News0 min ago
If Someone Is Found Not Guilty Of A Sexual Offence, Should Their Accuser Be Publicly Named?
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?
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?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fred, you appear to be saying that some people who are found innocent in law are actually guilty in fact ... which we all know to be true, of course.
But it's also true that some people who are found innocent in law are actually innocent in fact. These people are the true victims of being publicly named, precisely because some people who are found innocent in law are actually guilty in fact and so the natural inclination of many is to believe they all are - i.e. there's no smoke without fire.
I have no idea whether the Coronation Street actor is innocent in fact, but it's pretty clear that many people will consider him to have "got away with it" rather than being genuinely innocent. And if he is genuinely innocent then that's a dreadful slur on him.
But it's also true that some people who are found innocent in law are actually innocent in fact. These people are the true victims of being publicly named, precisely because some people who are found innocent in law are actually guilty in fact and so the natural inclination of many is to believe they all are - i.e. there's no smoke without fire.
I have no idea whether the Coronation Street actor is innocent in fact, but it's pretty clear that many people will consider him to have "got away with it" rather than being genuinely innocent. And if he is genuinely innocent then that's a dreadful slur on him.
Not quite, ellipsis. My point is that people who are not guilty sometimes lie their heads off before the jury, thinking that is better than attempting a truthful explanation. This is particularly common when defendants run alibi and , as a bonus, rope their friends and relations in to testify that the defendant was miles away. Often , it is the work of a moment to expose this as the fiction it is, and the jury can see that easily, it is so obvious. The jury then decide the defendant was at the scene and start to analyse what the evidence shows he did. This process may well show that the prosecution falls short.
A hint for any intending criminals. The old pros admit everything except the intent or the dishonesty necessary to prove the case. So they may say, yes, they were found in burgled premises, yes, they were found hiding under a bed, but they had been passing by, saw a possible burglary, went in to see what it was, heard the police coming, and hid because the police would never have believed they were innocent. I have seen this defence run successfully more than once !
A hint for any intending criminals. The old pros admit everything except the intent or the dishonesty necessary to prove the case. So they may say, yes, they were found in burgled premises, yes, they were found hiding under a bed, but they had been passing by, saw a possible burglary, went in to see what it was, heard the police coming, and hid because the police would never have believed they were innocent. I have seen this defence run successfully more than once !
I agree with Ellipsis at 22:40.
This from Sara3: //I don't believe all accusers "enjoy" much about what has happened to them.//
That assumes something has happened to them. It seems to me the accused are deemed guilty whether they’re guilty or not. Yes, in historical cases the accusers should be named. The reputations of the accused are forever tarnished by such accusations. If they are confident in their accusations, accusers should have the courage to stand up and be counted. They’re old enough.
This from Sara3: //I don't believe all accusers "enjoy" much about what has happened to them.//
That assumes something has happened to them. It seems to me the accused are deemed guilty whether they’re guilty or not. Yes, in historical cases the accusers should be named. The reputations of the accused are forever tarnished by such accusations. If they are confident in their accusations, accusers should have the courage to stand up and be counted. They’re old enough.
I think the reason for the Act was that women would be reluctant to come forward and face the ordeal of a trial and fierce cross-examination on behalf of a defendant whose main aim is to blacken their character, however false their case.
An alternative might be to have anonymity only where the interests of justice demanded it, but the uncertainty that would result would still stop women coming forward; they would not know whether or not anonymity would be granted . As it is, the judge may deny anonymity in the circumstances I set out above, which seems a sensible compromise.
An alternative might be to have anonymity only where the interests of justice demanded it, but the uncertainty that would result would still stop women coming forward; they would not know whether or not anonymity would be granted . As it is, the judge may deny anonymity in the circumstances I set out above, which seems a sensible compromise.
Going back to jno's stats ...
> it is believed that there are 60,000-95,000 rapes a year (the figure is very vague) - but only 1000 convictions. (And a few of those convicted are just cautioned.)
... clearly, whatever we are doing, it's not working very well. So how could it work better? Could anonymity for accuser and accused actually produce better results? It couldn't be much worse!
> it is believed that there are 60,000-95,000 rapes a year (the figure is very vague) - but only 1000 convictions. (And a few of those convicted are just cautioned.)
... clearly, whatever we are doing, it's not working very well. So how could it work better? Could anonymity for accuser and accused actually produce better results? It couldn't be much worse!
I think the current system is an attempt at improvement, Ellipsis - if I remember right (someone like FredPuli may be able to correct me), accusers were previously named and - given the high failure rate of prosecutions - it was felt this was simply deterring accusations from being made. Even now, as that link shows, there's every chance a rapist will never even be reported in the first place. Whether the current system has made things better or worse, I don't know.
Yes, Psybbo, it can be very hard on jurors when they have to deal with horrendous cases in detail. It's not unknown for a juror to pass out when seeing such things as exhibited photographs of corpses which have been mutilated. It's easier for the professionals because they get used to it. Counsel and judges do try to keep upsetting material away from juries. It is not always necessary to exhibit photographs, for example. Often the medical reports cover the same ground and reading those to the jury is less of a shock to them than pictures.
Jurors generally get over the initial shock at hearing what the case is about, but it takes a day or so before they are completely relaxed in dealing with the evidence. Not always easy to defend in these cases; you can see the jury, when they hear the indictment about serious sexual assault on a child, being read out, looking at the defendant in a way that plainly conveys "You filthy, pervert ....!" That's a bit of a handicap to start with !
