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

[LazyGun]

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

Wow, judgemental much?

If it can be shown during the course of the trial that the accuser has lied or offered false witness, any of a range of penalties should be ( and are) levied, including jail if appropriate.

[douglas9401]

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

This statement gives the impression that unless a verdict goes the way one expects it to go, that verdict is wrong.
If a court finds a person 'not guilty' then that is that and being a regular on Answerbank, however important that may make one feel doesn't change that.

[sandyRoe]

Isn't there a possible verdict in Scotland, 'Not proven'?

[ummmm]

No it doesn't. If anyone I don't know is found not guilty I will assume they are not guilty.

[browntrout]

there is, Sandy, that's why I said "in England". people take it to mean that we think you did it but we have failed to prove it.

[pixie373]

Not necessarily, Douglas. They may be found not guilty by the law. That could be wrong. Sometimes there just isn't enough evidence to prove guilt. Or they could be mistaken.

[browntrout]

ummmm,

so, if anyone you DO know is found not guilty, you will assume they ARE guilty.

[douglas9401]

'No it doesn't. If anyone I don't know is found not guilty I will assume they are not guilty.'

Rather begs the question then, who are the guilty who are found not guilty?

[pixie373]

That depends if you believe the legal system to be 100% accurate. We know mistakes have been made and people have been acquitted or pardoned later. Do you think no guilty person has ever "got away with it"? Seems unlikely to me.

[New Judge]

I won't get too involved but there is a difference between being acquitted by a court and actually being not guilty of an offence.

As soon as I walk out of Sainsbury's with a bottle of vodka under my coat, without paying and with the intention to permanently deprive Sainsbury's of the goods then I am guilty of theft. The fact that nobody sees me and I am not prosecuted, or if I am prosecuted but the evidence does not hold up in court does not alter my guilt. An acquittal is a legal convention. It may or may not align with the facts but it cannot alter them if it does not.

[ummmm]

No...I didn't say that.

Some people I know were arrested and even though they pleaded not guilty I knew for a fact that they were guilty...

I could never know that about a complete stranger...

[whiskeryron]

//
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. //

Well said naomi

WR.

[TWR]

I do Not, will not condone this sort of acts by any person, from what I have read, heard regards this person, I think the public are influenced by the press & has been seen or heard of in the past, Locally here a few years ago a bloke got accused, the town was down on this person like a ton of bricks, he got belted, kicked, humiliated by the towns folk only to find, that the bitch that accused him was found to be lying!!!!!!!!!!

[jackthehat]

TWR - Surely, in that case, the blame belongs to the mob with their flaming torches and pitchforks?
What happened to the woman who lied?

[China Doll]

Right.... so doesn't that just mean the towns fold were a bunch of violent, ignorant thugs?

Personally I don't think either the victim or the accused should be named in court until a guilty or innocent charge.

[browntrout]

new judge,

nicely put, but isn't that more of a philosophical point than a legal one. unless you are convicted people can't go around saying explicitly that you are a shoplifter. mind you, snide comments, innuendos etc. that's different.

[TWR]

In other words, because of publicity & feeling towards this person, he was guilty before he was tried, the person ( Woman ) was fined, I WOULD NOT EXCEPT THAT IN ANY WAY OR FORM.

[TWR]

She, left town.

[jackthehat]

That still makes it the fault of the townsfolk.

The woman was obviously prosecuted and found guilty.

[sara3]

douglas, the fact is that defendants are guilty or not guilty, but if there is not a guilty plea the jury has to decide, and with such historic cases that often comes down to a balance of probabilities, and sometimes who comes across "better" in court.

being found guilty or not guilty does not make someone any more (or less) guilty than before the verdict is read out. that's just the jury's decision. therefore, this does not necessarily make the accuser a liar if the jury then decide "not guilty".