http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/deborah-orr/anonymity-for-suspects-could-help-to-nail-rapists-588594.html
Each to their own. Before long a person accused of rape will be held to be guilty until they PROVE themselves innocent.
What price anonymity then ?
And it will still make no difference. A name change AND a place-change will still not enable a person to live a life.
CRB and the new Vetting and Safeguarding scheme will still be able to compare name to name. And do not forget, the vetting and safeguarding scheme does NOT accept a not guilty verdict as valid...it operates on the civil law....probability.
Meet Swingers
Entertainment
Latest Members
Fun and Games
Information
Shopping
Site Stats
- Members:
- 1,504,614
- Online Now:
- 2,359
- Msgs Sent:
- 165,838,159
- Photo Ads:
- 819,769
- User Pics:
- 640,838
- Video Chat:
- 428
My first instinct on this was the anonymity should be reserved for the claimant and not the defendant, but upon reflection I think that the defendant should be afforded the same right.
If the police are looking for victims to come forward then this appeal should not remain in the dominion of the media, but in better treatment for all victims of rape, male or female.
For the record, I think that anyone making a proven false accusation of rape should be afforded the sentence that would be attributed to the defendant if that person were found guilty.
It's shameful and detrimental to real victims.
Amber
If the police are looking for victims to come forward then this appeal should not remain in the dominion of the media, but in better treatment for all victims of rape, male or female.
For the record, I think that anyone making a proven false accusation of rape should be afforded the sentence that would be attributed to the defendant if that person were found guilty.
It's shameful and detrimental to real victims.
Amber
name should be withheld during the whole process until a verdict is reached in court.
if they are innocent they are free but if they are found guilty then their name should be released.
but any man or woman for that matter who was found guilty and knew they were innocent id have no problem with righting the wrong by taking the law into their own hands.
lets face it once the court decision is made your pretty much fucked for the rest of your life so you may as well deal with the lieing bastard.
if they are innocent they are free but if they are found guilty then their name should be released.
but any man or woman for that matter who was found guilty and knew they were innocent id have no problem with righting the wrong by taking the law into their own hands.
lets face it once the court decision is made your pretty much fucked for the rest of your life so you may as well deal with the lieing bastard.
Any sex crime suspect and their accuser should remain anonymous until the matter is resolved.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
Rob_hood wrote:
Any sex crime suspect and their accuser should remain anonymous until the matter is resolved.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
Any sex crime suspect and their accuser should remain anonymous until the matter is resolved.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
Anonymity makes no difference to the accused.
And not much to the accuser either.
Locally they will both be known.
The accuseds life will end, whether guilty of not.
And accusers life will also change, whether the event happened or not.
Rape is a horrible, horrible crime that can ruin a woman's life for ever and if a man is found guilty beyond any doubt then they should throw away the keys, chop his balls off to boot or just save us taxpayers a whole pile of money and lock him up in the general population i.e. not segregated of a nice tough prison. They won't last long in there.
However, until that man is found guilty then he should IMO also be offered the full anonymity that the accuser receives. How many cases have we seen where a girl has willingly slept with a guy and then basically regretted it in the morning, or her boyfriend has found out, so she cries rape! Or other instances where the accuser is just a vindictive bitch who wants to ruin someone's life. As has been said, mud sticks and it doesn't matter if you're accused but found innocent there are plenty of people who will still see them as guilty but just got away with it, as opposed to actually considering that they were innocent.
There have been cases where the accusations by the girl have been so obviously false and thrown out very quickly in court (why the CPS decided it should have gone to court is another matter though!) but still that poor sod has been named publicly. At least in some, not many, cases of obviously false allegations the girl has been prosecuted for it and the guy fortunately has not had his name smeared or life ruined.
I can't see the reasoning behind that TBH. If a rapist is convicted and then named (as he should be) then that will bring other people forward if they had also suffered at that person's hands. That will bring further trials and if found guilty of the other rapes make sure that the guy won't be getting out for a very long time.
