Should those accused of rape be given anonymity

awec

This post has been deleted.

Kev.OC

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

As I say, just playing devils advocate to see what others think. I'm not sure myself to be honest. I think everyone accused shouldn't be named straight away. And those convicted certainly should be named. I suppose it just comes down to whereabouts in the process you think that line between anonymity and infamy should be drawn.

Madam_X

saintsaltynuts wrote: »

Cleared Of Murder= Applause.
Cleared Of Bank Robbery= Applause.

Really?

Yes I agree there should be anonymity for anyone for any crime. Trial by media is a complete farce, and it's getting worse now with such advances in communications technology.

How realistic and workable this is though, I don't know. Not knowledgeable enough on the area.

Piliger

Kev.OC wrote: »

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

What an appalling supposition. You are basically saying that someone must be 'tainted' by guilt if the prosecution think he is and go all the way to court ? Huh ????? Have you ANY idea how the system works and the number of people who have been found to have been totally and utterly and completely innocent after the prosecution scream and yell guilt all the way to the verdict ?

Piliger

LostPassword wrote: »

Ridiculous thread.

Well I guess men's rights and justice means nothing to you.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

You appear to be under the delusion that names are only announced by the prosecution when a trial is reached. This is wrong.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made.

Wrong. Where is your evidence of your claims that rates of prosecution are extremely low ? do you any independent evidence ? And on what do you base you claims that the accused are anonymous ? Because you are clearly and self evidently wrong.

And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

You make no sense whatsoever. The whole justice system is based on the view that better a thousand go free than one be falsely found guilty.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea.

Why is it that anonymity for women doesn't necessitate secret trials ?

I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

The only fanaticism appears to be coming from you. Your misandrous rant is clear for all to see.

Dr Galen

LostPassword wrote: »

Ridiculous thread.

In this case it never went to trial - it was dismissed during the investigation and hence anonymity or not would have made no difference as those against whom the allegations were made are and remain anonymous.

Due to the extremely low rates of prosecution for rape, never mind conviction rates, anonymity is retained for almost all of those against whom allegations are made. And there is every reason to believe that the number of false accusations that actually make it to trial are absolutely tiny. Of course, it's an absolute terrible thing for anybody who faces such a situation, but no legal system can eliminate all such problems and it's so unusual that it's hardly a huge systemic problem worth getting rid of the basic democratic concept of public trials which was fought for over centuries against royal power and is one of the cornerstones of modern liberal democracies.

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts. And I'm sure they'd be totally happy to believe any convictions that emerged from in camera rape trials.

LostPassword wrote: »

No, the phrase means the fanatics amongst the mens' rights movements, according to the normal rules of English grammar.

Can I ask you to remember which forum you are posting in here please.

Throwing around words like fanatic and generally posting in quite an aggressive manner is not going to lead to anything good tbh. By all means make your points but as I say, tone it down a bit and remember this is The Gentleman's Club

@everyone else - lets all take a nice deep one here and not have what is a good thread topic descend into something bad

Cheers

DrG

saintsaltynuts

Madam_X wrote: »

Really?

Yes I agree there should be anonymity for anyone for any crime. Trial by media is a complete farce, and it's getting worse now with such advances in communications technology.

How realistic and workable this is though, I don't know. Not knowledgeable enough on the area.

I'm really talking about being cleared of sexual assault.People will always think Did he or didn't he.Life is ruined i think.

Kev.OC

Piliger wrote: »

Kev.OC wrote: »

I suppose in an ideal world, if someone were falsely accused of rape, the truth would be discovered during the course of the police investigation, eliminating the need for a trial, and therefore keeping the accused anonymous.

Just to play devils advocate here for a bit and run with the "no smoke without fire" line, surely for an accusation of rape to make it as far as trial, the prosecutor must believe they can get a conviction? So someone is brought to court but found innocent. But in order to get as far as court there must have been evidence, no? If someone is going up in court, obviously the prosecutor believes they have enough evidence to prove the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So upon the case going to trial, should the accused then be named?

What an appalling supposition. You are basically saying that someone must be 'tainted' by guilt if the prosecution think he is and go all the way to court ? Huh ????? Have you ANY idea how the system works and the number of people who have been found to have been totally and utterly and completely innocent after the prosecution scream and yell guilt all the way to the verdict?

I'm saying nothing of the sort. As I pointed out in that statement, I was simply playing devils advocate. I'm well aware people are found innocent for a range of charges on a regular basis, so please don't confuse me for someone who follows the above (i.e. "no smoke without fire) line of thinking.

This is the paragraph of mine you didn't quote;

wrote:

As I say, just playing devils advocate to see what others think. I'm not sure myself to be honest. I think everyone accused shouldn't be named straight away. And those convicted certainly should be named. I suppose it just comes down to whereabouts in the process you think that line between anonymity and infamy should be drawn.

What I'm saying is this. I think we can all agree that no one should have their name dragged through the papers at the slightest hint of a wrong-doing. I also think we can all agree that upon conviction, any right to anonymity is relinquished. But surely to go from anonymity to infamy, a line must be crossed. And where in the process would that line be drawn? After conviction perhaps? I don't have any answers for these questions myself, I'm merely putting forth some food for thought.

Also, are people in favour of private trials behind closed doors, or does the justice system, as a poster pointed out earlier, have to be seen by the public to be taking action on those accused of crimes? Because if it's the latter, you couldn't have private trials behind closed doors, and then you're back the the "where do you draw the line" argument.

iptba

LostPassword wrote: »

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea. I'm sure that the mens' rights fanatics would just love that - sure don't they just love the in camera hearings in the family courts.

I've never done or seen a poll*, but I've heard plenty of fathers' rights and mens' rights activists complain about the "in camera" rule and want it relaxed; nothing stands out in my memory in terms of any fervently calling for it to stay.*

*but, of course, it's hard to remember everything that is said

The Corinthian

Kev.OC wrote: »

Also, are people in favour of private trials behind closed doors, or does the justice system, as a poster pointed out earlier, have to be seen by the public to be taking action on those accused of crimes? Because if it's the latter, you couldn't have private trials behind closed doors, and then you're back the the "where do you draw the line" argument.

I'm not sure you can really claim that protecting the identities of the parties involved until and unless a guilty verdict is announced can really be described as being behind 'closed doors'. After all, reporting can still take place; the only thing that cannot be reported is the identity of the defendant.

This is already something afforded to minors, as well as the victims of rape (AFAIK), and I don't really see many arguments against these examples in the name of 'transparency'. Or should their identities not be protected?

Piliger

LostPassword wrote: »

If we were to protect the anonymity of the accused that means basically secret trials - brilliant idea.

No it doesn't. Trials can very easily remain open, just as they are now with anonymity for the alleged victim. You have limited imagination is would appear.

Snowie

yes until proven guilty....

Meirleach

I'm pretty sure that everyone should be anonymous until proven guilty...it would really cut the rug out from under the redtops as an additional perk ;-)