Home› Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Rape Trial Anonymity

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
in Politics & Debate
Recent Trial

Following this recent case, and many before it, is it time for the alledged attacker to be given anonymity until proven guilty?

If not, why not?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes yes yes and yes!

    Do you remember years ago when Craig Charles was accused of rape? The poor little mite lost a £million deal with The Big Breakfast because of it & then the woman admitted that she'd lied!:mad:

    They're also thinking of "naming and shaming" women who cry rape. This is also ludicrous - just because someone's found not guilty, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, especially in rape cases.

    There was the idea a few years ago of giving convicted rapists the same sentances as murderers, thus giving them no reason not to kill their only witness after having comitted the crime.



    :mad:

    Sorry, I went off on a bit of a tangent there
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    One begins to wonder if its really neccessary to name convicted rapists, I'm not sure if it achieves an awful lot and the poor family of the cunt involved then have to live with his/her crime, surely we can just throw them inside and be done with it ? Do victims really want their attackers name and photo spread everywhere for all to see ?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Same goes for those found not guilty of paeodophilia or crimes against children.

    We've seen what repurcussions naming such people has, what with people taking the law into their own hands with windows being smashed and a lot worse, and often these people haven't even been tried for the alleged crimes as yet.

    Michael Jackson will forever be seen by some as a child molester, even though he was never found guilty. Same goes for R.Kelly, charged with having unlawful sex with a minor, although his case hasnt been heard yet.

    If paeodophiles are found guilty, then they should be named and shamed when released back into the community after serving their sentences, so parents are made aware if there is a potential risk to their children.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The other advantage of not naming and shaming suspects is that it will prevent women from crying rape falsely, simply to damage a man's reputation. This way they'd have to prove in a court of law that he did rape them, before publicity ensues.

    Less false cries of rape can't be a bad thing.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I also agree that men accused of rape should retain anonymity until they are convicted. But rates of conviction are very low, many rapes don't even make it to court, and the judicial system urgently needs to look at ways of improving conviction rates. One thing they could do would be to allow complaints of rape to be recorded without the case coming to trial. This would allow complaints to be recorded where the woman was afraid to appear in court, or where there was so little evidence that a conviction would be impossible. These recorded complaints would be kept secret and never used, except that they could be used as corroborating evidence if other complaints were made against the same man. This wouldn't improve the conviction rate of 'one-off' rapists, but it would ensure that serial rapists were much more likely to come to justice. It would also provide an incentive for women to report rapes - if a woman knows there's not enough evidence to convict her rapist this time, by adding her account to the files she may help another woman later.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by KinkyRed
    Yes yes yes and yes!

    Do you remember years ago when Craig Charles was accused of rape? The poor little mite lost a £million deal with The Big Breakfast because of it & then the woman admitted that she'd lied!:mad:

    They're also thinking of "naming and shaming" women who cry rape. This is also ludicrous - just because someone's found not guilty, doesn't necessarily mean they didn't do it, especially in rape cases.

    There was the idea a few years ago of giving convicted rapists the same sentances as murderers, thus giving them no reason not to kill their only witness after having comitted the crime.


    Agreed on all counts!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Holy shit!

    A concensus...

    Surely the first time ever :)

    Now, if only politicians listened to the public... :p
Sign In or Register to comment.