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?

[sp1814]

pixie373

But have you considered those cases where the dependent has been found not guilty because someone has come forward with evidence that proves that they could not have possibly committed the crime because of XYZ?

If defendants names are kept secret until they are either convicted or released, there are going to be a number of innocent men who are convicted simply because no-one knew they had been accused in the first place.

There's always a down side.

[pixie373]

I'm sorry, I don't understand that. The accused can still provide alibis, witnesses, etc. If he has done nothing and a jury still find him guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, there is something wrong with the justice system (i know mistakes do happen). But this is the sort of accusation that could ruin the rest if his life, whether he's found guilty or not.

[pixie373]

I'm not suggesting top secrecy that ruins the integrity of the case- just not splashing it over national papers and television as "News".

[sp1814]

pixie373

I guarantee to you that the Daily Mail would fight tooth and claw to ensure that they were able to print as much salacious details about these cases as possible.

Have a look at the coverage over the past couple of weeks.

[pixie373]

I know and I'm sure they would. Unfortunately, adding the word "allegedly" into their story, doesn't protect his reputation.

[sp1814]

Also - I don't agree that these cases actually ruin lives.

What REALLY ruins lives is when people aren't able to have their day in court. Indeed, you can bet that Mr Le Vell will be selling his story to the papers pretty quickly, and further to that - Coronation Street bosses have pledged to involve his character in some major story lines in the coming months.

A good example of someone who was destroyed by the media?

John Leslie.

He didn't get charged with rape, and look what happened to him! Had he been charged and found not guilty, all that suspicion would have evaporated. As it is, he will alway carry the stigma.

I can't think of many cases where a celebrity has been found not guilty in a sex abuse or rape case and had their careers ruined.

[New Judge]

Whilst not accused of rape, in 1921 Roscoe "Fatty" Arbuckle was accused of involvement in the death of actress Virginia Rappe. Although acquitted, he never worked as an actor again:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14640719

[Gromit]

Sp

Leslie has admitted that at times his behaviour was 'inappropriate'.

He could have sued Johnson over the rape claim, and Wright for disclosing it. His reputation would have been restored. But he didn't.

[anotheoldgit]

Gromit

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

Are you saying that women only read what is uninteresting and non-original?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

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

And what would be wrong with that? the public do not need to know their names.

There are many persons who are not allowed to be identified for reasons unbeknown, we were not allowed to know the names of some that were arrested over the Jimmy Saville affair, so why not extend this to all?

[anotheoldgit]

sp1814

/// you can bet that Mr Le Vell will be selling his story to the papers pretty quickly, and further to that - Coronation Street bosses have pledged to involve his character in some major story lines in the coming months. ///

/// A good example of someone who was destroyed by the media? ///

Do you honestly think that by getting richer on the fact that you have lived with the stigma of being accused of such horrendous crimes and then having to go through the courts to prove your inni=innocence is enough compensation, because I do not?