Jurors generally get over the initial shock at hearing what the case is about, but it takes a day or so before they are completely relaxed in dealing with the evidence. Not always easy to defend in these cases; you can see the jury, when they hear the indictment about serious sexual assault on a child, being read out, looking at the defendant in a way that plainly conveys "You filthy, pervert ....!" That's a bit of a handicap to start with !
This is such a difficult area.
The Mail today - having played its own part in making sure that Mr Roache's case is at the forefront of its readers' attention for the duration of his trial - is now holding its hands up in horror that the case was brought to trial. I would be willing to bet that it also had a similar number of pages set up ready to go if he had been found guilty, damning him to high heaven.
To address your OP sp, I am worried about the general national attitude in these cases, that if the defendent is found not guilty, then the accusations must, by default, have been malicious and / or frivolous, and therefore the accusers deserve to be thrown to the proverbial wolves.
This sets a dangerous precident, and encourages the Self-Righteous Brothers to take a deep breath and start lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks.
As advised earlier - a 'Not Guilty' verdict does not necessarily mean that the defendent is innocent, it can mean that the case against them was not sufficient to convince the jury, which is not the same thing at all.
It is a very difficult situation for all concerned, but I do think that the media hysteria has not helped anyone in these cases - accused or victime.
The Mail today - having played its own part in making sure that Mr Roache's case is at the forefront of its readers' attention for the duration of his trial - is now holding its hands up in horror that the case was brought to trial. I would be willing to bet that it also had a similar number of pages set up ready to go if he had been found guilty, damning him to high heaven.
To address your OP sp, I am worried about the general national attitude in these cases, that if the defendent is found not guilty, then the accusations must, by default, have been malicious and / or frivolous, and therefore the accusers deserve to be thrown to the proverbial wolves.
This sets a dangerous precident, and encourages the Self-Righteous Brothers to take a deep breath and start lighting torches and sharpening pitchforks.
As advised earlier - a 'Not Guilty' verdict does not necessarily mean that the defendent is innocent, it can mean that the case against them was not sufficient to convince the jury, which is not the same thing at all.
It is a very difficult situation for all concerned, but I do think that the media hysteria has not helped anyone in these cases - accused or victime.
I entirely agree ummm.
The further deterent to coming forward is the current climate, where, as I have advised, any 'Not Guilty' climate will be seen by the media as a frivolous or malicious accusation, with the accuser being appropriately pilloried - to add to their original misery.
The Mail is trumpeting that the case against William Roache should never have come to court - their usual 20/20 hindsight aiding them in this incisive decision.
From my experience and knowlege of the CPS - they do not waste their time and tax payers' money on any case unless they anticipate a reasonable expectation of a conviction.
That decision is doubtless based on evidence and testimony that the media and public do not share, so they are surely best placed to make the decision regarding these issues.
If they CPS had gone the other way, and neglected to prosecute, using their time-honoured rebuttal phrase '... not in the public interest to proceed ...' then no doubt the media would have switched into automatic 'No Smoke Without Fire ...' mode and gone down that route for several weeks.
William Roache had it spot on in his statement - there are indeed, no winners.
The further deterent to coming forward is the current climate, where, as I have advised, any 'Not Guilty' climate will be seen by the media as a frivolous or malicious accusation, with the accuser being appropriately pilloried - to add to their original misery.
The Mail is trumpeting that the case against William Roache should never have come to court - their usual 20/20 hindsight aiding them in this incisive decision.
From my experience and knowlege of the CPS - they do not waste their time and tax payers' money on any case unless they anticipate a reasonable expectation of a conviction.
That decision is doubtless based on evidence and testimony that the media and public do not share, so they are surely best placed to make the decision regarding these issues.
If they CPS had gone the other way, and neglected to prosecute, using their time-honoured rebuttal phrase '... not in the public interest to proceed ...' then no doubt the media would have switched into automatic 'No Smoke Without Fire ...' mode and gone down that route for several weeks.
William Roache had it spot on in his statement - there are indeed, no winners.
Sexual abuse is hard to prove.
Christine Hamilton made a good point this morning saying that the name of the accused shouldn't be released without a judge deciding it's in the public's interest.
If they think there might be more victims out there of course it's in the public's interest to release the name.
Christine Hamilton made a good point this morning saying that the name of the accused shouldn't be released without a judge deciding it's in the public's interest.
If they think there might be more victims out there of course it's in the public's interest to release the name.
Not everyone who gets a not guilty verdict in a court is actuality not guilty of what they have been accused of. The threat to a victim of an unfavorable result is daunting enough without thinking they may be made a social leper as a result.
I'd hope if the accuser was considered to have done so maliciously then the police would already have the powers to take further action already.
I'd hope if the accuser was considered to have done so maliciously then the police would already have the powers to take further action already.
// If they think there might be more victims out there of course it's in the public's interest to release the name. //
If those people hadn't come forward to report the crime when it happened, I don't see why a potentially innocent person's name should be offered up to encourage them to do so at a later date.
This is of course why the accuser needs to retain their anonymity - so they're not put off from reporting crimes at the time.
If those people hadn't come forward to report the crime when it happened, I don't see why a potentially innocent person's name should be offered up to encourage them to do so at a later date.
This is of course why the accuser needs to retain their anonymity - so they're not put off from reporting crimes at the time.
Neither should be named. Surely even if Police are looking for other potential victims to come forward they could name the place and approx dates. That way they could weed out some of the false claims too.
Under no circumstances should the accuser be named though, unless they have been convicted in a Court of lying.
Under no circumstances should the accuser be named though, unless they have been convicted in a Court of lying.
Latest Posts
Are There Any Restrictions On...
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Body & Soul10 mins ago
And Even More Good News From Labour.
News11 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.