However, if a guy is on trial for Rape A and named beforehand as in the current system then that will make not one iota of difference to the chance of conviction of that trial as the prosecution simply aren't allowed to bring into court the fact that other people have come forward accusing him of rape - it's simply not allowed. Those other cases would need to be tried on a separate basis so there's simply no reason therefore for the argument of naming the accuser when first accused. Both should be given anonymity until any verdict. If the guy is innocent then he shouldn't be named but if the accuser has blatantly made up the accusation then IMO she should be named,and she would be anyway if the Police then took action against her or the judge found her in contempt.
However, until that man is found guilty then he should IMO also be offered the full anonymity that the accuser receives. How many cases have we seen where a girl has willingly slept with a guy and then basically regretted it in the morning, or her boyfriend has found out, so she cries rape! Or other instances where the accuser is just a vindictive bitch who wants to ruin someone's life. As has been said, mud sticks and it doesn't matter if you're accused but found innocent there are plenty of people who will still see them as guilty but just got away with it, as opposed to actually considering that they were innocent.
There have been cases where the accusations by the girl have been so obviously false and thrown out very quickly in court (why the CPS decided it should have gone to court is another matter though!) but still that poor sod has been named publicly. At least in some, not many, cases of obviously false allegations the girl has been prosecuted for it and the guy fortunately has not had his name smeared or life ruined.
brucie wrote:
what about the argument that as rape is an under reported crime, by naming suspected rapists you could draw past victims out and in to making a complaint?
what about the argument that as rape is an under reported crime, by naming suspected rapists you could draw past victims out and in to making a complaint?
neilinleeds wrote:
Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.
Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.
I can't see the reasoning behind that TBH. If a rapist is convicted and then named (as he should be) then that will bring other people forward if they had also suffered at that person's hands. That will bring further trials and if found guilty of the other rapes make sure that the guy won't be getting out for a very long time.
However, if a guy is on trial for Rape A and named beforehand as in the current system then that will make not one iota of difference to the chance of conviction of that trial as the prosecution simply aren't allowed to bring into court the fact that other people have come forward accusing him of rape - it's simply not allowed. Those other cases would need to be tried on a separate basis so there's simply no reason therefore for the argument of naming the accuser when first accused. Both should be given anonymity until any verdict. If the guy is innocent then he shouldn't be named but if the accuser has blatantly made up the accusation then IMO she should be named,and she would be anyway if the Police then took action against her or the judge found her in contempt.
Sexysmilingeyes wrote:
Anonymity for both or neither (accussed and victim that is).
Anonymity for both or neither (accussed and victim that is).
I would like to see an end to rape victims being shamed. ...but sex has a way of warping facts. It is sad but true. Even an innocent man/woman may have blame attached to them.
So anonymity for all until found guilty. As for others coming forward in response to a charge; it seems a poor argument.
The sooner sex and shame can be separated the better.
Travis
So anonymity for all until found guilty. As for others coming forward in response to a charge; it seems a poor argument.
The sooner sex and shame can be separated the better.
Travis
t.mann wrote:
Men found guilty should be castrated.
JTS wrote:
Men accused of rape should be castrated, just in case they may be guilty.
And probably their sons as well....you never know with genetics.
Men accused of rape should be castrated, just in case they may be guilty.
And probably their sons as well....you never know with genetics.
Men found guilty should be castrated.
It is a common misconception that castrated males are unable to perform sexually.
Their sex drive may be lowered and they may be unable to maintain an erection for much time (and they will be sterile) but they can still rape.
And the effects of castration can be reversed by "hormone treatment".
Quote:
Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. Unfortunately the choice had to be made at an age when the boy would not yet be able to consciously choose whether to sacrifice his sexual potency, and there was no guarantee that the voice would remain of musical excellence after the operation.
Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. Unfortunately the choice had to be made at an age when the boy would not yet be able to consciously choose whether to sacrifice his sexual potency, and there was no guarantee that the voice would remain of musical excellence after the operation.
JTS wrote:
It is a common misconception that castrated males are unable to perform sexually.
Their sex drive may be lowered and they may be unable to maintain an erection for much time (and they will be sterile) but they can still rape.
