Publicly naming the accused.

[Mon Autre]

For me, low conviction rates are not a reason to subvert basic justice. At the stage of accusation, 'Victims' are nothing of the sort, they can be literally anybody with a grudge or harbouring malicious intent, both parties should be anonymous. To name people immediately after an accusation that, at this stage, is unproven, is the result of pressure put to bear on the failings of the system to obtain prosecutions.

Like I say, there are losers whichever way we look at it. I don't believe what you're describing subverts basic justice so I can't really respond to the idea that I think low conviction rates are a reason to do so. I think in many instances it facilitates the investigation and could lead to evidence being gathered which could either exonerate the accused or help convict them. For me, false accusations are much rarer than actual crime and it always seems on here that people are disproportionately fixated on the former rather than the latter. Anyway, I know how these threads always go and I've said my bit now so that's me done for the day in here.

 

[Bluemanc100]

I think it's bang out of order.. it's all part of the thirst for 24 hour news...

 

[SWP's back]

To put the other side of the case .....

The police/CPS case is that publicity for the likes of Savile resulted in more victims coming forward and built a stronger case.
Don't know how many similar situations there have been to Savile, but is it into double figures?
To me the relatively few similar cases outweighs the greater number of people whose lives get ruined by false accusation/not guilty verdicts.

I was fully in favour of anonymity until you posted that.

Now I’m unsure which side of the fence to sit.

Well done.

 

[TheBlueDune]

I was fully in favour of anonymity until you posted that.

Now I’m unsure which side of the fence to sit.

Well done.

I'm on the anonymity side.
But I can see the other point of view.
And, as Ancient Citizen says, it should be accusers coming forward rather than victims. They only become victims if the accused is found guilty. Unless it's a media witch hunt when everybody can call themselves a victim even if nowhere near being involved in any alleged crime.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm on the anonymity side.
But I can see the other point of view.
And, as Ancient Citizen says, it should be accusers coming forward rather than victims. They only become victims if the accused is found guilty. Unless it's a media witch hunt when everybody can call themselves a victim even if nowhere near being involved in any alleged crime.

Yep. You’ve just turned me back around to anonymity again. Thanks.

 

[Damocles]

To put the other side of the case .....

The police/CPS case is that publicity for the likes of Savile resulted in more victims coming forward and built a stronger case.
Don't know how many similar situations there have been to Savile, but is it into double figures?
To me the relatively few similar cases outweighs the greater number of people whose lives get ruined by false accusation/not guilty verdicts.

The problem with this view is that its an exception rather than the rule.

Saville was a one off exceptional circumstances case due to the length of time offending, his celebrity and his image. This doesn't equally apply to Joe Bloggs from the council estate who now is under investigation for rape of a minor or some such, is innocent but has his life ruined.

The justice system has to be blind to function. Celebrities deserve the right to privacy, even in egregious circumstances, in the same way that Joe Bloggs does.

Accusing someone of a crime requires nothing. Same as suggesting that the Earth is a cube. The proof is in the pudding, the evidence and that determines whether you know a thing to be true or not proven. And if something isn't proven then for all intents and purposes it is effectively considered false.

It's the only way it CAN work. Otherwise we have chaos. It doesn't matter what shape the Earth really is, it matters what shape you can prove it to be because this is how we have collectively decided to judge reality.

Naming a potential offender because you do not have enough evidence is not a valid legal tactic. It's your job as a prosecution or Police to build the case through investigation. If you can't do that without telling people what crime they were accused of and asking them if they also were victims then the case isn't strong enough. There's also the fact that saying to someone "did Joe Bloggs rape you?" in comparison to "has Joe Bloggs ever done anything criminal?" is a loaded question.

Anonymity should be a legal requirement for offender and victim until after trial.

 

[ancoats]

Anonymity should be given to both side's in a court case, and the jury should be going in blind until the hearing is read out in court even then the names should be a simple mr or miss A or B be given to the jury and less knowledge of the person in front of them the fairer the outcome of the case

the CPS are in control and not really the police anymore in court cases, yes they are the main people when it comes to arresting and finding evidence on somebody, but after that its the CPS that take control of the case, so anonymity is in there hands and many times somebody leaked it to the press and they have fucked up not the police and cases have been thrown out because of info leaking to the media and the jury are informed about the person and the case then becomes personal to anybody sitting on the jury

 

[Fame Monster]

No. The press should be able to reveal a person's identity when the state has arrested a person although I respect the other side of the argument too.

 

[m7mcfc]

In the eyes of the law you are not guilty until you are found guilty or admit your guilt.
Up until that point you are innocent.
Now we all know some people are guilty as sin.
That is the way English law is.
Nobody should be named before admitting their guilt or found so by there peers.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The main cause of a rape accusation being so damaging in the first place is the low rape conviction rate. The reality is that nobody trusts the justice system to successfully convict rapists, because most of the time they don't (largely because of the nature of the crime). So when someone is charged with rape and found not guilty, there's always going to be that element of doubt around it. Whether or not you think that is sufficient reason to keep it confidential is another question. Let's be honest, being accused of any crime isn't exactly a pleasant experience. But a decent number of rapists turn out to be serial offenders when finally caught, and I personally think that's enough of a reason to keep it as it is. Particularly in cases of child abuse, serial offenders seem to account for the majority of cases, from what I've read, which means there's a huge incentive to encourage others to come forward. And just on a practical level, trying to keep these things anonymous is fighting a losing battle nowadays anyway. We're already seeing accusers regularly having their identity publicised online now despite the law, and the same thing will happen to the accused.

I'd also be very careful about framing it in a way that suggests that if an accused person is found not guilty, that means the accuser was lying. People who are found guilty of making a false accusation to the police can already be named and shamed, but that has the same burden of proof as convicting someone for rape in the first place. Although from what I've read, the majority of false accusations come from people with mental health problems and lack the sort of credibility that would result in the police even arresting someone, and in those kinds of cases, it makes little sense to charge them.

The reality is that there's no perfect solution. You can say that someone shouldn't have their life ruined by a false accusation, but the reality is that certain consequences are unavoidable. It's not fair that an innocent teacher accused of child abuse is suspended from their job, but what are you going to do? Risk a child abuser teaching your kids because it hasn't been proven in a court of law yet? Whatever you do is going to be shit for someone in this situation.