Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
If Someone Is Found Not Guilty Of A Sexual Offence, Should Their Accuser Be Publicly Named?
This would include women who have accused men of rape, or sexual assault and children who accuse adults of sexual assault and rape.
In both cases, as we have seen recently, the accused is named, whilst the accuser enjoys anonymity.
I believe that this would be a disaster, but there seems to be growing support amongst some commentators that this is the way we should go.
How do you feel about this?
In both cases, as we have seen recently, the accused is named, whilst the accuser enjoys anonymity.
I believe that this would be a disaster, but there seems to be growing support amongst some commentators that this is the way we should go.
How do you feel about this?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. 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.
My Twitter feed currently has a Tweet from the local police asking for further information about sexual assaults by a 90 year old man who used to be a teacher at a local school. Both the man and the school are named.
If the accused could not be named the police could not further their investigations.
The accuser should never, ever be named whether the accused is found guilty or not. It would stop victims from coming forward and would be a huge barrier to justice.
Of course, if the accuser becomes the defendant of a perjury case, then he or she must be named.
If the accused could not be named the police could not further their investigations.
The accuser should never, ever be named whether the accused is found guilty or not. It would stop victims from coming forward and would be a huge barrier to justice.
Of course, if the accuser becomes the defendant of a perjury case, then he or she must be named.
Yes. It might stop accusations that aren't true. See the Coronation Street actor. I await the results of the trial of DLT and all the other recently accused. Is this the result of the inaction of the BBC, Police and everyone else involved who knew the truth about Savile? So many, many people have since commented that 'he was creepy'. Why didn't they do something about it?! Though Stuart Hall admitted his guilt. What are we to believe?
agree with rocky, and with Eddie: if there's evidence that the prosecution was malicious, there's a case for releasing the complainant's name. But not otherwise.
This may seem unfair, but it is to tackle even greater unfairness: it is believed that there are 60,000-95,000 rapes a year (the figure is very vague) - but only 1000 convictions. (And a few of those convicted are just cautioned.)
This seems ludicrously low and suggests thousands of rapists are getting away with it. So defendants' names are released, often in the hope, as you say, that other victims of the same person will come forward, which would both give them a voice and demonstrate a pattern of offending.
But many people, including quite a few on AB, are convinced that all women are liars.
http://
This may seem unfair, but it is to tackle even greater unfairness: it is believed that there are 60,000-95,000 rapes a year (the figure is very vague) - but only 1000 convictions. (And a few of those convicted are just cautioned.)
This seems ludicrously low and suggests thousands of rapists are getting away with it. So defendants' names are released, often in the hope, as you say, that other victims of the same person will come forward, which would both give them a voice and demonstrate a pattern of offending.
But many people, including quite a few on AB, are convinced that all women are liars.
http://
If the accused can be named just because they are accused, then following a Not Guilty verdict of course the accuser should be named and shamed.
Mud sticks, being found not guilty will not guarantee there is no long term damage done to the accused life/career, so why should the accuser walk away unnamed?
-- answer removed --
> it is believed that there are 60,000-95,000 rapes a year (the figure is very vague) - but only 1000 convictions. (And a few of those convicted are just cautioned.)
> This seems ludicrously low
Another way of looking at that is "Anonymity for only the accuser isn't working" ...
The options are:
Named accuser, anonymous accused - clearly wrong
Named accuser, named accused - why not?
Anonymous accuser, anonymous accused - why not?
Anonymous accuser, named accused - what we have
Given that "anonymity for only the accuser isn't working", who's to say whether one of the other two "why not" options would be better or worse, especially if it's the accuser who decides which option is taken on a case-by-case basis.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what the answer is for adults - but I don't think children should be named (either accuser or accused).
> This seems ludicrously low
Another way of looking at that is "Anonymity for only the accuser isn't working" ...
The options are:
Named accuser, anonymous accused - clearly wrong
Named accuser, named accused - why not?
Anonymous accuser, anonymous accused - why not?
Anonymous accuser, named accused - what we have
Given that "anonymity for only the accuser isn't working", who's to say whether one of the other two "why not" options would be better or worse, especially if it's the accuser who decides which option is taken on a case-by-case basis.
