Is it time for anonymity for the accused?

[angos]

If I was falsely accused of raping someone, I'd welcome the chance to clear my name rather than have the allegations hanging over me. Do you care to explain how you managed to conclude that this is the most muddled logic you have ever heard........?

 

Would you have 100% trust in the system to find you not guilty.

And even if you are found not guilty there would still be plenty of Halibuts that still think you are a rapist.

[tinfoilhat]

If I was falsely accused of raping someone, I'd welcome the chance to clear my name rather than have the allegations hanging over me. Do you care to explain how you managed to conclude that this is the most muddled logic you have ever heard........?

 

Sadly JFK, if the callers on Jeremy vine were anyway typical (which would be a rarity I'll admit) you're life would be ruined. Have you seen John Leslie on the telly recently?

 

And look at this thread. Plenty say he's "only been found not guilty" and could still be a rapist. Too often, and this could apply to many crimes, if you are found not guilty it means you got off or there was a technicality rather than you didn't do it. And it depends on the media coverage. "JFK in court charged with rape" might make front page news. "Case thrown out due to"lack of evidence"" burried on the bottom of page 10 won't have the same impact. Google Michael Lovell. Tell me what page comes up first - the where he's charged or the one where he's found not guilty?

[tonkatoy]

 

See my post no.36 - ''There's a wealth of information available as to the reasons victims of sexual assaults don't always come forward - guilt, shame, fear of the person who assaulted them, fear they won't be believed and so on. Many survivors have precarious mental health and fear the consequences of having to re-live their experience.''

 

It's not odd at all - victims of abusers are simply much more likely to come forward if they believe that they'll be taken seriously - and such claims are more likely to be taken seriously if there's more than one complainant.

 

So if 1 person with mental health problems decides to point the finger at a celebrity and the publicity brings out another person with mental health problems and a grudge the celebrity is pretty much stuffed. Please bare in mind you thought Le Vell was guilty in this case on the say so of one woman who gave inconsistent testimony.

[JFKvsNixon]

Sadly JFK, if the callers on Jeremy vine were anyway typical (which would be a rarity I'll admit) you're life would be ruined. Have you seen John Leslie on the telly recently?

 

And look at this thread. Plenty say he's "only been found not guilty" and could still be a rapist. Too often, and this could apply to many crimes, if you are found not guilty it means you got off or there was a technicality rather than you didn't do it. And it depends on the media coverage. "JFK in court charged with rape" might make front page news. "Case thrown out due to"lack of evidence"" burried on the bottom of page 10 won't have the same impact. Google Michael Lovell. Tell me what page comes up first - the where he's charged or the one where he's found not guilty?

 

You'll have to forgive my ignorance about John Leslie but I believe that he was never charged, so he is an example of what happens when you have the allegations hanging over your head without being given the opportunity to clear your name.

[tonkatoy]

But it is very rare that any case reaches court without corroborating or forensic evidence.

Are we now lowering the threshold to charge a person and proceed to trial ?

 

.

 

There was no corroborating or forensic evidence in the Le Vell case.

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2013 at 18:42 ----------

 

You'll have to forgive my ignorance about John Leslie but I believe that he was never charged, so he is an example of what happens when you have the allegations hanging over your head without being given the opportunity to clear your name.

 

But as in the Le Vell case folk like Halibut will still believe the defendant guilty even after the court has found them not guilty.

 

---------- Post added 14-09-2013 at 18:44 ----------

 

Would you have 100% trust in the system to find you not guilty.

And even if you are found not guilty there would still be plenty of Halibuts that still think you are a rapist.

 

It would only take one nutter/person with a grudge/glory seaker to be tempted to make a similar claim for a totally inocent man to be doing 10 years.

[JanetJ123]

The allegations were in the pubic domain even without the charges being brought, so the accusation would have been hanging over LeVelle, this may well have blighted his career as well effecting him personally. Thanks to the trial everyone could see that the evidence was found to point comprehensively towards LeVelle's innocence, so there cannot be any question now as to his guilt.

 

Yes I forgot that, you're right.

 

[JFKvsNixon]

But as in the Le Vell case folk like Halibut will still believe the defendant guilty even after the court has found them not guilty.

 

If people are going to make their mind up on someones guilt without looking at the evidence, then there is nothing anyone can do to protect that persons reputation, so the trial would not have harmed that reputation. Most people are not like that though.

[tinfoilhat]

If people are going to make their mind up on someones guilt without looking at the evidence, then there is nothing anyone can do to protect that persons reputation, so the trial would not have harmed that reputation. Most people are not like that though.

 

I think the number is greater than you think and they are more likely to be vocal about it.

[Eater Sundae]

I'm not sure if that is the case. Surely a trial would follow? Legal eagle needed.. There would have to be enough evidence for the CPS to precede though..

 

My point was that if someone in the public eye had previously been found guilty, and was in court again on a similar charge, then it would be difficult for the jury to forget the previous conviction.

 

In the case of ordinary, non-famous people, the jury are not normally aware of previous convictions and so are able to consider the case on its merits, and not be unduly nfluenced as the might be in the case of a celebrity.

[angos]

Would you have 100% trust in the system to find you not guilty?

And even if you are found not guilty there would still be plenty of Halibuts that still think you are a rapist.

 

JFKvsNixon, was this question to difficult to answer?