UK Govt plans to give rape accused anonymity

oppenheimer1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8695367.stm

As the title of the thread says, the new government plans to give those accused of rape anonymity until proven guilty. On the one hand, I can see why this is a good idea, even if proven not guilty a mans life can be ruined by the accusation. Then again, sometimes trials collapse due to reasons not related to the crime such as a technicality.

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult".

She also said "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."


Also when you think about it, being accused of any crime damage your reputation (albeit quite as few as rape), so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume all defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded this protection.

What to AH think? Is this a good idea that we should copy?

Tar.Aldarion

Good idea.

HalloweenJack

Just look at that case about the kids in the UK. If their names had been let out, it would've been a tough life for them.

I fully agree with it. Accused shouldn't be labelled as rapists unless proven guilty.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Well it should certainly be considered and debated, it happens often enough and there are a lot of good names that are ruined as a result.
I don't see how it insults any rape victims, the biggest insult to rape victims are those who falsifying their claims

Indubitable

I love the idea.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Also when you think about it, being accused of any crime damage your reputation (albeit quite as few as rape), so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume all defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded this protection.

Remember what happened to Robert Murat?




This should be a poll, no?

Very good idea.. Same should extend to accused pedos.

oppenheimer1

Mods, if you could add a poll that would be great!

Edit: Never mind!

Hazys

Deleted User wrote: »

Very good idea.. Same should extend to accused pedos.

The case of child molestion against Fr. XXXX XXXXXXXX, covered up by His Holiness XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX

MikeC101

Might not be a bad thing.

Consider also that the majority of rapists are known to their victims, so it would increase anonymity for the victims too.

rovert

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult".

She also said "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."

You shouldnt have helped trump up so many false claims, love.

brummytom

Yep, it's a good idea. Too many men get their lives ruined by being labelled a rapist the second they're accused.

It's like that story the other week where those 10 year old lads were accused - everyone assumed they were guilty immediately. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

rovert

brummytom wrote: »

Yep, it's a good idea. Too many men get their lives ruined by being labelled a rapist the second they're accused.

It's like that story the other week where those 10 year old lads were accused - everyone assumed they were guilty immediately. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I like to think that thread and my posts helped to bring in this law.

pat58

Just my opinion but as a parent do you not think that you have the right to know if there is an accused kiddie cuddler living next door to you, anonymits is one , but how many times must it happen that rapes are commited and later its found out thats its not thats persons first time to offence,

Hammer Archer

pat58 wrote: »

Just my opinion but as a parent do you not think that you have the right to know if there is an accused kiddie cuddler living next door to you, anonymits is one , but how many times must it happen that rapes are commited and later its found out thats its not thats persons first time to offence,

Eh, first of all, what??
Second, what difference does it make if the person was found innocent?

Din Taylor

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult".

She also said "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."

What a load of feminist clap trap clearly not thought through. People like her wouldn't happen until every man who even thinks of having sex with a woman is put away for life. Surely giving the accused anonymity is far better than heavy sentences for false accusers - which is said to discourage women from reporting real cases of rape.

rovert

pat58 wrote: »

Just my opinion but as a parent do you not think that you have the right to know if there is an accused kiddie cuddler living next door to you, anonymits is one , but how many times must it happen that rapes are commited and later its found out thats its not thats persons first time to offence,

Do you what this thread is about?

SeaFields

pat58 wrote: »

Just my opinion but as a parent do you not think that you have the right to know if there is an accused kiddie cuddler living next door to you, anonymits is one , but how many times must it happen that rapes are commited and later its found out thats its not thats persons first time to offence,

Accused no, convicted yes. That my opinion anyway.

As for the rape thing, thats part of the justice system I believe. The jury would not be told of previous cases against the accused as it would create a prejudice. The media would often be told not to report on the history of the accused and this would have to be respected until after the verdict delivered.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

pat58 wrote: »

Just my opinion but as a parent do you not think that you have the right to know if there is an accused kiddie cuddler living next door to you, anonymits is one , but how many times must it happen that rapes are commited and later its found out thats its not thats persons first time to offence,

Well if he's proven guilty he'll be put on the sex offenders list.
Until such time as you are guilty you are presumed innocent
The fact issomeone can be falsely accused and, like you say, there may be parents nextdoor who are nervous and his life is made a misery although he has done nothing.

It happens so often and is something that should be addressed I can actually see constitutional grounds for this

Art 40.3.2 The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

PeterIanStaker

Bugger I clicked no, by accident! I think yes to anonymity innocent until proven guilty and all that.

mikom

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult".

So there are Women "for" Rape?

