Sex Crime Anonymity......

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034
It's a no brainer to me, why should an accuser be able to ruin lives from the cloak of anonymity?

[bhg481]

I completely agree.

[EDDIE51]

TTT this is about the accused not the accuser!

[Svejk]

Must be a blumming nightmare for the wrongly accused.

[jackthehat]

The accuser makes an accusation.
After that the investigation and how it is conducted is taken out of his/her hands.
I'm not quite sure what the answer is but, on balance, I think I agree with Jill Saward.

[Peter Pedant]

3T they are talking about 100k instances of which a small amount gets reported ( 2% in 1973 or thereabouts ) and of which an even more minuscule amount gets to court

and it all about those who are acquitted, MAY have done it

so that not guilty is really guilty or at least not proven

however I agree that those who are charged should only be named when convicted. It goes against Open Justice but is a decent compromise

[Peter Pedant]

JTH -thx It was Jill Saward's interview this am on R3 that I was thinking about.

She obviously thought that everyone who alleged rape had been raped or they wouldnt have said it

[Peter Pedant]

schweik // Must be a blumming nightmare for the wrongly accused.//
-
I was supporting a neighbour in an ethnic minority - acquitted by er a white jury in eight minutes - and it is terrible. Neighbours and the young children were asking why Daddy didnt go into work like he used to....

and there is a rarely mentioned stigma about being accused - which may be stronger in the minorities

Took at least a year and looked as though it was gonna run for another year - and then the accuser said - O *** I'm done ( like in the Good Wife last night ) - and everyone went home to lick their wounds

[ToraToraTora]

eddie : "TTT this is about the accused not the accuser! " - not with you, currently an accuser can ruind someones life anonymously, this should be stopped so the accused remains anonymous too, that;'s what I'm saying. This is often a weapon for the disgruntled and society is all to ready to go along with it.

[youngmafbog]

Yes, totally agree TTT.

And as we have seen on this site many times over, even if someone is subsequently found innocent some wont believe it.

[ummmm]

Any stats on how many people are wrongly accused and where the accused are named?

[jno]

even if someone is subsequently found innocent some wont believe it

Even if Gary Glitter is found guilty some won't believe it. So what? Should the law be adapted to satisfy people who don't accept its findings anyway?

[ludwig]

If the accused remain anonymous, some guilty accused will avoid conviction.

If the accused don't remain anonymous, some innocent accused will have their lives ruined.

Either way bad things will happen, but on balance I'd prefer the accused to remain anonymous.

[New Judge]

"If the accused remain anonymous, some guilty accused will avoid conviction."

How so, ludwig? Does the criminal justice system only work if details of the accused are plastered all over the front page of "The Sun"?

[ummmm]

Because others come forward. The evidence to convict might not be sufficient from one accuser.

[bhg481]

In any case, they're only suggesting anonymity until someone is charged.

[jackthehat]

To take Max Clifford as an example....He had sufficient money and 'clout' to make anything a single accuser said 'go away'. However, once he was named as being investigated, more women came forwards and it was the fact that they all, independently, gave the same details of his M.O. that gave sufficient weight for a jury to be able to find him guilty.

[ludwig]

// How so, ludwig? Does the criminal justice system only work if details of the accused are plastered all over the front page of "The Sun"? //

Apparently so. In cases where the police have no evidence other than one persons accusation, a standard technique of theirs is to plaster the accused's name on the front page of the Sun to see if anyone else phones them up and says 'That's the bloke who also raped me'. There's no doubt it sometimes works to help build a case.

They're currently trying it on Cliff Richard. If he's guilty, good. If he isn't - oh dear, his reputation, career, and probably mental health are ruined forever.
That's why I say on balance, I think anonymity would be better.

[ladybirder]

I'm going with Jill Saward who was raped by a gang in 1986 when she says: "We know that many people who are rapists are multiple rapists. They don't do this as a one-off and part of their modus operandi is to try to make sure there isn't enough evidence there. When one victim comes forward often there isn't enough evidence there, you need the evidence of other people."

Yep, on balance I have to go with that but it's not an easy decision.

[ToraToraTora]

ummm "Any stats on how many people are wrongly accused and where the accused are named? " - irrelevant

Luwig, really? that's ok is it? to plaster someone all over the media because someone says so? are you prepared to give that kind of power out?

[ToraToraTora]

Accuser/accused should be the same public or not , I prefer the latter but the status quo hands too much power to the former.