Man cleared of sex assault: Anonymity should be a right

tritium

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

The alleged rapists name should most definitely remain anonymous until/if proven guilty.

However, just because he is not proven guilty doesn't mean he is innocent, although it should be assumed as such. But for that reason, I don't think the alleged victim should be fined or jailed unless it is proven that it is a false accusation i.e. a confession is given. In that case, very harsh fines or jail sentences are needed in my opinion. False accusations are simply disgusting.

I think this is a pretty fundamental point. If teres a concern that a false allegation has been made then it should be investigated, and if appropriate prosecuted. However the person involved would have to enjoy the same presumption of innocence that any accused person has.

That said if the names of the originally accused weren't a matter if public record the fall out is far less damaging

who_me

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.

That's why I think it's incredibly difficult to call this. It's a horrible situation for the victim bringing a genuine case and for the defendant defending against a false one.

Odysseus

zenno wrote: »

What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

Nil, what do you think the media had done that is illegal? Sadly nothing, which is why it would be best if they where not allowed to publish names.

awec

There is a stigma associated with sex related cases that sticks even when the person is cleared.

For that reason, everyone should remain anonymous until they are found guilty. When they are guilty by all means publicly name and shame them.

It is outrageous that innocent people can have their name slurred and be found innocent in the end.

Unless it is clear that the accuser was being deceitful they should face no action. But anyone who is found to have deliberately falsely accused someone of rape should be named, shamed and have the book thrown at them. That is such a scummy thing to do.

ScumLord

Odysseus wrote: »

Nil, what do you think the media had done that is illegal? Sadly nothing, which is why it would be best if they where not allowed to publish names.

I haven't seen the story in a paper but from anything I've read in a newspaper they tend to refer to people as "sick monsters" and other emotive language. If they condemned him or attacked his character in any way surely he'd have grounds to sue.

Odysseus

who_me wrote: »

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.

That's why I think it's incredibly difficult to call this. It's a horrible situation for the victim bringing a genuine case and for the defendant defending against a false one.

No the court has show shown that there is nothing to prove that this man committed this act.

That does not mean the alledged victim was lying, it mean she could not prove he raped her, it does not show she lied. That would be a totally different matter.

If I was attacked by somerone tonight and named a person and the court found the not guilty; it does not mean I lied. It means it could not be proved, if there is proff that I lied then it becomes a different case.

No one would take a case against another person if they where deemed to be guilty of lieing based on a lack of evidence or the person getting off for other reasons.

Again this is why the media should not be allowed to name people.

Odysseus

ScumLord wrote: »

I haven't seen the story in a paper but from anything I've read in a newspaper they tend to refer to people as "sick monsters" and other emotive language. If they condemned him or attacked his character in any way surely he'd have grounds to sue.

Isn't such language usually only used post conviction?

Arcsin

You have to consider that if anyone ever googles this mans name, reports on this case will be the top result that will be found. That is going to stick with him forever.

There has already been posters on this thread hinting that there's no smoke without fire. There will be plenty of that in his own community too. It will be very hard for him to recover from this.

As other posters said not being convicted doesn't necessarily mean the victim is lying. However it should be rigourously investigated if there is any hint that this is the case and he/she should be prosecuted if sufficient evidence is found.

No system will ever be totally anonymous anyway. The only thing the courts can do is stop reporting of a persons name. Local communities will be well aware of identities of people involved.

Even courts.ie publishes the names of defendants in the Legal Diary section, including those who's named cant be reported. It's not difficult to find out the name of the defendant in any case.

Ficheall

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

Surely he was "found" or "deemed" not guilty or somesuch, as opposed to "proven"?
If it were "proven" that he were not guilty, then that does imply that the victim was lying, no?


Perhaps the accuser should now be named?

Gatling

The accuser should be named

who_me

Odysseus wrote: »

No the court has show shown that there is nothing to prove that this man committed this act.

