|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 5:45:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on May 23, 2010 11:22:14 GMT
I am so ambivalent on this issue. I'm looking forward to see what others think about it.
I can't see the reason for offering anonymity solely for rape defendants. I have some sympathy with the views of the anti-Rape activist you quote in the OP. Why not also for other sexual assaults? And then, why not also for other crimes more widely?
I know someone whose name and address were published as they were charged for a very serious violent crime. The charges were bogus and thrown out by the judge first time they went to court, but that person had nonetheless been smeared publicly with the charge.
On the other hand, however, justice has to be public and has to be seen to be public.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on May 23, 2010 12:51:03 GMT
I don't understand the justification for it. Are they saying because there have been false allegations? But there have been false allegations in probably all categories......so why just choose this one?
It is so hard for people women/children and men to come forward for this crime already.......why do this?
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 23, 2010 16:23:32 GMT
This cuts both ways.
f you are going to name alleged rapists, name their alleged victims as well...that way, those who were previously falsely accused of rape can come forward if the claiment has cried rape before....
As a bloke I honestly cannot think of anything worse than being falsely accused of a sex crime against a woman or a child...people don't like rapists living in their midst and mud sticks.
AH
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on May 23, 2010 16:38:38 GMT
I am not at all convinced that we should give any defendant, in any criminal trial, complete anonymity. I can, however, see the argument in favour. Why should a man who is innocent of rape have his details plastered over the tabloids, while his accuser remains anonymous. But why stop there? Why should a school teacher falsely accused of assaulting a pupil have their personal details splashed all over the papers? Or a man falsely accused of sexually assaulting a minor? I could go on.
So why should we then offer anonymity to the victim of rape? Is it to protect the victim from adverse publicity, or is it (more likely) to encourage more women to come forward and make complaints. It is not easy. But if we grant anonymity to one, we should also afford it to the other. Either that, or remove the cloak of anonymity from both defendant AND complainant. And there is nothing sinister, or unusual about the low conviction rate in cases of rape. While I can personally have little difficulty in accepting that many who are guilty of rape get away with it; and probably greatly outnumber instances of false accusations, it is because of the nature of the offence itself.
Rape is rarely witnessed, so when it comes to trial it is a case of one word against another. And unless there is some corroborating evidence....injuries, or, better still, independent witnesses, juries are loath to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim alone. As the famous lawyer R.D. Blackstone opined; "rape is an accusation easy to make, difficult to prove; but even more difficult to disprove."
So, on balance, and for what it is worth, I am not in favour of this new government initiative.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 23, 2010 16:41:15 GMT
Ben, I am pretty certain that the conservatives have said that they will give teachers anonymity in such cases.
AH
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on May 23, 2010 17:10:27 GMT
Ben, I am pretty certain that the conservatives have said that they will give teachers anonymity in such cases. AH That really illustrates my point. Extending the right of anonymity to teachers will meet with universal approval (and in a way that would include me). But where do we stop? And what makes ONE set of defendants more deserving than another? John Higgins is (allegedly) a bent snooker player, and the Duchess of York has (allegedly) been caught selling her soul for a mess of pottage. Should THEY be able to argue a right for privacy on the grounds that they have not yet been convicted? They MIGHT be innocent, and in that case have as much right to privacy as (say) a man accused of rape. Thin ends of wedges usually open up a large can of worms.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 23, 2010 17:15:12 GMT
I think it comes down to stigma.
You hear that your neighbor has been accused of assault - You shrug your shoulders and carry on what you were doing
You hear that your neighbor has been accused of rape - You react differently, you probably don't want to be seen associating with him, you worry about his house getting torched or yours being mistaken for his etc
Some crimes are worse than others...rape is one of the worst.
AH
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 17:20:55 GMT
I know someone whose name and address were published as they were charged for a very serious violent crime. The charges were bogus and thrown out by the judge first time they went to court, but that person had nonetheless been smeared publicly with the charge. On the other hand, however, justice has to be public and has to be seen to be public. I'd like to know whether men found "not guilty" of rape are treated with more suspicion than someone cleared of (say) grievous bodily harm or fraud. Given that there is a widely held view that nearly all rapists "get away with it", and a constant clamour to increase the rape conviction rape, accused men probably are viewed with a great deal of suspicion whether they are convicted or not. Stories I've heard suggest it is the case; there was a harrowing tale in our paper from a man who spent five months in jail before evidence was discovered that proved the complainant lied. She was jailed, he was released: even then he was treated like a rapist by some.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 23, 2010 17:21:09 GMT
I don't understand the justification for it. Are they saying because there have been false allegations? But there have been false allegations in probably all categories......so why just choose this one? Because being falsely accused of assault or shop lifting won't ruin your life or see you shunned publicly...being falsely accused of rape can destroy peoples lives. AH
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on May 23, 2010 19:36:13 GMT
Rape is the MOST lied about crime of all. I have total contempt for rapists having had two unsuccessful attempts to rape me plus what was virtually a rape when I was gang-banged at my initiation ceremony when I joined the local gang.
