News0 min ago
Should Sex Offence Suspects Should Remain Anonymous?
36 Answers
https:/
/// The newspaper reported Mr Buckland as saying those with reputations to protect should remain anonymous while suggesting anonymity would be less justifiable for those of worse character. ///
Whilst I agree those with a criminal record in such offences should be named and shamed, the anonymity should not be reserved especially for those in high places, after all even the law abiding 'man in the street' as a reputation to protect.
/// The newspaper reported Mr Buckland as saying those with reputations to protect should remain anonymous while suggesting anonymity would be less justifiable for those of worse character. ///
Whilst I agree those with a criminal record in such offences should be named and shamed, the anonymity should not be reserved especially for those in high places, after all even the law abiding 'man in the street' as a reputation to protect.
Answers
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.
I am unsure about this.
I agree, in principle, that the person's name should be not be made public.
However, if that suspect IS a vicious sex offender and someone else was then attacked what would be the result - ie a second/third/fourth victim who was totally unaware that there was a serious threat.
I don't know the solution
I agree, in principle, that the person's name should be not be made public.
However, if that suspect IS a vicious sex offender and someone else was then attacked what would be the result - ie a second/third/fourth victim who was totally unaware that there was a serious threat.
I don't know the solution
AOG - // Whilst I agree those with a criminal record in such offences should be named and shamed, the anonymity should not be reserved especially for those in high places, after all even the law abiding 'man in the street' as a reputation to protect. //
I don't agree, because to name someone on the basis of a previous conviction is to assume guilt on the basis of previous actions, and that is not justice.
Because someone has committed an offence and charged with it, he may not have been to court, much less been convicted. Similarly, if he was convicted and punished under the law, the assumption that he may have re-offended on the basis of past behaviour is just that - an assumption, and a fair justice system works on evidence and proof, not assumptions based on the unique mind-set of each and every assumer.
I don't agree, because to name someone on the basis of a previous conviction is to assume guilt on the basis of previous actions, and that is not justice.
Because someone has committed an offence and charged with it, he may not have been to court, much less been convicted. Similarly, if he was convicted and punished under the law, the assumption that he may have re-offended on the basis of past behaviour is just that - an assumption, and a fair justice system works on evidence and proof, not assumptions based on the unique mind-set of each and every assumer.
I think that anonymity for all people accused of crimes should be the case until they are arrested or charged. This recent nasty affair has simply highlighted and confirmed how dangerous it is when police are allowed to decide whose reputation should be put to public opinion without any justification or proof. once the person is arrested or charged, there should then be plenty of time for other victims or witnesses to come forward. I think the reputation thing is a bit of a red herring.
remain - - in that sentence is a bit - - - kinky innit?
they are in the public domain
cliff richard was a suspecct and his name lingers ( like sh-- on a blanket) in the public domain
and those with a criminal record arent suspects are they for chrissakes ?
norlal day on AB then
everyone knows Abigail shaw went around saying I was a child molester but she didnt keep it quiet. I was not quiet about stridently asking for evidence and commenting that the bit she was quiet about was a CCJ in the matter of a little debt of £600.
a neighbour said: we have all stopped watching coronation street
they are in the public domain
cliff richard was a suspecct and his name lingers ( like sh-- on a blanket) in the public domain
and those with a criminal record arent suspects are they for chrissakes ?
norlal day on AB then
everyone knows Abigail shaw went around saying I was a child molester but she didnt keep it quiet. I was not quiet about stridently asking for evidence and commenting that the bit she was quiet about was a CCJ in the matter of a little debt of £600.
a neighbour said: we have all stopped watching coronation street
woofgang - // I think the reputation thing is a bit of a red herring. //
I'm not so sure.
The frisson that surrounded the 'top people paedophile ring' was the notion that the great and the good are somehow more sinning for being great and good while behaving in such a manner.
That speaks to society's attitudes, where it expects better from it's 'betters' and the sense of betrayal is therefore greater when they are seen to be as prone to appalling behaviour as anyone else.
I entirely agree though, anonymity should be the right of every innocent person, which is what everyone is until they are convicted.
I'm not so sure.
The frisson that surrounded the 'top people paedophile ring' was the notion that the great and the good are somehow more sinning for being great and good while behaving in such a manner.
That speaks to society's attitudes, where it expects better from it's 'betters' and the sense of betrayal is therefore greater when they are seen to be as prone to appalling behaviour as anyone else.
I entirely agree though, anonymity should be the right of every innocent person, which is what everyone is until they are convicted.