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Everybody should have the same right, not just the accused rapist.

SeaFields

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Bugger I clicked no, by accident!

Are you a fianna fail td by any chance ?

rovert

Phillip Helpful Baker wrote: »

Everybody should have the same right, not just the accused rapist.

Convincing point made in this post on this discussion forum.

mikom

rovert wrote: »

Convincing point made in this post on this discussion forum.

Convincing point made in this post on this discussion forum.... in Ireland, planet earth, The milky way.

rovert

mikom wrote: »

Convincing point made in this post on this discussion forum.... in Ireland, planet earth, The milky way.

Should just posted a google earth link to Iamxavier's post.

pat58

good old irish way ,head in the sand :eek:

Fanny Wank

I thought it was a case of innocent until proven guilty?

By all means name and shame after a conviction is secured

strobe

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Also when you think about it, being accused of any crime damage your reputation (albeit quite as few as rape), so wouldn't it be reasonable to assume all defendants accused of serious crimes be afforded this protection.

Yes. Yes it would. I can't see in anyway how it serves the public interest for someone accused of a crime, any crime, to have their name plastered all over the papers before they are found guilty.

My opinion is it should be in place for people accused of rape, or people accused of anything else. Mud sticks.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

strobe wrote: »

Yes. Yes it would. I can't see in anyway how it serves the public interest for someone accused of a crime, any crime, to have their name plastered all over the papers before they are found guilty.

My opinion is it should be in place for people accused of rape, or people accused of anything else. Mud sticks.

This is true. We already have anonymity protections that are rightfully in place for victims in child molestationcases which by default stretch to the alleged offenders.
I think that this should be a default for all sexual cases until such time as they are proven guilty.

pat58

Fanny **** wrote: »

I thought it was a case of innocent until proven guilty?

By all means name and shame after a conviction is secured

Sorry but i dont agree with you on this point ,Fore warned is fore armed {not literlly } but there is too many cases coming to light and people say afterwords if only we had known what they were like ,hence what i say the irish way head in the sand

strobe

pat58 wrote: »

Sorry but i dont agree with you on this point ,Fore warned is fore armed {not literlly } but there is too many cases coming to light and people say afterwords if only we had known what they were like ,hence what i say the irish way head in the sand

So..... anyone accused of anything, for whatever reason, should be under suspicion forever, because they might be guilty, even if the only system we have presumes them innocent?

Why not just execute everyone instantly, the minute there is any doubt presented at all, by anyone?

m@cc@

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

She also said "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."

Lots of women who report rape are lying or have a distorted view of events. Otherwise, why even bother with the trial? Hang him! (Granted, rapists are set free for other trivial reasons, but you know what I mean). As long as it doesn't affect an individual case, I don't see what this silly bint's problem is.

Euro_Kraut

pat58 wrote: »

good old irish way ,head in the sand :eek:

This is happening in the UK.

mconigol

proper order...

SugarHigh

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

[

Ruth Hall, of Women Against Rape, said the government's decision to grant anonymity to suspects was an "insult".

She also said "If men accused of rape got special rights to anonymity, it would reinforce the misconception that lots of women who report rape are lying."

The people who work for these groups seem to use any excuse to talk **** and get there name in the paper. Just like the rape group moaning about the hunky dory ads.

Morlar

SeaFields wrote: »

Accused no, convicted yes. That my opinion anyway.

As for the rape thing, thats part of the justice system I believe. The jury would not be told of previous cases against the accused as it would create a prejudice.

I would go along with anonymity until conviction in rape cases but I would have no issue with the court discussing the accused's previous convictions if any. I don't know if they do or don't currently but in my view a pattern or history of criminal behaviour does and should affect their credibility when giving evidence.

pat58

strobe wrote: »

So..... anyone accused of anything, for whatever reason, should be under suspicion forever, because they might be guilty, even if the only system we have presumes them innocent?

Why not just execute everyone instantly, the minute there is any doubt presented at all, by anyone?[/QUOTE you should look further than the bubble that you live in by saying {execute instantly} you live in quiet naieve world ,all things are not ever black and white,Ill be naieve and say if you have done noting wrong you have noting to worrie about ,now how naieve is that,

strobe

Morlar wrote: »

but I would have no issue with the court discussing the accused's previous convictions if any.

What they were suggesting doesn't happen in this country {or any country that I am aware of}. Suspect history is always always brought up by the prosecution. You just can't bring up things they were found not guilty of, which is spot on. But you can absolutely bring up previous convictions, it is usually the first thing the prosecution does. Usually at the bail hearing, way before the trial, but also during the trial.

strobe

pat58 wrote: »

strobe wrote: »

So..... anyone accused of anything, for whatever reason, should be under suspicion forever, because they might be guilty, even if the only system we have presumes them innocent?

