Another Court Case For Rape Where The Victims Names

[trt]

are not disclosed, but the accused is!

One is 62 now and it happened to her when she was 15, something is not right here!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2540555/Coronation-Street-star-Bill-Roache-court-child-sex-trial.html

[pixie373]

Jno^^, i copied the misspelling, but he's not denying it.

[jno]

that's interesting, pixie, I didn't know that.

[pixie373]

Neither did i until then. His agent must be terrified!

[Zeuhl]

pixie

based on that, he's not admitting it either

a 'situation' 'happened 38 years ago'

some may claim it involved him doing wrong, others not

[LazyGun]

"so it's right that one side is named and the other is not, right oh!"

Yes, it is, when the alleged crime in question is Rape. Nor is the law unique to the UK. The US have a rape shield law too, as does most of the developed world, for a very specific reason; Rape is humiliating, demeaning, traumatic and potentially stigmatising - if those defendants were named, fewer might find the courage to come forward and put up with the whole court process. Secondarily, by naming the rape suspect rather than the victim, it might encourage other victims of the same person to come forward.

You might have a point, if you could demonstrate that a significant proportion of rape accusations were false, or made-up, or made out of revenge for some imagined slight - but that is not what the evidence suggests. A large British Home Office study looking at this issue concluded that on the best available evidence, the number of false allegations was 3% or less.

[sara3]

if a defendant is wrongly found not guilty (after all decisions are made by Joe Public), the victim then looks like a liar.

it would be completely wrong if victims were named publicly.

[Zeuhl]

But what is the justification for naming the accused?

as LG says;

/Rape is humiliating, demeaning, traumatic and potentially stigmatising/

[douglas9401]

'if a defendant is wrongly found not guilty..'

Wrongly in the eyes of who exactly?

[humbersloop]

isn't it the case that that in a rape trial the person making the allegation is also often in the unusual position of being the only "witness" to the offence, which is how the law actually treats them through the process?

I always find it curious that granting witnesses anonymity in different circumstances, which isn't unusual, never brings out the same indignation

[ummmm]

Douglas - just because someone is found not guilty doesn't mean they are not guilty.

It just means it cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.

[pixie373]

That's right, ummmm. It's the same for everyone. On my CRB check (or whatever they're called now), it only said "Nothing recorded". It didn't say i was innocent.

[browntrout]

ummmm,

Write an open letter to Michael Le Veil (the coronation street bloke) saying that just because you were acquitted.........etc.

then get your cheque-book out.

[ummmm]

Why on earth would I do that? Where have I hinted that I think he's guilty of anything?

It still remains a fact that guilty people get found not guilty.

[naomi24]

Terming the accuser the ‘victim’ assumes guilt. She might not be a ‘victim’. She might be a liar. If the accuser is allowed to maintain anonymity, then it’s only fair that the accused should be afforded a similar courtesy until such time as ‘guilt’ is established.

[pixie373]

Browntrout, Michael levell has not been found innocent, either.
I don't think accusers should be named, as i do think it might stop people coming forward, but, as i said, i don't think the accused should be either, until the verdict.

[browntrout]

Yes, and innocent people get convicted.
but, and it's a big but. in England the law says you are either not guilty or guilty. there is no middle ground.

[ummmm]

If the accused is named it might encourage more victims to come forward. Proving guilt would be easier if there was/is more than one victim.

Maybe the press should make more of a song and dance about people being found not guilty like they do over arrests...

[TWR]

IF AND I SAY IF, he is found not guilty, what should the accusers punishment be?

[sandyRoe]

Why should there be any punishment? What have they done to deserve it?

[ummmm]

Like has been said, TWR, being found not guilty doesn't always mean they are not guilty.