On the other hand, women DO habitually cry rape when it ISN'T rape.
Routinely, DNA tests exonerate LOADS of blokes who've been WRONGLY convicted of rape.
As far as I'm concerned, the law OUGHT to be fair to everyone.
(No, I'm NOT naive enough to think that it IS!)
If female accusers are able to get anonymity, so too should male defendants.
In America, men are routinely locked up on bogus charges of rape and domestic violence - the women accusers often ADVISED to make these false claims by crooked lawyers - and held WITHOUT TRIAL in prison until they 'confess.'
The present laws on rape and domestic abuse are a shambles and ANYTHING which can make it fairer and less of a trauma can only be the RIGHT thing to do.
I completely support this fairer and more equal proposal!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 23, 2010 20:01:16 GMT
Now, that is news to me.....but come to think of it, it was DNA testing that both led to the arrest of, and later exonerated, the man I spoke of earlier, who had been locked up for five months having been refused bail
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on May 30, 2010 20:57:29 GMT
And what makes ONE set of defendants more deserving than another? John Higgins is (allegedly) a bent snooker player, and the Duchess of York has (allegedly) been caught selling her soul for a mess of pottage. Should THEY be able to argue a right for privacy on the grounds that they have not yet been convicted? Why not? What would be the argument against not publishing until if and when charges as proven? Apart from annoying newspaper editors of course.
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2010 2:11:15 GMT
In Germany I've never seen the identity, full name, etc. of a non-convicted rapist or sex abuser revealed, unless it's a celebrity like Michael Jackson, etc.. The German press is good about not revealing the full names of non-celebrity, non-politican criminals ( accused or convicted ). Even the full names convicted serial killers are not revealed and this stops the murderobilia industry and murderer fan clubs from developing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2010 5:18:02 GMT
Anna, I was rather hoping you would come in on this because I had heard that in Germany rape defendants are anonymous until conviction. Do you know what anti-rape groups feel abut this?
Over here (UK), people say that publishing names can lead to other victims coming forward, but I don't know how often that happens.
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on May 31, 2010 9:49:35 GMT
A quick bit of googling shows that Germany has a higher rape conviction rate than the UK...so naming suspects doesn't mean that you get more convictions.
Anna do you know what the actual German conviction rates are percentage wise?
AH
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2010 13:46:58 GMT
Hi Alpha! I'd have to do some google searching to find that out and it would probably be in German. The rape statistics for some countries convicted and non-convicted for 2001 and 2002 was all i could find for now. I'm sure more detailed statistics can be found on government pdf sites. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on May 31, 2010 13:56:30 GMT
Anna, I was rather hoping you would come in on this because I had heard that in Germany rape defendants are anonymous until conviction. Do you know what anti-rape groups feel abut this? Over here (UK), people say that publishing names can lead to other victims coming forward, but I don't know how often that happens. Hi SkyLark, I suppose the members of anti-rape groups don't have an opinion for all on this. I dunno. The Catholic priest pedophile scandals may have gotten people to come forward, but whether or not revealing the identities of any of the non-convicted accused was helpful is hard to answer.
|
|
|
Post by jade on Jun 1, 2010 15:38:30 GMT
is a non-convicted rapist a rapist or just someone who has been accused and is awaiting a verdict?
Otherwise calling them a rapist is wrong, isn't it? (or the same as calling anyone a rapist who has not been found guilty of such a charge)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2010 17:56:49 GMT
is a non-convicted rapist a rapist or just someone who has been accused and is awaiting a verdict? Otherwise calling them a rapist is wrong, isn't it? (or the same as calling anyone a rapist who has not been found guilty of such a charge) Not my phrase...but there do seem to be people who say that the chances of a rapist being convicted is so small that we might as well describe all men accused with the crime as " non-convicted rapists".
|
|