And the effects of castration can be reversed by "hormone treatment".
...but it will stop them from add their genes to the next generation.t.mann wrote:
Men found guilty should be castrated.
JTS wrote:
Men accused of rape should be castrated, just in case they may be guilty.
And probably their sons as well....you never know with genetics.
Men accused of rape should be castrated, just in case they may be guilty.
And probably their sons as well....you never know with genetics.
Men found guilty should be castrated.
It is a common misconception that castrated males are unable to perform sexually.
Their sex drive may be lowered and they may be unable to maintain an erection for much time (and they will be sterile) but they can still rape.
And the effects of castration can be reversed by "hormone treatment".
Quote:
Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. Unfortunately the choice had to be made at an age when the boy would not yet be able to consciously choose whether to sacrifice his sexual potency, and there was no guarantee that the voice would remain of musical excellence after the operation.
Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. Unfortunately the choice had to be made at an age when the boy would not yet be able to consciously choose whether to sacrifice his sexual potency, and there was no guarantee that the voice would remain of musical excellence after the operation.
Well I dragged this thread back up again as this is now being said...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279965/Male-defendants-granted-anonymity-rape-cases.html
I always thought it was sensible to keep everyones name secret until after a guilty verdict is reached, if indeed one is.
The new Government have now taken some of these laws and turned things around...here is hoping it will not take too long before it becomes law.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279965/Male-defendants-granted-anonymity-rape-cases.html
I always thought it was sensible to keep everyones name secret until after a guilty verdict is reached, if indeed one is.
The new Government have now taken some of these laws and turned things around...here is hoping it will not take too long before it becomes law.
kentswingers777 wrote:
Well I dragged this thread back up again as this is now being said...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279965/Male-defendants-granted-anonymity-rape-cases.html
I always thought it was sensible to keep everyones name secret until after a guilty verdict is reached, if indeed one is.
The new Government have now taken some of these laws and turned things around...here is hoping it will not take too long before it becomes law.
Well I dragged this thread back up again as this is now being said...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1279965/Male-defendants-granted-anonymity-rape-cases.html
I always thought it was sensible to keep everyones name secret until after a guilty verdict is reached, if indeed one is.
The new Government have now taken some of these laws and turned things around...here is hoping it will not take too long before it becomes law.
Just how it should be, Innocent until proved guilty
No blue....anonymous until proven guilty.
kentswingers777 wrote:
No blue....anonymous until proven guilty.
No blue....anonymous until proven guilty.
Yes that is what I meant, not to be tried by the papers before you have been found guilty or Innocent
I do understand to a point the arguement that a lot of women may not come forward, if this law is brought in, but for me I cannot see what difference it makes other than to give the guy the anonymity he should have.
By all means if the guy is guilty then name him, but then the other side of the coin could be, IF the guy is found not guilty is it just that the woman should be named for bringing a charge that could not be proved?
We have heard of women who have done this and did it for nasty reasons and nothing else. Should those women be named if that was the case?
By all means if the guy is guilty then name him, but then the other side of the coin could be, IF the guy is found not guilty is it just that the woman should be named for bringing a charge that could not be proved?
We have heard of women who have done this and did it for nasty reasons and nothing else. Should those women be named if that was the case?
We live in an increasingly vigilante socitey. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the law of the land but that freedom and right is erroded bit by bit usually in the name of the greater good. But what of the rights of the accused? Im perhaps drawing too many comparrisons to the terrorist laws that we now have but it still is the law. The courts should judge people not the press. Annonimity is vital for a fair trial - and for a fair life afterwards if innocent.
Just recently the news reported someone as being one of the James Bulger killers Venebles i think - i cant remember the accused's name though. It wasnt true yet his life has been made hell by the false accusation.
Innocent until proven guilty does seem to be a thing of the past.
Just recently the news reported someone as being one of the James Bulger killers Venebles i think - i cant remember the accused's name though. It wasnt true yet his life has been made hell by the false accusation.
Innocent until proven guilty does seem to be a thing of the past.
