People accused of Sex crimes named or not?

Should individuals accused of Sex crimes be named before they have been found guilty? Interested in people's thoughts on this. One view is that it encourages other victims to come forward whilst the opposing opinion is that innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and that it causes huge damage before they have been convicted. Thoughts?

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

Should individuals accused of Sex crimes be named before they have been found guilty? Interested in people's thoughts on this. One view is that it encourages other victims to come forward whilst the opposing opinion is that innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and that it causes huge damage before they have been convicted. Thoughts?

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

Given the number of false rape claims there are and the fact that even those accused who are cleared have had their lives ruined... No, emphatically and totally no.

innocent until proven guilty isn't it?

what if it's ur schoolteacher or ur babysitter or ur doctor? You might want to be Caution if your paediatrician is accused paedophile. I Would Want To Know.

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.

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).

Some campaign groups have said that the focus should be on the victims. Are not the falsely accused also victims?

Definitely not.

As others have said, the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

The only reason not to name someone is because people don't think in the same way.

It's not a problem with the law. It's a problem with people, and to a lesser extent the media, very good at reporting outrages but not so hot on the old exoneration front.

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.

As others have said, the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

I Don't Think That's True, If The Law Presume Innocent, How Come They Handcuff Me?

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.

I also think that should be the case for non sex crimes. I'm thinking of the poor guy in Bristol that was arrested for that murder a couple of years back, vilified in the press, then turned out to be innocent. Absolutely shameful.

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.

As others have said, the law presumes innocence until proven otherwise.

 

The only reason not to name someone is because people don't think in the same way.

 

It's not a problem with the law. It's a problem with people, and to a lesser extent the media, very good at reporting outrages but not so hot on the old exoneration front.

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.

Should individuals accused of Sex crimes be named before they have been found guilty? Interested in people's thoughts on this. One view is that it encourages other victims to come forward whilst the opposing opinion is that innocent until proven guilty should be upheld and that it causes huge damage before they have been convicted. Thoughts?

 

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31970034

Categorically no, as much as agree it will be good to promote more victims to come forward our whole legal system is built on innocent until proven guilty.

This opens the door for peoples lives to be destroyed by accusations that may turn out to be incorrect, and I think thats fundamentally wrong personally.

Given the number of false rape claims there are and the fact that even those accused who are cleared have had their lives ruined... No, emphatically and totally no.

No, no and thrice no. It also encourages people to come forward and make false claims.

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?

No, no and thrice no. It also encourages people to come forward and make false claims.

So all the claims against Saville and others are false?

So all the claims against Saville and others are false?

Im pretty sure thats not what he said

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.

Im pretty sure thats not what he said

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.

Given the number of false rape claims there are and the fact that even those accused who are cleared have had their lives ruined... No, emphatically and totally no.

No, no and thrice no. It also encourages people to come forward and make false claims.

These seemingly endemic false rape claims that get talked about on here are still far outweighed by the number of rapes that go unpunished. It's also worth mentioning, that someone accused who is not found guilty is not necessarily innocent, and the claim is not necessarily false. It's scary that people seem more concerned with tackling false claims which are relatively low (not to say those false claims aren't awful, and it can have terrible consequences on people lives), and not the disgustingly high number of rapes and their pitifully low conviction rate.

I largely agree with the points SoG made that it is a particularly tricky issue.

Really? There was no differentiation.

Neither from you also

Its a matter of interpretation

Im pretty sure thats not what he said

Of course it's not wht I said, I even included a quote referring to rapes and anyway, the subject under discussion has been determined by the thread title and previous posts.

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.

This is not the point under discussion. The question is whether those accused should remain anonymous during the investigation..

These seemingly endemic false rape claims that get talked about on here are still far outweighed by the number of rapes that go unpunished. It's also worth mentioning, that someone accused who is not found guilty is not necessarily innocent, and the claim is not necessarily false. It's scary that people seem more concerned with tackling false claims which are relatively low (not to say those false claims aren't awful, and it can have terrible consequences on people lives), and not the disgustingly high number of rapes and their pitifully low conviction rate.

 

I largely agree with the points SoG made that it is a particularly tricky issue.

Something genuinely needs to be done about the genuine rape claims that go unpunished, I just do not know how to do that, being able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be incredibly tough and I feel for the jury in such cases. Let alone the victims within which I would imagine a non-guilty verdict is just as crushing as the original offence.

I dont however condone releasing the names of offenders who have not been found guilty, unfortunately the truth is that innocent people will still find their lives torn apart by the accusations, and I dont think as a society we can do that to innocent people.

These seemingly endemic false rape claims that get talked about on here are still far outweighed by the number of rapes that go unpunished. It's also worth mentioning, that someone accused who is not found guilty is not necessarily innocent, and the claim is not necessarily false. It's scary that people seem more concerned with tackling false claims which are relatively low (not to say those false claims aren't awful, and it can have terrible consequences on people lives), and not the disgustingly high number of rapes and their pitifully low conviction rate.

 

I largely agree with the points SoG made that it is a particularly tricky issue.

There is no way of knowing how many rapes go unpunished.

If someone is found innocent of rape then a claim that someone has been raped must necessarily been false.

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.

