sadoldgit

discontent

Interesting. Married men and men in long standing relationship have been tried for rape. If the woman says no a man is not entitled to go ahead no matter what type of relationship they have.

Not sure if this is entirely the case. The law itself isn't the problem but the legal process can be. Many rape victims don't feel believe and find the cross examination by the Defence as being almost as traumatic as the offence. In court that are often made to feel like liars, like old slappers, like they were asking for it. Out of court they have to go through invasive processes in gathering of forensics. Getting victims to court and to see a case through is not easy. Getting convictions is not easy. If the victim hasn't had bruises and shows evidence of fighting back and trying to escape the jury often think that means consent. If the defendant has previous the prosecution has a battle to get bad character admitted as the defence will object. Anonymity for the victims has helped more come forward but still there are many who dread the legal process.

I don't think it is possible to have an infallible justice system but I would say ours is pretty good. My alternative is not to punish innocents so not sure where you get that from. The prosecution is assuming guilt and the defendant only becomes innocent in the eyes of the prosecution when the verdict comes back as not guilty. You make it sound like I am saying put X people on trial in the hope of getting Y convictions. Unless the defended pleads at some point during the process the prosection will only know how many Ys there are when the jury returns a verdict. At that point the prosecution has a "broken egg." If the prosecution thought that person was probably innocent initially there would not have been a trial. If you are saying that no defendants should be named until found guilty, I am not sure how that would work. We have a transparent criminal justice system and to do this would need closed courts and all kinds of reporting restrictions. I am also not sure that it is in the best interest of the CJS to have a closed system. Yes, it does mean that a person found innocent has been through a tough ordeal, but it also shows that anyone can look at the case as presented in court and see that it was conducted properly and that person have been acquitted as part of due process. If that hasn't happened there are appeal procedures. I take the point that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty but as part of our CJS this decision remains in contention until a verdict is arrived at - it follows that the prosecution believe the evidence to be such that the defendant is guilty and to that end, it is in the public interest to know the name of the person who is going to trial in any given case.

Are you saying that the vast majority of people tried in court are innocent? I am saying that if there is enough evidence to charge then I don't see anything wrong in releasing the name of the alleged offender.

I have been through it too. There is no perfect system. How many more lives are ruined by people who perpetrate crime? At least we no longer have capital punishment so that any miscarriages are justice are not irreversible. Again, I don't agree with names being leaked before a charge is brought.

Yes it is, but that is not my point. There are plenty of people who have walked free when the police know full well it was they that did the crime. Nothing is black and white.

The whole point about a criminal trial is this. The police and the CPS belive that there is enough evidence for a guilty verdict and it is in the public interest to prosecute. If someone is found innocent of the alleged crime so be it but the system deemed it necessary to go through the process to test the case in the front of a jury (or a bench if a Mags case). It is highly unusual for an accused person to have had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a alleged crime. It may be that the jury feel that they didn't do something on purpose or that someone else did it but you wont find many people in a Crown Court trial who were not involved to some extent. I was accused of common assault by my ex wife. I couldn't wait to go to court and put my case because I believed I was innocent and wanted to clear my name. We should not assumed that it ruins everyones lives. I do agree that it is wrong to release names before a charge is brought. For a charge to be brought there must be enough evidence to satisfy the prosecution their is a case. If there isn't the defence can ask for the case to be thrown out at either the preliminary hearing or PCMH if in the Crown Court. In fact if the evidence is very flimsy it wont get sent to the Crown Court from the Magistrates Court.

Yes but my point is that many people think he got away with it.

As someone once said, you cant make an omelette with breaking some eggs. It is very sad but it is part of the criminal justice system. Does everyone who has been through it have a ruined life? I am sure many people move on and are pleased that they had the opportunity to clear their name.

Having just seen the West Ham Lass and others pages I despair for the poor people trying to get sexism out of football. Sometimes women are their own worst enemy. No wonder you still get GYTOFTL when there are clearly a number of young women happy to do just that online. What must go though your mind when you teams win that makes you want to flash you lady parts to people you would normally probably cross the road to avoid. All very public spirited I am sure but it doesn't help those who want to be seen as more than a bit of fluff.

Because you asked the specific question whether an accused should be named in sex cases before being found guilty.

