I Fail To See Why This Is In The Femail Section Of The Daily Mail?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2417412/Michael-Le-Vell-WHEN-men-pre-conviction-anonymity-rape-trials.html

Why are men still denied the right to anonymity before a guilty verdict?

[Old_Geezer]

Because they are second class citizens of course.

[Octavius]

Because they may have done it to others who might have been too afraid to come forward, corroboration would add to the evidence against.

The conviction against Stuart Hall is a case in point.

[boxtops]

I don't understand it either - it's relevant to everyone.

[Zeuhl]

/I Fail To See Why This Is In The Femail Section Of The Daily Mail?/

Because the Mail editors decided to put it there

Possibly to deflect any inferences that they were being 'anti female'

Of course, this is utter hypocrisy, because the media could all get together and decide not to publish accused's names if they felt that strongly about it

[ToraToraTora]

Generally the accusee does not get the rights of the accuser. That is clearly flawed, I don't mind which but they should both be named or neither. I don't think this is a male thing, surely female defendents are also named.

[andy-hughes]

If you want to right a wrong, the first thing you have to do is draw attention to it.

If the wrong is the absence of annonymity for men, then the people to whom you need to draw attention to that injustice is the section of the comunity who do enjoy that privelidge - women.

Hence, you place the feature where women are likely to read it.

[Gromit]

They probably put it on the feMail section because it isn't very interesting or original.

[New Judge]

The issue here is not so much that the accused is being named before conviction (which all accused generally are, with the exception of people under 18) but that the accuser has been granted special anonymity not usually afforded to those in other types of case. This facility was not provided to encourage other alleged victims of the same alleged perpetrator to come forward but to avoid discouraging single victims from making accusations of rape because of the unique stigma attached to the crime.

I can quite understand those reasons but justice is supposed to be fair. If rape is deemed to be worthy of special privileges being granted to victims then those same privileges should be afforded to the accused as well.

[Zeuhl]

Why was aog reading the Femail section?

[Zeuhl]

Interesting point NJ

So if someone is prosecuted for (say) Theft
and the media pick up on it
and they are found 'not guilty'

You could make the case that they are still subject to the stigma of 'he probably is a thief, they just couldn't make it stick, no smoke without fire'

Is that as bad?

Or is it the nature of a sexual offence that makes the 'mud that sticks' worse to bear?

[andy-hughes]

Zeuhl - I think most people would agree that the stigma attached to accusations of a sexual crime is far greater and deeper than just about any other crime - especially when the crim involves a child.

Anonymity should be available for accused and accuser, but as the writer points out, with modern technology, keeping such information secret is now virtually impossible.

That said, it is somewhat disengenuous of the press to be trumpeting Michael Levell's verdict as though they sided with him all along, when I would bet that they all had a 'Guilty - hanging is too good for him!' or equivalent - headline ready to go if the verdict had gone against him.

[Zeuhl]

Indeed andy

Glenda *** - don't you just love her?

[Zeuhl]

I wonder if the correct spelling escapes the censor?

Glenda Slagg

[sp1814]

andy-Hughes

I totally agree with your last paragraph. I am 100% sure that all of our papers had two sets of stories ready to go.

However, I question the sense of anonymity for both parties.

If a man is charged with rape, others who he may have attacked may come forward with their stories.

Rape is one of those crimes where the victim doesn't always feel that they can come forward. I read an appalling statistic on fullfact.org which shows that only about 3% of all rape allegations lead to a conviction. Granting anonymity to alleged rapists would lower this figure further.

[sp1814]

Hey...here's an idea from a Daily Mail respondant:

Exactly WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials?" - When responsible newspaper editors refuse to publish details until after conviction. Here in Finland it is illegal to publish details before conviction in order to protect both the accused and their families in case they turn out to be innocent.

Perhaps it should be down to newspapers to voluntarily keep their gobs shut?

[pixie373]

Well, I'm "femail". I definitely think men should retain anonymity until found guilty. I can think of several people who have been accused in the past, but couldn't tell you which were found guilty and which weren't. It is totally unfair. There is no need to publicise names to encourage victims to come forward. Those that will, will.

[sp1814]

"There is no need to publicise names to encourage victims to come forward. Those that will, will"

There are women walking around now who have been raped by men and for one reason or another, have not reported it.

If they find that the person who attacked them went on to attack others, it may be the push they need to come forward.

If we have anonymity for men on rape charges, we should also extend the same rights to those on child sex charges.

You could argue that if we went down that road, then shouldn't all defendants names be kept secret until they are convicted?

[pixie373]

Yes, they should all remain anonymous. Publicising an assumedly innocent man's name is not a fair exchange for someone else coming forward. Perhaps better treatment of victims and conviction rate will help people come forward. But if Michael Le Vell has genuinely done nothing wrong, it is inexcusable to use him that way.

[pixie373]

And after someone is convicted, maybe further people will come forward then?