Why not just execute everyone instantly, the minute there is any doubt presented at all, by anyone?

you should look further than the bubble that you live in by saying {execute instantly} you live in quiet naieve world ,all things are not ever black and white,Ill be naieve and say if you have done noting wrong you have noting to worrie about ,now how naieve is that,

Fixed your post. Also.....what???

I can't really decipher that Pat. Could you post it again, in clearer language, and I'll try to address it.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

pat58 wrote: »

Sorry but i dont agree with you on this point ,Fore warned is fore armed {not literlly } but there is too many cases coming to light and people say afterwords if only we had known what they were like ,hence what i say the irish way head in the sand

Lets suppose you are working in a care position. I then acuse you of a sexual offence for some reason or other, and I am completely wrong. Should you lose your job as a result?
Would your neighbours be justified in petitioning that you be moved somewhere else.

I'm not trying to have a go at you but I think it's always worthwhile to put yourself in someone elses shoes, just imagine you are the wrongfully accused.

pat58

strobe wrote: »

What they were suggesting doesn't happen in this country {or any country that I am aware of}. Suspect history is always always brought up by the prosecution. You just can't bring up things they were found not guilty of, which is spot on. But you can absolutely bring up previous convictions, it is usually the first thing the prosecution does. Usually at the bail hearing, way before the trial, but also during the trial.

There was a case three years ago on the sundayworld ware 3 irish lads were up for rape in england ,one of the lade were accused before and it could not be mentioned in court because he was found not guilty:mad: they were all set free

epgc3fyqirnbsx

pat58 wrote: »

There was a case three years ago on the sundayworld ware 3 irish lads were up for rape in england ,one of the lade were accused before and it could not be mentioned in court because he was found not guilty:mad: they were all set free

Well if someone is found not guilty of a crim then the crim never existed so why should they be found guilty??
This is peoples lives your dealing with here, can't lock people up on suggestions

Novella

Yup, it's a good idea.

pat58

strobe wrote: »

Fixed your post. Also.....what???

I can't really decipher that Pat. Could you post it again, in clearer language, and I'll try to address it.

excuse my spelling but i think you get what i mean,

m@cc@

pat58 wrote: »

one of the lade were accused before and it could not be mentioned in court because he was found not guilty:mad:

If he was found not guilty, then it should have no bearing on a case. If a person is found not guilty 100 times, it should have no bearing on a case. If you're including a not guilty verdict as part of evidence against someone, it makes a mockery of the legal system.

pat58

Adriana Bumpy Speedy wrote: »

Well if someone is found not guilty of a crim then the crim never existed so why should they be found guilty??
This is peoples lives your dealing with here, can't lock people up on suggestions

once again excuse my spelling ,because it could not be mentioned in court one was let free, returned home to ireland ,one year two of them struck again this time in newross wexford ,now two of them are serving seven years ,now maybe if the woman knew them she might not have let them in trying to sell a camera from door to door,

pat58

m@cc@ wrote: »

If he was found not guilty, then it should have no bearing on a case. If a person is found not guilty 100 times, it should have no bearing on a case. If you're including a not guilty verdict as part of evidence against someone, it makes a mockery of the legal system.

My understanding of mockery is when the victom is let down which happens all too often:mad:

strobe

pat58 wrote: »

excuse my spelling but i think you get what i mean,

I really didn't get what you meant man, wasn't having a go at your spelling, I can't spell for sh1t myself. I wasn't being facetious. I just don't understand the crux of your point in that post, and I would like to.

m@cc@

pat58 wrote: »

because it could not be mentioned in court one was let free

He was let free because there obviously wasn't a strong enough case. The burden of proof should always be with the prosecution.

pat58 wrote: »

My understanding of mockery is when the victom is let down which happens all too often

Not for the reasons you're implying.

pat58

m@cc@ wrote: »

He was let free because there obviously wasn't a strong enough case. The burden of proof should always be with the prosecution.

Say that to the victom that was branded a lier,the prosecution goes home and puts there head on the pillow and dont care, so what you are saying every thing is still black and white

m@cc@

pat58 wrote: »

Say that to the victom that was branded a lier,the prosecution goes home and puts there head on the pillow and dont care, so what you are saying every thing is still black and white

You can't convict someone on something that's 'grey'. The victim isn't necessarily branded a 'liar', there just isn't enough evidence to convict. Would you rather people were convicted purely on the victim's testimony?