Why not discuss both then instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

Of course it's not wht I said, I even included a quote referring to rapes and anyway, the subject under discussion has been determined by the thread title and previous posts.

 

 

 

This is not the point under discussion. The question is whether those accused should remain anonymous during the investigation..

Yep this is my point. I agree with you.

There is no way of knowing how many rapes go unpunished.

 

If someone is found innocent of rape then a claim that someone has been raped must necessarily been false.

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

There is no way of knowing how many rapes go unpunished.

 

If someone is found innocent of rape then a claim that someone has been raped must necessarily been false.

That's completely untrue. As Smirks correctly points out, it is an extremely hard crime to prove beyond all doubt.

The law is riddled with holes, getting off in court does not mean any claim brought against you is 'false'.

I dont however condone releasing the names of offenders who have not been found guilty, ......

Surely they aren't 'offenders' until they have been found guilty ?

Why not discuss both then instead of repeating the same thing over and over.

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

These seemingly endemic false rape claims that get talked about on here are still far outweighed by the number of rapes that go unpunished. It's also worth mentioning, that someone accused who is not found guilty is not necessarily innocent, and the claim is not necessarily false. It's scary that people seem more concerned with tackling false claims which are relatively low (not to say those false claims aren't awful, and it can have terrible consequences on people lives), and not the disgustingly high number of rapes and their pitifully low conviction rate.

 

I largely agree with the points SoG made that it is a particularly tricky issue.

So it is ok to ruin some people's lives as long as we catch others? Disagree totally especially when the unfounded figure sits often at around 6%.

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

How is that at all relevant. He was found not guilty, so regardless of anything he is innocent

So it is ok to ruin some people's lives as long as we catch others? Disagree totally especially when the unfounded figure sits often at around 6%.

That's a particularly poor strawman. Where did I ever say it is ok to ruin anyone's life?

By that same token, why is it ok to assume that any person claiming to be the victim of rape be presumed guilty? Why would you ruin their lives by assuming they are guilty and dragging them through that, for 6%?

So it is ok to ruin some people's lives as long as we catch others? Disagree totally especially when the unfounded figure sits often at around 6%.

Totally agree here. I'm not sure how anyone can dismiss these people as basically collateral damage. I doubt if they were the ones being falsely accused that they would be quite so quick to say they should be named and shamed before charges are even brought (or indeed before they are found guilty.)

Surely they aren't 'offenders' until they have been found guilty ?

True, your a clever chap, Im sure you knew what I meant

That's a particularly poor strawman. Where did I ever say it is ok to ruin anyone's life?

 

By that same token, why is it ok to assume that any person claiming to be the victim of rape be presumed guilty? Why would you ruin their lives by assuming they are guilty and dragging them through that, for 6%?

Dragging them through what?

That's a particularly poor strawman. Where did I ever say it is ok to ruin anyone's life?

 

By that same token, why is it ok to assume that any person claiming to be the victim of rape be presumed guilty? Why would you ruin their lives by assuming they are guilty and dragging them through that, for 6%?

Guilty? Proving their case is the way the legal system works.

Something genuinely needs to be done about the genuine rape claims that go unpunished, I just do not know how to do that, being able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be incredibly tough and I feel for the jury in such cases. Let alone the victims within which I would imagine a non-guilty verdict is just as crushing as the original offence.

 

I dont however condone releasing the names of offenders who have not been found guilty, unfortunately the truth is that innocent people will still find their lives torn apart by the accusations, and I dont think as a society we can do that to innocent people.

This sums it up. Your final paragraph especially is unarguable.

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

I have no idea whether or not OJ killed his wife.

So it is ok to ruin some people's lives as long as we catch others? Disagree totally especially when the unfounded figure sits often at around 6%.

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.

How is that at all relevant. He was found not guilty, so regardless of anything he is innocent

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.

Yeah, Im sure Ill be really glad I was able to clear my name after potentially ruining all of my relationships from friends, to work, to family after my name was leaked in order to potentially raise further 'victims' that may, or may not have been assaulted despite the fact that I am innocent.

This isnt a ****ing omelette. In making an omelette it is necessary to break a few eggs, are you saying you are happy with the collateral of ruined lives despite the possibility of still having no convictions ?

Or on another note, how many boxes of eggs do you want to throw at the wall in order to make said omelette ?

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

The people that mattered didnt. Everything else is just opinion.

Yeah, Im sure Ill be really glad I was able to clear my name after potentially ruining all of my relationships from friends, to work, to family after my name was leaked in order to potentially raise further 'victims' that may, or may not have been assaulted despite the fact that I am innocent.

i still believe in you smirking

These seemingly endemic false rape claims that get talked about on here are still far outweighed by the number of rapes that go unpunished. It's also worth mentioning, that someone accused who is not found guilty is not necessarily innocent, and the claim is not necessarily false. It's scary that people seem more concerned with tackling false claims which are relatively low (not to say those false claims aren't awful, and it can have terrible consequences on people lives), and not the disgustingly high number of rapes and their pitifully low conviction rate.

 

I largely agree with the points SoG made that it is a particularly tricky issue.

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.

i still believe in you smirking

Just dont mention paris......

The people that mattered didnt. Everything else is just opinion.

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.

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.

Thats just plain bizarre. Its okay to put people through hell because some of them might emerge okay at the end of it?