Legally yes Whitey but that doesn't mean that a rape didn't occur. As I said, do you think OJ killed his wife?

Really? There was no differentiation. Many many people say they didn't come forward all those years ago because they thought that no one would believe them. Seems little has changed. Of course there will be some false accusations and it is down to the police to sort those out as best they can. What I can tell you now is that the guidance for CPS lawyers is to believe anyone coming forward with allegations until the point that the allegations really cannot be substantiated.

Can we just get one thing clear guys please. Hypo is saying that sex offenders should not be named until found guilty. The article he provides a link to talks about alleged offenders being named before being charged. These are two completely different issues.

So all the claims against Saville and others are false?

Ok so someone says they are not guilty of killing 10 women but are charged of multiple murders and are remanded in custody. At this point they are technically still innocent but deemed to be a danger to the public so are kept in remand (for a maximum of up to 182 days after which the Crown would have to apply for an extension). Because they are still technically "innocent" should they still be held on remand?

Not sure that is true about exoneration Pap. I see stories in the local paper where people are found not guilty and you certainly see not guilty celebs all over the news (think O J Simpson, Pistorius - of murder etc). I do think people are more interested in guilty verdicts though and perhaps filter out many not guiltys.

Trials are very public affairs. Anyone can sit in the public gallery. Offenders who are not in remand walk in and out of court. Local and sometimes national reporters sit in the gallery. TV crews are sometimes outside. The court lists are published with the alleged offenders names ie R v Bloggs. People are referred to by name in court (and celebrities would be obvious). To keep anonymity until a verdict is almost impossible. Once someone is charged the Crown believe there is a case to answer. At that point I cannot see why anonymity is so important. We all know that the accused needs to be found guilty and might not be. Why are sex offenders any different? If charged and acquitted of fraud would you prefer to keep your name out of the papers? Thing is, if there is enough evidence to charge then people have a right to know what is going on in the legal system. But as I say the OP is misleading and this is not about anonymity until the verdict.

Sorry have just read the article now and was misled by the OP. Yes, of course they should remain anonymous before a charge is made. Before a guilty verdict is a different argument entirely.

One upon a time when bringing a prosecution you couldn't mention if the accused had previous or not. Now you might think if he had six previous charges of rape and was up for rape again that should be known to the jury. But no, it was seen as prejudicial against the accused. Now the CPS can apply for something called Bad Character. If the judges allows it we can now bring up previous offences that we think the jury should be aware of. I raise the point on this thread because it is very difficult to get a conviction for rape and anything that helps should be considered (within the legal framework of course).

It is a tricky one. People get named for other offences so you could argue why should sex crimes be any different. The argument that other victims might come forward is a strong one. We have seen it with the likes of Saville etc. Yes, the offenders get a lot of bad publicity but they also get a great deal of publicity if they are found not guilty. These people have to turn up in court for the Prelim hearing and PCMH so it would be difficult to keep famous names out of the paper. Not an argument against at all but you get my drift. Having worked with the sex crime unit in the CPS I can say that they lawyers there we in favour of naming offenders because it can help with multiple offenders. There used to be an expression - helping police with their enquires. There is an understanding that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but then I think of the hardship that Dave Jones went through and that was harsh. As said, tricky one. To follow up Faraway Saints comment, there are many people who get cleared, or are not prosecuted for rape or serious sexual crimes who are guilty. Anything that can be done to bring rapist to book should be done and if naming offenders helps in anyway then I would go with it. I can see a good argument against though.

The World Cup is arguably the biggest sporting competition in the world. This is a total shambles and as has been said before, we can only hope that the various countries stand up against this. In the immortal words of Harry Enfield, Oi, Blatter, No!

Enjoy! I just hope you don't get the urge to give someone a right hook afterwards

What about some loyalty to the viewers, the production staff, the programme? I used to think those two were ok and that Clarkson was the problem. They of all people know exactly what happened. They may have been off of their heads on booze at the time but would have been brought up to speed later. To be fair to May he did say that Clarkson was guilty of being a nob later. Still bullies always have their acolytes. I would have had a lot more respect for the side kicks if they had carried on. Are we likely to see a new petition from 800,000 asking for May and Hammond to make the three programmes without Clarkson? No probably not. So it is not about the show, it is all about Clarkson. God help us at the election.