Should Sex Offence Suspects Should Remain Anonymous?

[anotheoldgit]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/08/01/sex-offence-suspects-should-remain-anonymous-new-justice-secretary/

/// 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.

[anotheoldgit]

andy-hughes

I have not mentioned thieves, I am referring to rape criminals, and in cases of rape it is very hard to prove, thus preventing many victims of such an horrendous crime from coming forward to get the offender to pay for his crime, and many women have to live with their abuse for the rest of their lives.

In rape cases, I agree that accused criminals that have past rape convictions should be named and shamed, as they are now.

And how many times have you read of the Judge saying "taking your past convictions into consideration"?

[pixie374]

Yes, they should stay anonymous. Reputation for an innocent person is just as important, no matter what their position is. If they are guilty, fair enough, but you have to prove that first.

[pixie374]

I think the past convictions are about sentencing, not probability that someone is guilty.

[jackthehat]

Perhaps the great British public could take a long hard look at themselves, too?

All of the "no smoke without fire" comments......or snidely referring to someone as having "got away with it" when they have been cleared of an offence.

[pixie374]

The problem is that nobody really is "cleared", they are just put back to the same position as the rest of us. "We don't know, so they are entitled to be treated as innocent"
Many people do believe a "not guilty" is proof that they haven't done anything, but it is just not proof that they have. A subtle, but important difference.

[jackthehat]

It may be an imperfect system but it is all that we have.
Rather than assume that the system has failed every time someone in the dock walks free, we might become a better society if our first thought is that the system has worked and that just because someone has been accused it doesn't necessarily follow that they were guilty as sin.

[pixie374]

I agree, Jack. Some will be guilty as sin and some will be completely innocent, and everything in between. The point is- we don't know. We only "know" when someone is actually guilty.

[pixie374]

I meant actually "found" guilty.

[youngmafbog]

Totally agree JTH

[andy-hughes]

AOG - // andy-hughes

I have not mentioned thieves, I am referring to rape criminals, and in cases of rape it is very hard to prove, thus preventing many victims of such an horrendous crime from coming forward to get the offender to pay for his crime, and many women have to live with their abuse for the rest of their lives. //

As I pointed out, that speaks to the emotional response to the crime of rape, as against something like theft.

But for justice to work, the system has to be fair across the board - it cannot operate in a system that has a sliding scale of moral outrage that defines the chances of a suspect being named or not - the law does not, and cannot function like that.

// In rape cases, I agree that accused criminals that have past rape convictions should be named and shamed, as they are now. //

Then we must agree to differ.

Everyone is entitled to redemption - the concept that a rapist must forever be effectively condemned over and over again for his crime never allows for the notion of punishment and atonement to occur.

If you start that as a system of law, then every single rapist will know he has nothing at all to lose by carrying out as many rapes as he can, since he can only ever be endlessly persecuted once.

And that I am sure you will agree, is no basis for a legal system to operate effectively.

[mushroom25]

just wondering who it is that would get to decide whether "the accused" had a reputation worth protecting. and would they have decided Cliff Richard, or Lord Brittan (just for example) had such a reputation?

[andy-hughes]

mushroom - // just wondering who it is that would get to decide whether "the accused" had a reputation worth protecting. and would they have decided Cliff Richard, or Lord Brittan (just for example) had such a reputation? //

A valid point.

Possibly the judge, who moves in circles containing aristocrats, MP's and millionaires, thinks only they have 'reputations', but speaking as an 'ordinary' person, I think everyone has a reputation and deserves to have it protected by the law.

[spathiphyllum]

I think everyone involved should remain anonymous until convicted.

[10ClarionSt]

I believe anyone who is charged with any offence, should remain annonymous unless/until found guilty and sentenced. In other words, no-one should be named until the trial is over, and that includes any appeals. When that process has been completed, the guilty person should then be named.

[10ClarionSt]

....and if that person is found innocent, they should not be named and should remain anonymous.