Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 But it is completely different in this case where the defendant denied any offence had taken place ... and the other party was allegedly 6 years old at the time of the crime. It was extremely complex. All the issues around Le Vell are irrelevant, essentially. He was found not-guilty. It's not answering the purpose of the original question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 ... It's not answering the purpose of the original question. My post #3 is slightly off topic but what are your views on that as it relates to the same type of offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'm split. There are both advantages and disadvantages of naming the alleged. I'm sitting on the fence on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetJ123 Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 I'm split. There are both advantages and disadvantages of naming the alleged. I'm sitting on the fence on this one. The only possible benefit of naming the accused is to encourage others to come forward. But I made the point earlier that they can come forward when he / she is named following a guilty verdict. I don't think that victims should remain silent anyway, waiting for someone else to raise the issue. Why would someone who has suffered a horrendous crime choose not come forward? They will be anonymous all the way through and even after the verdict. I appreciate that there will be trauma in the witness box but surely they would want justice, revenge. The only way to get this is by making a complaint in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 The only possible benefit of naming the accused is to encourage others to come forward. But I made the point earlier that they can come forward when he / she is named following a guilty verdict. It's difficult to get a guilty verdict. The argument would follow that more people coming forward as victims may provide a larger weight of evidence. Why would someone who has suffered a horrendous crime choose not come forward? Because being cross-examined about the most awful aspects of what happened to you, with lawyers intruding, bringing up the past, casting doubt on what happened - it isn't the most pleasant experience a person can put themselves through. Deeper though, it's their prerogative. I can't say how I'd feel in their place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 The only possible benefit of naming the accused is to encourage others to come forward. But I made the point earlier that they can come forward when he / she is named following a guilty verdict. I don't think that victims should remain silent anyway, waiting for someone else to raise the issue. Why would someone who has suffered a horrendous crime choose not come forward? They will be anonymous all the way through and even after the verdict. I appreciate that there will be trauma in the witness box but surely they would want justice, revenge. The only way to get this is by making a complaint in the first place. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanetJ123 Posted September 13, 2013 Author Share Posted September 13, 2013 It's difficult to get a guilty verdict. The argument would follow that more people coming forward as victims may provide a larger weight of evidence. Because being cross-examined about the most awful aspects of what happened to you, with lawyers intruding, bringing up the past, casting doubt on what happened - it isn't the most pleasant experience a person can put themselves through. Deeper though, it's their prerogative. I can't say how I'd feel in their place. I agree, but if they don't come forward there is nothing can be done, they need to be braver. Easy for me to say though. Child abuse is a different issue though. Children, or those who are now adults, must suffer great torment, trauma even, at the thought of reliving the crime. So I would understand them being terrified of the ordeal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 It's difficult to get a guilty verdict. The argument would follow that more people coming forward as victims may provide a larger weight of evidence. Indeed. Post conviction anonymity might result in other victims feeling that they've lost their chance, or that their story won't be heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 if they don't come forward there is nothing can be done, they need to be braver. Certainly, which I'm sure must bring some guilt with it - and more negativity, and thus more repression. No easy task to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonkatoy Posted September 13, 2013 Share Posted September 13, 2013 Yep. Like I said, no evidence either way but throwing it to the public to decide so they can't be accused of covering up. My concern in all these celebrity cases is the danger of a lime light seeker or two coming along and with no evidence the weight of numbers starts to make a case in itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.