Should people accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity?

RainMaker wrote: »

I think most people would support it, but there are some possible consequences....

What's to stop the accused from sitting down with a local friendly journalist (a la Michael Lowry ) and portraying himself as the falsely accused victim in the whole case...

Then again it wasn't so long ago that some wonderful people in Listowel showed their approval for a convicted rapist while vilifying the victim in that case!

Surely it would be the law as in cases involving children that journalists wouldnt be allowed report the names of the people involved?

Yes, this should be the case for ALL crimes.

If you really want to be nosy about it you can go sit in the court room yourself.

Steve O wrote: »

If they're proven guilty, plaster them over as many papers as you want.

Why?

Corkbah wrote: »

would you prefer if the identities of convicted paedo's and rapists were protected ?

I think any sexual offender IF CONVICTED should have an image issued to the media - so members of the public are aware the person is a potential sexual predator.

what happened to the concept of rehabilitation and having done your time?

and with pedophilia we have to be careful because no one (that's sane) wants to see lynch mobs for what are clearly unwell people

A woman who alleges sexual assault is as far as I know entitled to anonymity even if later found to be lying, yet the person who was falsely accused will have it hanging over them for the rest of their lives.

Arawn wrote: »

An american guy was just coming out of college to go into the nfl draft was accused of rape, his lawyers convinced him to plead guilty or face 15+ years as they told him the jury would see a big black aggressive guy. He was given 15 mins to make up his mind and was not given a phonecall to talk to his family.


Skip forward 6 years and the girl came out and said she lied. Not only did he lose 6 years of his life but also millions of dollars. She didnt even get jail for admitting lying

Destroying someone's future like that most certainly deserves a few years behind bars. Pure and utter selfishness that is.

Actually we've had a very prominent example over the last few tears.
Dominic Strauss Khan was accused of rape. He lost his extremely high profile job at the IMF, his political career in France was decimated, and he suffered some very public humiliation.
His case was subsequently thrown out of court because the ALLEGED victim had a history of using such allegations to extort people.

Now whatever you think of DSK and whatever you think of the subsequent allegations against him, this was simply wrong. Before and until proven guilty, the man should not have lost any job and he should not have had any political ambitions damaged. The case was thrown out, but he never got his job back nor the opportunity to challenge Sarkozy in an election.

Do people not see how very obviously f*cked up this is? That you can utterly destroy a man merely by smearing him, and it automatically becomes "He probably did it, chuck him out"?

It's absolutely vile, to live in that kind of world. And let's call a spade a spade, there's pretty much no allegation a man can make against a woman which will instantly and totally destroy her entire world in such a manner.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly defend it. If we've lost the principle of innocent unless proven guilty, we have no business calling ourselves a civilized or democratic society.

There's a piece discussing anonymity in today's paper edition of the (Friday) Irish Examiner. It is on the back of a recent court case, concerning an accused male.

030513irishexaminer.jpg

Link to .jpg of cover.

Mr Power, a 35-year-old from Limerick, was unanimously found not guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl after two hours of deliberation.

Crying openly after the verdict, Mr Power said his life had been hell since the allegations surfaced three years ago. He could not get work and his health suffered.

“People have been coming up to me and calling me a scumbag. My name is on the paper, which it should not be. I think it was completely wrong and they should be able to do something about that. I have no previous convictions ever. I have nothing ever against me.

“At least it’s over now.”

Jesus, this is absolutely heartbreaking

Seriously, how the f*ck are there people who believe this is ok?

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure that this would serve much purpose.

First of all, names of sexual offenders are currently legally published, with faces and addresses. How many would you recognise if you met them in the street?
I know I would not be able to identify any of them (possibly with the exception of Joseph Fritzl, but he's dead now anyway).

Secondly, "sexual offender" is a very broad term indeed. Leaving aside the possibility that a person could be innocent even when convicted, there are the by now notorious cases of people being convicted of indecent exposure, marked as a paedophile and put on the sex offenders lists for having a drunk pee against a wall somewhere and a child seeing them. Would you honestly think that this crime would warrant a life-long punishment by the public?

