Anonymity for defendants in rape trials.

[Casehardened]

I can't understand the logic behind Jo Wood's comment, that anonymity for rape defendants until conviction will 'victimise victims still further', why?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21487266

[Dave]

There is no logic just an agenda to follow, blindly.

[Boys don't cry]

...the false victims waiting for their CIC (Criminal Injuries Compensation).

[whatsgoingon?]

Outrageous! Just a thought .... since alleged victims are often handled with kid gloves (mostly female)and alleged sex criminals(mostly male) with concrete mixing gloves if the discerpancy intreatment doesn't contravene the sex discrimination act.

[lawlessone2009]

Sometimes and ONLY sometimes the lack of 'anonymity' for someone accused of a sex crime brings forward further victims who would otherwise have kept quiet and forgotten about their own ordeal(s).

Having your name printed in the local rag isn't something that is of any benefit at all if you are accused of a sex crime but it does give other potential victims a chance to come forward.

It is such a hard one to call that my opinion is all over the place. I'd be tempted to say that 'victims' should not be given anonymity. If you HAVE suffered from a crime then stand up and be counted. Then again, would you?

I can see where it's at just now and it's a bloody mess and inherently unfair.

Does it need to be changed? Yeah!

Is what is being suggested the 'change' that's needed? Yes and no...



Can there really be a change? Does this all boil down to the apparent 'press regulation' that's being discussed? Are areas being focused on for a larger agenda?


Famous people have been sitting on both sides of the fence with the supposed media regulation. Famous people have been hung out to dry lately with allegations... There is so much going on that it is hard to believe that ANYTHING that happens will simply be to benefit those accused of a sexual offence. There is a far far larger agenda at work here.

I do not for one minute oppose the implementation of what is being spoken about. It may not even go far enough! There are grave sacrifices to be made in so many other places though if this goes through and these all need to be carefully considered before those in desperate situations jump up and shout thanks.

[lawlessone2009]

On the flip side here and to negate part of my ramblings...

If EVERYONE convicted of an offence has their conviction published then any further potential victims could at that stage come forward. This increases costs substantially (further trials etc) but could be taken as a positive.

It would then be a requirement for everyone cleared on appeal to have their names publicly cleared.

There is then the thinking of society to deal with. A lot of 'assuming' behaviour would need to be quelled.

This is drastic stuff and would be complex to setup and see through. Merely sticking your head up and shouting about something doesn't mean that the person doing the shouting has thought the process through to conclusion.

That's why I'm sticking on the fence. I've not seen all the sides of the coin but I am not willing to start arguing for one over the other. My opinions will forever be biased as will everyone elses. Maybe we should have a referendum to actually see what the majority of people in the UK believe and want? I cannot remember EVER being asked what I would want or need or accept by the government of this country. So much nonsense legislation is being passed into existence and so much sillyness is being debated in those fancy government buildings and we have idiots in the media constantly trying to instill their 'wisdom' in Joe Public yet never once has anyone actually ever considered simply asking the citizens what they truly want.

Why don't we ever have anyone asking us what we want? Why don't we have a real public debate about things? Why the hell have we got some self important barrister/QC/legal eagle shouting out about whatever it is of interest this day/week/month/year and apparently giving some basis for shouting and we're hearing a little retort from 'Rape Crisis' BUT never ever considering that the public may not really care enough to give a damned????

We need changes and drastic ones but I think this article is such a small focus on what's needed that it is merely skimming the surface. It makes for a read but it is REALLY just wasting our time. It'll not happen and it'll certainly not happen for the right reasons IF it was to happen.

[lawlessone2009]

I finished a little abruptly there...

Casehardened, thank you for bringing the article to the forums attention. Genuinely, thank you.

WE need to read this stuff and discuss it. For us it'll never be a waste of time, we're on a different pathway than the vast majority of the public. We know what it is like to find ourselves or those close to us falsely accused or indeed victims of a sexual offence. There's a mix here and a healthy one. There's far to many sides to the debate around this issue that arriving at any sensible and logical conclusion is near impossible.

That's why I see it as a waste of time.

The time would be far better spent shaking up the Police and tightening up on time limits for investigation/prosecution. Increasing evidential standard requirements would be a step towards ensuring that those actually accused and charged with a crime have a far higher chance of being convicted so the publication of their names in the media would be more justified. At present the investigative prowess of the Police is next to nothing and some words are enough to secure a conviction and even if they don't then the person is probably guilty anyway, or so we're led to believe... SHOCKING!

It's media bashing time just now so the above article exists....................

[whatsgoingon?]

On the flip side here and to negate part of my ramblings...

If EVERYONE convicted of an offence has their conviction published then any further potential victims could at that stage come forward. This increases costs substantially (further trials etc) but could be taken as a positive.

More victims , more trials, more compensation payed out, more allegations, more alleged victims, more compensation. Legal cowboys, legal saviours, More police , more trials, more media cashing in, more politicians trying to make a name for themselves, more trials, more allegations, more false allegations, more young and not so young lads (and some women) in the docks, more families broken up, more time wasted, more victims. Yet more victims but not the one's that have been recognised or compensated, more broken people, more jobs lost, more exams failed more lives ruined. More police, more victims to find, more false accusations, yet more arrests, more records, more people on the records. More children taken away from their mum's and dad's, more dads taken away from their children, more tears, more tears.
More police needed, more lab technicians, more therapists, more social servicers, not to mention blood thirsty prosecutors, legal saviours and their cowboy counterparts! More and much more money spent, but still as many genuine victims of rape, and still as many genuine rapists not being found guilty.

Sometimes I wonder where this is it all getting us ?????

[whatsgoingon?]

Do I sound like I've lost the thread???

[Casehardened]

Do I sound like I've lost the thread???

Not at all, this 'industry' will probably pull Britain out of recession [looks in vain for tearing hair out smilie]

[whatsgoingon?]

Not at all, this 'industry' will probably pull Britain out of recession [looks in vain for tearing hair out smilie]

How proud we all can feel to be doing so much to redress 'king and country'! (feeling nauseus but not quite vomiting sort of smiling)

[Izzy]

I've always thought that it was a bit of a contradiction that anonymity wasn't given to those accused because sexual crimes aren't a special case and it isn't given to those accused of other crimes. However it is the only time that anonymity is given to the accuser of a crime - because it is a sexual crime

But no - everyone has the right to be treated equally, so it should be the same for everyone. Suprised the Human Rights Act doesn't kick in with this.

[lawlessone2009]

Mmm:

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13353/

[whatsgoingon?]

"Where the state is potentially depriving individuals of their liberty, we need to be able to keep a check on who these individuals are and what they have done."

errr..... I wonder if Barbara Hewson (human rights lawyer) mean what they've been accused of doing???

[Izzy]

House of Commons 2010 Debate

http://www.publications.parliament.u...10060816000001