Sex crime suspects and others accused of serious offences should remain anonymous until charged if they have a reputation to protect, the new justice secretary has said. ... He told The Times there was a case for "people of good character" remaining anonymous but suspects with previous convictions should be named.....more
andy-hughes
As the law stands at the moment everyone who is accused, is named and shamed except of course the accuser. We are now discussing the possibility of changing that law.
But in answer to your belief, what about in rape cases, don't you think that more would come forward to support the rape victim case if the perpetrator was named, perhaps the same person has attacked them?
As the law stands at the moment everyone who is accused, is named and shamed except of course the accuser. We are now discussing the possibility of changing that law.
But in answer to your belief, what about in rape cases, don't you think that more would come forward to support the rape victim case if the perpetrator was named, perhaps the same person has attacked them?
// However, if that suspect IS a vicious sex offender and someone else was then attacked what would be the result //
is the usual reason for giving out the details
sorry that other people step forward ( me too etc)
and that has happened in my neighbourhood
( causes a bit of a shock I can tell you esp for proven historical abuse - as in how cd this have happened and we heard nothing?)
is the usual reason for giving out the details
sorry that other people step forward ( me too etc)
and that has happened in my neighbourhood
( causes a bit of a shock I can tell you esp for proven historical abuse - as in how cd this have happened and we heard nothing?)
AOG - // But in answer to your belief, what about in rape cases, don't you think that more would come forward to support the rape victim case if the perpetrator was named, perhaps the same person has attacked them? //
That may be so, but the premise that someone may come forward - and equally may not - has to be balanced against the guaranteed damage done to an individual who still remains innocent until proven guilty.
That may be so, but the premise that someone may come forward - and equally may not - has to be balanced against the guaranteed damage done to an individual who still remains innocent until proven guilty.
// to support the rape victim case if the perpetrator was named, perhaps the same person has attacked them?//
has andie's PC mask slipped in the give-and-take brawl of the school yard ?
this has to be
to support the complainant if the man were named, perhaps sharing a resemblance with the person said to be responsible?
Never has the thesis of Kripke's Naming and Necessity become more relevant ( that the 45th president of the land of the free may NOT be Mr Trump in certain possible worlds) and piquante
forced I know BUT
the man responsible for the complainants condition ( she says rape) may NOT be the man named ( one Andie Hughes lets say)
and on the numbers game, ( more than 50% are acuqitted) is not likely to be the one anyway
has andie's PC mask slipped in the give-and-take brawl of the school yard ?
this has to be
to support the complainant if the man were named, perhaps sharing a resemblance with the person said to be responsible?
Never has the thesis of Kripke's Naming and Necessity become more relevant ( that the 45th president of the land of the free may NOT be Mr Trump in certain possible worlds) and piquante
forced I know BUT
the man responsible for the complainants condition ( she says rape) may NOT be the man named ( one Andie Hughes lets say)
and on the numbers game, ( more than 50% are acuqitted) is not likely to be the one anyway
andy-hughes
Yes but the fact remains that in the majority of rape cases it is one word against the other's.
Now if the accused is a known rapist there is every chance that if he is named, it is more likely that others would come forward with more damning evidence, such as I saw him lurking in the alleyway etc.
Yes but the fact remains that in the majority of rape cases it is one word against the other's.
Now if the accused is a known rapist there is every chance that if he is named, it is more likely that others would come forward with more damning evidence, such as I saw him lurking in the alleyway etc.
AOG - // Now if the accused is a known rapist there is every chance that if he is named, it is more likely that others would come forward with more damning evidence, such as I saw him lurking in the alleyway etc. //
The issue as I see it is not that some good may come from naming, but that a lot of bad is guarenteed to come from it.
Because a man has committed a crime, and been punished under the law, does not oblige him to remain a suspect in any such future crimes for the rest of his life - that is simply not justice.
No-one would expect a thief to be named before conviction, it is only the attendant horror of the crime of rape that makes this notion apparently viable.
My belief is that the law functions without emotional input - and that is what 'naming and shaming' is - it has not place in a proper justice system.
The issue as I see it is not that some good may come from naming, but that a lot of bad is guarenteed to come from it.
Because a man has committed a crime, and been punished under the law, does not oblige him to remain a suspect in any such future crimes for the rest of his life - that is simply not justice.
No-one would expect a thief to be named before conviction, it is only the attendant horror of the crime of rape that makes this notion apparently viable.
My belief is that the law functions without emotional input - and that is what 'naming and shaming' is - it has not place in a proper justice system.
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.