And that's my third issue. In the legal system, an offender once convicted is sentenced by the judge and punished accordingly. By publishing names, however, the legal sentence will by no means be the only punishment. If the media chooses to, the public will go after the offender for an indeterminate amount of time. It's neither fair nor just, it's simply throwing someone to the mob to keep the mob happy and quiet.

please re-read my post !!

and if you have look at any of the papers in the past few months/years .... any convicted criminal who is in custody is not available to be photographed so there are plenty of paedo's, child porn merchants, rapists etc who's image is not available to the papers and who can move into a house near you or near schools etc, the post prison system in this country is very lax.

the courts system protects criminals - hiding them so the public do not know who they are, I know I would much rather know the identity of a rapist or paedo in my area (even if they have served their sentence), rather than ask a friendly neighbour to mind the kids - only to find out he started abusing them..... for the inconvenience of the criminal I think the public should know who they are and where they are and what they did - as you said - if it was someone pee-ing near a school or observed by a child, if the public knew the offence they would not be likely to raise the pitchforks etc.

laoch na mona wrote: »

what happened to the concept of rehabilitation and having done your time?

and with pedophilia we have to be careful because no one (that's sane) wants to see lynch mobs for what are clearly unwell people

I'm only saying that I believe the system should publish images convicted "sex offenders" - to protect the larger public.

if someone has "done their time" and was a convicted paedophile or pedarist would you like if they moved into your neighbourhood or would you let them mind your kids while you popped to the shops ?

I'm advocating a system where the public are aware of who is in their area and if they choose to take precautions or not its upto the public to do, would you let a convicted rapist give your wife/girlfriend a spin home from pilates ? same thing applies, if rapists and paedos want to be treated normally within society ...then don't abuse and rape.

HurtLocker wrote: »

I'm not sure what I think about giving them privacy. I understand if they're innocent. Maybe no privacy but ban speculation and "guilty before trail" in the media such as and similar to "Mission to Pray". But that being said I think it's best for siociety if a rapist/pedofile name is dragged through the dirt (after they've been proved guilty).

Maybe give them privacy but if they are proven guilty publish their name,address,photo,old schools,job on the bottom right corner of front of the papers. Set up an online database that the public can view and search by name and it should have their address. Nobody should have to live unknowingly next door to a rapist.

I honestly think they are scum. I don't care if they "change". They could have destroyed numerous lives. Forced these victims to involuntarily "change". And the fact of it is after the offence the pedo/rapist dont hand themselves in. They freely walk our streets living life normally while the victims have been left mentally destroyed. Once caught and proven guilty,shame them.

Of course if 2 under 17s have consensual sex the boy is considered a sex offender, that would have to change.

I disagree.
Punishment should be handed out by the courts, not the public.
And once the person has been punished and served his time/paid the fines/completed whatever the court placed upon them, what right does anyone have to demand they continue being punished for the rest of their lives? How can anyone consider this "just"?

Corkbah wrote: »

... for the inconvenience of the criminal I think the public should know who they are and where they are and what they did - as you said - if it was someone pee-ing near a school or observed by a child, if the public knew the offence they would not be likely to raise the pitchforks etc.

I would trust neither the media nor the public not to start speculating and getting the pitch forks ready no matter what the actual facts of the case were.

That is after all the reason why in a number of cases, the trial needs to take place at some geographical distance to where the crime was committed or the offender or victim are living, as the impartiality even of a judge and jury cannot be guaranteed otherwise.

HurtLocker wrote: »

So basically the victim is the only one who should suffer for their lives. Rapists deserve privacy and dignity.

No.
Rapists deserve whatever punishment the courts see fit.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Really should be other way round. What's your view on the sex offenders list? This stops rapists emigrating after they get out of jail.

Maybe give them privacy but also a lifetime sentence.
the victim.

Well, if the judge and jury feel that the crime was severe enough to punish someone for the rest of their lives, and that's what should happen. They then ought to be kept in jail or psychiatric facilities for the rest of their lives.

However, if the judge and jury decide that a certain period in jail will suffice, why do you think the public should then be pointed towards the person to make sure that when they have finished their punishment, the mob can make sure they will never find a job again, will be hounded out of anywhere they might find to live and in general not allow them to even try and live a normal life again?

I think the sex offenders list has some merit, as it can serve as a deterrent for any previously convicted person and stop them from re-offending knowing full well they'll be the first the police will come looking for if there are any related crimes in the area they live in.
I do feel though that it should not be accessible to the public, as this will open the doors widely to abuse the information.
I wasn't aware that it stops people from emigrating - how would it do that?

Corkbah wrote: »

my message was about my opinion that the media should be given images if a person is convicted - especially with sex offenders.

That was what my response was to, yes.

Can I ask you why you seem so particularly keen on sex offenders as opposed to people convicted for violent assault, manslaughter or murder? Why single out sex offenders?