and do go to court.
It's a fair enough argument to consider their anonymity as the accused and as emotive as sexual crimes may be, the logic doesn't just apply to these cases. It should be for all major crimes.
I think arrests should be anonymous. As I tried to stress earlier, Jefferies was never a defendant and was never charged. In my opinion there is no way that his name should have been given to the press.
After being charged, when a case is going to court, I think things are different. Public knowledge allows more witnesses and evidence to be brought forward. This could also help those who are wrongly accused.
You are right in saying that rape is an emotive issue, so it makes it hard to be level headed about. I think it's better to think about other examples of crimes instead.
Yr a good man
That and my massive gob.
Difficult issue for sure.
One thing to add though would be that it seems to me that a lot of people are assuming that when someone is found innocent (or, not guilty) in one of these cases it is because they actually are. In a lot of cases there a multitude of other reasons, stemming from things such as the aggressive questioning of victims, the still prevalent 'you were drunk and asking for it' viewpoint of many judges and jurors, and the difficulty in proving such a thing.
just a quick point. I haven't thought it through a great deal (obviously)
Thread not appearing correctly? Click here to rebuild |