That does not mean the alledged victim was lying, it mean she could not prove he raped her, it does not show she lied. That would be a totally different matter.

If I was attacked by somerone tonight and named a person and the court found the not guilty; it does not mean I lied. It means it could not be proved, if there is proff that I lied then it becomes a different case.

No one would take a case against another person if they where deemed to be guilty of lieing based on a lack of evidence or the person getting off for other reasons.

Again this is why the media should not be allowed to name people.

You're right - and perhaps I over-simplified in my post - but a problem remains.

If you treat "found innocent" as "is innocent of the crime", then the alleged victim must have been guilty of lying.

If you treat "found innocent" as "possibly guilty, but insufficient evidence exists to convict", then you end up with the defendant being acquitted yet still has a stigma hanging over them.

It's a horrible situation.

Killer Wench

How do we know she was lying? From reading the article in the OP, did it say it was shown her allegations were false? Or maybe just that the prosecutor did not meet the burden?

tritium

Gatling wrote: »

The accuser should be named

No they shouldn't! Neither party should be named until conviction for committing a crime has been obtained

grizzly

As others have said, being found not guilty could just mean that there is not sufficient evidence to convict. This does not automatically mean she is a liar.

BattleCorp

who_me wrote: »

But if he's been found innocent, then surely her accusations make her a liar? If she claimed he sexually assaulted her, and the court had determined otherwise, then she has lied.
.

Picture this scenario.

Supposing I rape you.

There are no witnesses and I leave no DNA because I wore protection etc etc etc.

If you go to the cops, maybe they will prosecute me and the case goes to court.

In court you need to produce evidence. At that stage it's your word against mine unless there is some other evidence that you can come up with.

I get 3 of my friends to lie and say I was with them at the time of the attack. You now have no evidence whatsoever and I have an alibi.

Because of lack of evidence I get found not guilty.

I have now been found not guilty so does that make you a liar?????



That said, I still agree with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

BattleCorp

zenno wrote: »

What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

What can he sue the media for? They just reported on a case that's in the public domain, i.e. a public courtroom.

belcampprisoner

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty


in this computer age you cant hide anything,

justice should not be hidden,


if your doing interviews outside the court steps your name is going to stay in the papers

GalwayGuy2

No, an accuser shouldn't be jailed or named in my opinion. It would increase the fear that a genuine rape victim would feel. It really is a messy situation, and I don't think anybody should be named.

But, it really is strange to read so many posts saying that he may still be guilty. It's reminiscent of victim blaming tbh.

fran17

belcampprisoner wrote: »

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty


in this computer age you cant hide anything,

justice should not be hidden,


if your doing interviews outside the court steps your name is going to stay in the papers

so does that mean that a percentage of the people convicted are innocent?

BattleCorp

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

No, an accuser shouldn't be jailed or named in my opinion. It would increase the fear that a genuine rape victim would feel. It really is a messy situation, and I don't think anybody should be named.

But, it really is strange to read so many posts saying that he may still be guilty. It's reminiscent of victim blaming tbh.

I'm not saying he is guilty in my post. I am just saying that "somebody" could be found innocent even though they did the crime. That doesn't make the accuser a liar.

He was found not guilty in court and that's good enough for me.

The accused should not be named unless there is a guilty verdict. Mud sticks, as they say. And then if he/she is guilty, their names should be plastered everywhere. It's not fair to name the person unless they are found guilty.

zenno

BattleCorp wrote: »

What can he sue the media for? They just reported on a case that's in the public domain, i.e. a public courtroom.

As was said over and over again regarding other posters comments here, his name should not have been released to the media or to the public court observers while innocent until proven guilty, how difficult is it for you to understand this basic concept.

