Publicly naming the accused.

[Mad Eyed Screamer]

No one should be named in advance. Unless Rooney or another rag up to no good that we can laugh at

 

[sir baconface]

The Cliff Richard situation was salutary. What percentage of the population suspect he dunnit, despite not a scrap of evidence? He's now damaged goods, whatever the compensation or apologies. Very unfair.

I appreciate the points about encouraging other victims to come forward. But isn't there serious extra punishment for a convicted person who fails to have other offences taken into account? I think so but could be wrong.

 

[2sheikhs]

The Cliff Richard situation was salutary. What percentage of the population suspect he dunnit, despite not a scrap of evidence? He's now damaged goods, whatever the compensation or apologies. Very unfair.

I appreciate the points about encouraging other victims to come forward. But isn't there serious extra punishment for a convicted person who fails to have other offences taken into account? I think so but could be wrong.

I’m not sure that you’d get extra punishment for not admitting to something the police couldn’t prove. I think you’re treated favourably if you do because a case can be closed and it saves public resources and any potential victims have closure. Obviously, the likes of Fred West were in the deepest of deep shit so it wouldn’t make much difference.
On the subject of encouraging other victims to come forward by naming the accused, don’t forget that people already serving a sentence can often face extra charges as and when further evidence is put forward.

 

[Henkeman]

The reason why rape convictions are low is because in most instances unless there's strong physical evidence the only people who know what happened are the accused and the accuser. Juries are reluctant to convict on the basis of one person's word against another's - and in all truth, they are right to be reluctant. The only way of changing that is to change the presumption of innocence, and that's a step too far.

The use of the word victim before anyone has been convicted is far too prevalent.


One of my best friends went through this accusation, and believe me it was a miserable experience, not least when his accuser was ultimately convicted of a false accusation. That is rare, and there's no reason to assume maliciousness is a common occurrence, but despite him being utterly innocent, I well remember the process he went through - kicked out of his own home and sleeping in cars until we realised what was going on.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

The use of the word victim before anyone has been convicted is far too prevalent.

Do you feel the same way about victims of a burglary?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

For ‘victim’ the modern nomenclature is ‘injured party’.

We need an open system of justice. That is more important than an individual’s right to privacy.

The reason the conviction rates for sexual offences are so low is principally because of the politicised nature of the associated charging decisions that give scant regard to the otherwise well observed (and skilfully crafted) two stage test that should be applied when evaluating whether to prosecute. Sometimes, the CPS would rather ‘let the Jury decide’ than display a pair of bollocks, which is (frequently) an affront to justice.

 

[Henkeman]

Do you feel the same way about victims of a burglary?

That's a silly statement. You cannot assume an accusation means they are a victim. It's what the courts are for.

 

[sir baconface]

I’m not sure that you’d get extra punishment for not admitting to something the police couldn’t prove. I think you’re treated favourably if you do because a case can be closed and it saves public resources and any potential victims have closure. Obviously, the likes of Fred West were in the deepest of deep shit so it wouldn’t make much difference.
On the subject of encouraging other victims to come forward by naming the accused, don’t forget that people already serving a sentence can often face extra charges as and when further evidence is put forward.

I think we are saying the same thing, only you said it better! Other offences would have to be proven in court but I believe the offender would be penalised harder for not pleading them in the first instance.

 

[sir baconface]

For ‘victim’ the modern nomenclature is ‘injured party’.

Have Scousers re-branded?

 

[I'm With Stupid]

That's a silly statement. You cannot assume an accusation means they are a victim. It's what the courts are for.

I put it to you that there's not a single other crime where you routinely disbelieve the victim until it's proven in a court of law. What if there is no accused? What if it was committed by a stranger where the victim didn't get a good look at their face but reports it to the police anyway? Is it wrong to call her/him a victim then?