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?

[ummmm]

Ludwig - what if they were a child? I was 8 years old when I was abused. I didn't tell anyone, it came out by accident.

Had that not had happened and heard 20 years down the line that someone else had accused him, I would have come forward.

[ludwig]

It's just a ridiculous thing to suggest. A classic case of trying to make a right with two wrongs:-

First wrong - naming the accused who turns out to be innocent, but will be tainted with the accusation for the rest of his life.

Second wrong - Ok we probably ruined the accused's life, but let's even up the balance by outing the accuser and ruining their life as well.

Neither should be named until there's a conviction. If there's a case that the accuser deliberately lied, that person needs to be prosecuted.

[ludwig]

// Ludwig - what if they were a child? I was 8 years old when I was abused. I didn't tell anyone, it came out by accident. //

Yes - it's not easy ummmm. I just think that on balance the rights of the accused yet innocent person need to be protected. They may well publicise someone's name, and no-one else comes forward - because there is no-one else and the person is completely innocent.

[joeluke]

I say name them - maybe if the accusers of an proven innocent person are named after the trial it would deter some from falsely accusing them in the first place

In a lot of cases it's simply one word against another

Mud sticks and the accused will always have fingers pointed at them even after acquittal - meanwhile the accusers carry on with their lives without anyone knowing they were the ones pointing the finger in the first place

[keyplus90]

Not only should they named but also punished. Because by accusing someone they could have destroyed their (accused) lives and that of around them. Then most of the time people are always thought to be bad even if they have been cleared by the court.

[andy-hughes]

joeluke and keyplus 90 - did either of you read my last post?

Just curious.

[ummmm]

Lol Andy....I don't think they've read any of the answers.

[emmie]

unlikely the accuser enjoys anything, if the person is found not guilty so be it, sadly sometimes there is just not enough evidence for a full on conviction, so you name the woman or child and they are then possibly pilloried for a supposed false allegation.

[pixie373]

Joeluke and keyplus haven't read any of the answers. Nobody has been "proven innocent".

[atalanta]

"Not guilty" doesn't always mean " as innocent as a new-born babe".
It can mean that the evidence wasn't strong enough to qualify as "beyond doubt", or "utterly convincing".

[sandyRoe]

Here's an offended who was acquitted of charges of sexual offences against young girls. The publicity surrounding the case prompted other young women who had been his victims to come forward and he was eventually convicted and sentenced to 8 years imprisonment.
If the names of his first victims had been splashed across the newspapers the other victims wouldn't have come forward and he would have went unpunished.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21200388

[FredPuli43]

atalanta, I think you are wasting your time. How many times does that elementary principle have to be explained on here for some people to understand it? "Not guilty" does not mean innocent as a new born babe (and nor does it mean that prosecution witnesses have committed perjury) .

You may recall that O J Simpson was acquitted of murder, by a jury in the criminal court, yet the family of the deceased sued him for the murder , in the civil court, and won. A fine example of how 'Not Guilty' does not mean innocent as a new born babe !

[emmie]

Fred i think that is what some of us are saying, that being found not guilty does not necessarily means the person is innocent, just that insufficient evidence got the person that verdict.

[Ellipsis]

> "Not guilty" doesn't always mean " as innocent as a new-born babe".
It can mean that the evidence wasn't strong enough to qualify as "beyond doubt", or "utterly convincing".

Yes, I think most people get that. But how exactly are people who are wholly innocent described, if not "not guilty"? And why should such wholly innocent people have their names tarnished? The fact that most people seem to think they must have done something wrong - no smoke without fire - is the very reason that the wholly innocent deserve anonymity.

[FredPuli43]

Judges have been known to say "You leave here without a stain on your character" to acquitted defendants, a hint that the judge thought the case was weak, but not weak enough to stop at the end of the prosecution case and before he had seen the defendant testifying credibly. Plainly, if he finds no case to answer, such comment should be superfluous.

The practice seems to have become less common in recent years.

[sandyRoe]

Has a judge ever said: 'You have been very lucky with your jury'?

[FredPuli43]

Near enough, Sandy. I have heard the judge say "You are a fortunate young man. Be careful in future"

[Ellipsis]

So, William Roache ... no stain on his character, or a fortunate old man?

[FredPuli43]

"I could not possibly comment" :)

[FredPuli43]

A new jury, one which is hearing its first trial, is far more likely to acquit than one which has heard a trial or two. Given the length of this trial, we may guess which category this jury fell into. Old Judge Anwyl Davies had a way with new juries. If they took a long time to convict, or if they acquitted, he would not release them from the court until he had contrived a way to get the details of the defendant's past record read out in front of them. This was easily done if the defendant had pleaded guilty or been convicted on another indictment or had been committed for sentence. The look on their faces when they discovered that the innocent looking defendant had stacks of convictions for the same crime, over which they had such difficulty in the trial, was interesting