If Someone Is Found Not Guilty Of A Sexual Offence, Should Their Accuser Be Publicly Named?

[sp1814]

This would include women who have accused men of rape, or sexual assault and children who accuse adults of sexual assault and rape.

In both cases, as we have seen recently, the accused is named, whilst the accuser enjoys anonymity.

I believe that this would be a disaster, but there seems to be growing support amongst some commentators that this is the way we should go.

How do you feel about this?

[pixie373]

I don't think either should be named. The accused could be if found guilty.

[sp1814]

pixie373

Yeah, I understand that one...but apparently in some cases, and Stuart Hall is a good example, the fact that he was named lead to a successful prosecution because more of his victims came forward after he was initially charged and their testimoney supported the prosecution case - because it demonstrated specific 'behaviour patterns'.

With complete anonymity, the opportunity for other victims to come forward is lost.

But I know where you're coming from...if I were accused of something and was innocent (especially with crimes of a sexual nature), I wouldn't want my name slathered all over the papers...

[rockyracoon]

How many victims would never come forward, offenders would be getting away scot free. I don't know what the answer is but that's not the way to go IMO.

I was sexually assaulted when I was a kid, along with 2 other girls, their parents decided from the get go that they wanted to distance from the whole thing and said their daughter would not testify in court, my mum on the other hand told the police that she would want me to, at first he plead not guilty so it looked a bit crap for me but after some good old fashioned 70's policing he admitted his guilt and I was kept out of court. Now, if he hadn't gone guilty and I had to go to court and he was found not guilty, then my name should be announced all over the newspaper? And people think that's okay? I despair, I really do.

Hopefully their daughters/grandaughters are never put in that position.

[Psybbo]

Is 'Not Guilty' the same as 'Not Proven'?

[EDDIE51]

Possibly if it was established that the accusation was purely malicious not other wise .

[sara3]

no, that would be ridiculous. just because a jury decides there's not enough evidence to make them 100% sure of their guilt, does not mean they are not guilty.

absolutely ridiculous.

[sp1814]

Psybbo

I believe they have 'Not proven' in Scotland. I don't know if they have 'Not guilty' too.

Sidebar...I posted this because someone raised this as an interesting point on the Bill Roache case, and can I say, leaving aside everything else, he looks amazing for an 82 year old.

Seriously.

[pixie373]

Basically, psybbo, yes.
I understand it might encourage others to come forward - I'm just not sure people should be used that way. Personally, i will be more likely to remember the celebrities that have been arrested, than which ones are guilty. I'm still not 100% convinced with those acquitted, for no reason other than their names have been associated with it for so long.

[sara3]

btw, I don't believe all accusers "enjoy" much about what has happened to them.

[jackthehat]

The legal system in the UK does not allow (in the main) for secret prosecutions to take place. If you wander down to your local court buildings, you will see a list of forthcoming trials where the defendant is named......you are also entitled (space permitting) to attend the trial by sitting in the Public Gallery.

That the media splash salacious stories across their publications is regrettable but *no-one* accused of an offence can realistically expect to have their anonymity protected.

[China Doll]

No, I don't think children should be named if they accuse an adult. Half the time children don't even have the right language to describe or explain what has happened to them. Vulnerable adolescents who also allege abuse need to be handled with care too; some of them don't even seem themselves as victims.

[sp1814]

rockyracoon

Sorry to hear your story...but that's how I feel about this groundswell of opinion that the accuser should be named if the accused is found not guilty. I believe it would dissuade many, many children and women from honestly reporting sexual crimes.

[Psybbo]

Thanks sp, that is a grey area. I think neither should be named and if the defendant is found guilty, that person should not be named to protect the innocent

[Ellipsis]

Here's an idea - the accuser chooses "both named" or "neither named" ...

[sp1814]

EDDIE51

I've seen a few (just a few) reports recently where an accuser has been found out way before the accused has gone to court, and have been convicted and jailed.

I have a feeling (based on what I've read) that the CPS, police and rape councillors are not mugs when it comes it false accusations.

But this is just guesswork based on what I've seen reported...

[jackthehat]

Of course the accuser has to name the accused.
The naming of the accused is then entirely out of their hands, as is the prosecution.

Whether the media need to expend quite so much print before and during the trial is a moot point..

[humbersloop]

maybe a lawyer will clarify, but I thought in any criminal cases the accuser is always named. It's The Crown, as in R v Whoever

[rockyracoon]

It's water under the bridge now SP but the more I read on this forum, the angrier I get, some people have absolutely no idea what it's like to be abused and then to hear their vitriolic rants heaped on victims makes my blood boil, I almost (and I reiterate, almost) wish it would happen to them so they knew what it felt like.

[pixie373]

Why should a victim be named, ellipsis? How does that help?
jth, it doesn't have to be "secret" just not publicised in national papers and as "News". I agree with sara3.

[rockyracoon]

That was probably nasty of me about wishing it on other people and of course I don't meant it, but I do think people should think about what victims might have gone through and just try to imagine how they fell.