Incidentally, I'm not sure what the answer is for adults - but I don't think children should be named (either accuser or accused).
rockyracoon
Nope...I don't think you should apologise, because most of us (and I include myself here) do not appreciate what victims go through. We cannot imagine it, and if I has been through something like that and then seen some of the comments on newspaper websites and news threads, I would feel exactly the same.
This is in no way in the same league! but years ago my flat was burgled, and if you asked me at the time, what should happen to my burglar if caught, I would have been quite happy for him to have been doused with petrol and set alight.
Those who have never been burgled don't know what it does to you, and in that sme vein, I don't think those who have been victims of sexual assault can even imagine what it's like.
As I say - not in the same league, but I know where you're coming from...
Nope...I don't think you should apologise, because most of us (and I include myself here) do not appreciate what victims go through. We cannot imagine it, and if I has been through something like that and then seen some of the comments on newspaper websites and news threads, I would feel exactly the same.
This is in no way in the same league! but years ago my flat was burgled, and if you asked me at the time, what should happen to my burglar if caught, I would have been quite happy for him to have been doused with petrol and set alight.
Those who have never been burgled don't know what it does to you, and in that sme vein, I don't think those who have been victims of sexual assault can even imagine what it's like.
As I say - not in the same league, but I know where you're coming from...
The normal rule is that the accused is named unless they are juveniles or the publication of their name might prejudice jurors in the trial of another indictment against them which is to follow.
Complainants in rape and other sexual offences are not named. However, the judge may direct that they be named if doing so is likely to induce other witnesses who may be needed to come forward and that the accused's defence is likely to be seriously hampered by his not so ordering. The judge may also so order if not naming would impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction upon the reporting of proceedings at the trial and that it is in the public interest to remove the restriction.
However, the Act provides that the lifting of the restriction shall not be "by reason only of the outcome of the trial"
[Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 as amended ]
Complainants in rape and other sexual offences are not named. However, the judge may direct that they be named if doing so is likely to induce other witnesses who may be needed to come forward and that the accused's defence is likely to be seriously hampered by his not so ordering. The judge may also so order if not naming would impose a substantial and unreasonable restriction upon the reporting of proceedings at the trial and that it is in the public interest to remove the restriction.
However, the Act provides that the lifting of the restriction shall not be "by reason only of the outcome of the trial"
[Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 as amended ]
There have been cases where people have falsely accused others of sexual offences (a previous thread highlighted these). Those I have absolutely no issue with being named and shamed.
The issue I have is with an acquittal where there is no suggestion of a false allegation. It DOES NOT follow that if someone is acquitted that the victim is lying. It means that the prosecution have failed to prove the case to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" for whatever reason.
I have prosecuted, defended and sat on a jury involving sex offences, so I've seen it at the coal face. One case I recall was convicted on first appearance, but then on appeal overturned on a technicality. So the 12 year old complainant should be named and shamed because some idiot failed to do his job? Sorry, that is wrong on so many levels.
The issue I have is with an acquittal where there is no suggestion of a false allegation. It DOES NOT follow that if someone is acquitted that the victim is lying. It means that the prosecution have failed to prove the case to the standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" for whatever reason.
I have prosecuted, defended and sat on a jury involving sex offences, so I've seen it at the coal face. One case I recall was convicted on first appearance, but then on appeal overturned on a technicality. So the 12 year old complainant should be named and shamed because some idiot failed to do his job? Sorry, that is wrong on so many levels.
Quite right, BM. There is an extraordinary belief held by some on AB that because a man is acquitted the witnesses for the prosecution must have been lying. I can assure them all that defendants are sometimes acquitted , not because they were telling the gospel truth, which the jury knew or believed not to be the case, but because the prosecution failed to convince the jury to the requisite standard. It is common for defendants to be shown to be liars but the jury ignore that and, correctly, concentrate on whether the prosecution case is such that it discharges the burden and meets the standard of proof. To that end, the fact that the defendant has lied may assist the jury, but juries apply common sense in such matters.
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.