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?

[Ellipsis]

>> So, William Roache ... no stain on his character, or a fortunate old man?
> "I could not possibly comment" :)

That says everything about the problem of naming the accused. The man was found not guilty!

This attitude probably comes from the very fact that there are so few convictions. If somebody is up on a robbery charge and is found innocent (on the evidence, not on a technicality), the tendency would be to think they were innocent. But if somebody is up on a sex charge and is found innocent, the tendency is to think there must have been something in it. This is simply not fair on the innocent.

[andy-hughes]

Ellipsis - " ...But if somebody is up on a sex charge and is found innocent,"

Mr Roache was not 'found innocent', he was found 'not guilty'.

It sounds like nit-picking semantics, but the difference between the two is at the heart of our legal system.

Bcause any defendent is found 'not guilty', the legal process has failed to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, of commission of the offences in question.

That is a universe away from saying that the defendent has been 'ound innocent' which infers that there was no substance to the charges whatever.

The CPS will only bring a prosecution if it believes on the balance of the evidence available, that a conviction is likely to be secured.

Failue to do so indicates the inability of the prosecution to prove its case, it does not prove lack of evidence.

This logic applies to every legal case in every court - it is simply more emotive when famous people are involved in cases of sexual misconduct.

[Ellipsis]

OK andy-hughes, I should have written ...

This attitude probably comes from the very fact that there are so few convictions. If somebody is up on a robbery charge and is found not guilty (on the evidence, not on a technicality), the tendency would be to think they were innocent [as a high proportion accused of robbery are found guilty]. But if somebody is up on a sex charge and is found not guilty, the tendency is to think there must have been something in it [as a high proportion accused on sex charges are found not guilty]. This is simply not fair on the truly innocent.