This kind of junk only from a backward country like Ireland's justice system is what you'd expect maybe in the 1600's.

tritium

belcampprisoner wrote: »

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty

In the eyes of the law thats exactly what it means. If you mean in a more general "sometimes guilty people get off" way, well yes but so what? That's the price we pay for a system that assumes innocent until proven beyond reasonable doubt. Can you suggest something better?

in this computer age you cant hide anything,

justice should not be hidden,

Maybe you can clarify what part of teeing up someone who hasnt been convicted of any crime for a lynching fits in to the notion of justice? Lets assume we're talking first world trial and verdict justice rather than the hang 'em high variety. Do tell us if you're interpretation of justice is different!

if your doing interviews outside the court steps your name is going to stay in the papers

I'm pretty sure it's uncommon for the accused in a trial to volunteer to identify themselves on the steps of the courthouse. More commonly it's post acquittal as the only hope they have of having the vindication of their good name reported

hatrickpatrick

belcampprisoner wrote: »

just because he got off does not mean hes not guilty

In our democratic system, he *IS* not guilty unless he is categorically proven guilty. End of story.

kraggy

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

This is it in a nutshell.

zenno

bluewolf wrote: »

I think people are getting confused.
He was proven not guilty. His name shouldn't ha e come up in the first place.

But to those who insist she should be jailed for lying, you have to prove she was lying. Sure punish her, if she confessed she made it up. Or if you can prove she was lying and not just a case of insufficient evidence to find him guilty

Was there proof he was lying ? no, but his life 3 years in the past was hell and still is till this day, and the mental pain he will have to go through for many years to come.

Really, well as far as the media and the Island was concerned this poor man was guilty and dragged through hell for 3 years labelled as guilty for this time and basically destroyed his life and no-one "proved he was guilty" in these 3 years previous until a unanimous 2 hour verdict of not guilty was forwarded. The man has been found not guilty unanimously.

Make of it what you want but that accuser should be deeply investigated, also a detailed psychiatric report should be made on this accuser, i would go so far as to say an interrogation of the mind-set of the accuser should be held as well.

fryup

BattleCorp wrote: »

Supposing I rape you.

There are no witnesses and I leave no DNA because I wore protection etc etc etc.

in this day & age, not a chance

BattleCorp

zenno wrote: »

As was said over and over again regarding other posters comments here, his name should not have been released to the media or to the public court observers while innocent until proven guilty, how difficult is it for you to understand this basic concept.

This kind of junk only from a backward country like Ireland's justice system is what you'd expect maybe in the 1600's.

Originally Posted by zenno
What do you think his chances are of suing the media ?

I hope he at least tries.

Excuse me but I'm not talking junk. You mustn't have read my previous posts. I agree that his name shouldn't be released unless he was convicted.

A poster was saying that he should sue the media. I'm saying that there is no point sueing the media as they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. The media have broken no law as far as I am aware. That's the point I am making.

I agree that his name shouldn't be mentioned in the media unless he is found guilty but you can't sue the media because they released his name.

The system we have is fcuked up but you have to play by the rules and the rules say that the media are free to publish his name. Not my rules and I don't agree with them, but as the politicians say, "we are where we are".

Odysseus

zenno wrote: »

Make of it what you want but that accuser should be deeply investigated, also a detailed psychiatric report should be made on this accuser, i would go so far as to say an interrogation of the mind-set of the accuser should be held as well.

What do you think could be done here? In what way do you think this could be achieved?

dd972

NIMAN wrote: »

Yeah he has a point, as a certain amount of mud will always stick.

too true, ''no smoke without fire, yadda yadda yadda''

sometimes there's smoke without fire, they're called lies, and the poor ****er who's lied and rumoured about gets stuck with the acrid stench of the smoke.

SB2013

This thread is a sad indictment of Irish people and their understanding of the justice system. So what if the accuser is prosecuted and then found not guilty of making false statements? Should the original accused be retried? I mean, if the court found the victim was not lying as well does that not mean he was lying? A person being found not guilty does not automatically mean they did nothing wrong and the victim was lying.