The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
More Evidence That The Accused In Rape Cases Should Not Be Named Until Proven Guilty.
13 Answers
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
The (hypocritical) Daily Mail has never shied away from 'naming names' and thus is part of the problem it highlights.
I have wondered quite why the CPS has seen fit to bring some of these cases to Court. *He said/She said* cases are the most difficult to prosecute at the best of times but it seems that it takes very little time, indeed, for the Defence to produce evidence which effectively acts to clear the Defendent.
I have wondered quite why the CPS has seen fit to bring some of these cases to Court. *He said/She said* cases are the most difficult to prosecute at the best of times but it seems that it takes very little time, indeed, for the Defence to produce evidence which effectively acts to clear the Defendent.
Daily Mail today:
// These young men were all accused of rape, had their names dragged through the mud. //
Daily Mail 20th Sept (Same young man):
// Prosecutor Gerald Hendron, QC, told Joly de Lotbiniere he believed the defendant had 'slipped in behind' the alleged victim as she returned to her room and had sexual intercourse with her against her will.
He said: 'I suggest to you that she was utterly frozen because she did not expect any of this to happen. This girl was in total shock. //
http://
He was dragged through the mud - by the Daily Mail. Bunch of hypocrites.
// These young men were all accused of rape, had their names dragged through the mud. //
Daily Mail 20th Sept (Same young man):
// Prosecutor Gerald Hendron, QC, told Joly de Lotbiniere he believed the defendant had 'slipped in behind' the alleged victim as she returned to her room and had sexual intercourse with her against her will.
He said: 'I suggest to you that she was utterly frozen because she did not expect any of this to happen. This girl was in total shock. //
http://
He was dragged through the mud - by the Daily Mail. Bunch of hypocrites.
A good deal of progress might be made if juries were able to provide reasons for their various acquittals. Summarising the complexities of a case down to, at most, two words, doesn't really do anyone any favours. Those who bring rape cases are overwhelmingly motivated by wanting to seek justice for what they have gone through, and to go through the scrutiny at the trial, and the agony of no reward at the end of it, with no explanation, must be heartbreaking.
That is not to say that I want to see these men convicted in order to somehow "fix" the stats, or something equally cynical. But some feedback from juries might allow cases to be presented in a way that makes it easier to secure a conviction where it is justified, and to reduce the number of cases that come to court with no real chance of conviction, thus wasting everybody's time and helping no one.
But the root problem remains that rape is usually not a crime that has many witnesses, and it is often not a crime that has easy-to-gather physical evidence either, since although there is usually no doubt that sex took place, refusal to consent is much harder to provide convincing evidence for. The woman says she did not consent, the man says that she did, and unless there's the further charge of GBH or similar then how can you resolve that?
That is not to say that I want to see these men convicted in order to somehow "fix" the stats, or something equally cynical. But some feedback from juries might allow cases to be presented in a way that makes it easier to secure a conviction where it is justified, and to reduce the number of cases that come to court with no real chance of conviction, thus wasting everybody's time and helping no one.
But the root problem remains that rape is usually not a crime that has many witnesses, and it is often not a crime that has easy-to-gather physical evidence either, since although there is usually no doubt that sex took place, refusal to consent is much harder to provide convincing evidence for. The woman says she did not consent, the man says that she did, and unless there's the further charge of GBH or similar then how can you resolve that?
AOG
When someone is accused of rape, prosecuting can be difficult when it falls down to 'he said, she said'.
However, if a person is accused of rape and others step forward with similar claims (people who for whatever reason didn't feel they would be believed beforehand), then it lends weight to the prosecution case.
If those accused of rape are to remain anonymous, then what about those accused of child sex crimes? Should they remain anonymous too?
What about murder? Surely if someone accused of rape is to remain anonymous, the same must be true of those accused of the worst crime?
At what point would we stop?
When someone is accused of rape, prosecuting can be difficult when it falls down to 'he said, she said'.
However, if a person is accused of rape and others step forward with similar claims (people who for whatever reason didn't feel they would be believed beforehand), then it lends weight to the prosecution case.
If those accused of rape are to remain anonymous, then what about those accused of child sex crimes? Should they remain anonymous too?
What about murder? Surely if someone accused of rape is to remain anonymous, the same must be true of those accused of the worst crime?
At what point would we stop?
I agree, aog. At least to stop media being allowed to name them. I don't go with this publicly naming people who haven't been convicted so other people might come forward. They will anyway if they are going to. Meanwhile, out of all the celebrities who have been accused- I can't honestly remember all of which were found guilty or not. But it's still the first thought that comes to mind.
Your link also shows why people are unlikely to report it. "Cleared" is the wrong word to use. It implies they have been proven to have done nothing wrong. Where, actually, they are just back in the same position we all are... of "we don't really know".
Your link also shows why people are unlikely to report it. "Cleared" is the wrong word to use. It implies they have been proven to have done nothing wrong. Where, actually, they are just back in the same position we all are... of "we don't really know".
AOG
The problem with the idea of keeping the names of the accused secret is that we now live in an age of speculation. Remember when the tv presenter Ulrika Johnson claimed to have been raped, but didn't say by whom?
She never did reveal the name, but eventually people settled on ex-Blue Peter presenter John Leslie.
Now, fast forward to today...let's say a famous actor is charged with rape - what will happen is Internet forums will become awash with names, and rather than one person being tarred, several will. And these people will be 100% innocent.
I have every sympathy for the men in question but I don't understand why people think that their characters are permanently stained. If anything, I think that most people would have sympathy for what they've gone through.
Judicial anonymity - I don't think it holds water, but below is a link which sets out for and against arguments much better than I can:
https:/
The problem with the idea of keeping the names of the accused secret is that we now live in an age of speculation. Remember when the tv presenter Ulrika Johnson claimed to have been raped, but didn't say by whom?
She never did reveal the name, but eventually people settled on ex-Blue Peter presenter John Leslie.
Now, fast forward to today...let's say a famous actor is charged with rape - what will happen is Internet forums will become awash with names, and rather than one person being tarred, several will. And these people will be 100% innocent.
I have every sympathy for the men in question but I don't understand why people think that their characters are permanently stained. If anything, I think that most people would have sympathy for what they've gone through.
Judicial anonymity - I don't think it holds water, but below is a link which sets out for and against arguments much better than I can:
https:/
-- answer removed --
sp1814
/// I think that most people would have sympathy for what they've gone through. ///
You honestly think that do you sp?
Put yourself in their position, you are accused of rape and it is reported on,>
The people at your place of work gather in groups and stare as you walk past, then there are more 'behind your back' accusations as you stand trial.
The trials over and you have been found not guilty, and you return to work.
Do you seriously think that your work companions and others who you know, would view you in the same light ever again?
/// I think that most people would have sympathy for what they've gone through. ///
You honestly think that do you sp?
Put yourself in their position, you are accused of rape and it is reported on,>
The people at your place of work gather in groups and stare as you walk past, then there are more 'behind your back' accusations as you stand trial.
The trials over and you have been found not guilty, and you return to work.
Do you seriously think that your work companions and others who you know, would view you in the same light ever again?
1 to 13 of 13
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.