Is it time for anonymity for the accused?

[harvey19]

Removed...............................

[boyfriday]

Not at all. The reason why he was picked is that he is a celebrity.

I think the reason we're hearing about it is because he's a celebrity.

[Halibut]

Not at all. The reason why he was picked is that he is a celebrity. I can't imagine anyone coming forward and making claims of that nature about the guy who empties the bins. (and failed to mention it for a couple of decades). But if one can do that so can someone attracted by the case publicity.

 

I find it odd in these cases that no one ever reports these rapes, assaults etc but then they all emerge together.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 17:44 ----------

 

 

Not if there are a collection of fantasists. You tell a lie often enough folks start to believe it. If enough folks tell the same lie they tend to get believed. That's how religion prospers.

 

Then you're severely lacking in imagination - or you walk around with your eyes and ears closed.

 

There are many many cases involving ordinary non-celebrities where accusations are made years after the alleged offences.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 18:45 ----------

 

I find it odd in these cases that no one ever reports these rapes, assaults etc but then they all emerge together.

 

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.

[Eater Sundae]

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.

 

If someone in the public eye is found guilty, then if other accusers come forward, then the celebrity is stuffed, as they could not enter a court case without the jury already knowing the previous conviction.

[Halibut]

If someone in the public eye is found guilty, then if other accusers come forward, then the celebrity is stuffed, as they could not enter a court case without the jury already knowing the previous conviction.

 

That's a very good point, which hasn't occurred me before. Thus the other victims would be denied the chance to see their case heard and for justice to be done.

[JanetJ123]

If someone in the public eye is found guilty, then if other accusers come forward, then the celebrity is stuffed, as they could not enter a court case without the jury already knowing the previous conviction.

 

That's a very good point, which hasn't occurred me before. Thus the other victims would be denied the chance to see their case heard and for justice to be done.

 

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..

[redfox]

It may not be quite on the point of the OP but it should not be overlooked that this case was originally not proceeded with by the CPS at the highest level locally. That will have been a decision agonised over by the Chief Crown Prosecutor who was also responsible for the decision to prosecute Stuart Hall. The victim complained to the DPP whose 'special advisor' overruled that decision. Her record in such decisions is not the best.

 

Sex occurs generally in private and is unobserved or recorded - that is one reason amongst many as to why it has a low conviction rate.

 

Anonymity is a very difficult area, do people think because X is charged and named that others come forward or 'jump on the bandwagon'?

 

Previous convictions are admissible subject to various legal hoops to be jumped and more so now than ever before - particularly as far as previous sexual offending

[LeMaquis]

If the alleged were anonymous then people like Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall may have got away with it?

 

Savile did get away with it. Hall has his defence-club on here.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2013 at 21:48 ----------

 

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.

 

Are you saying that adult rape victims don't suffer trauma?

 

The role of the CPS is to prosecute where they think there is credible evidence. They can then let a jury decide. If they don't prosecute they'll be accused of a cover-up.

 

All this is an issue because of the stigma of sex offences. Murder doesn't have that stigma even though it's a worse crime. I don't think irrational public feelings should lead to those accused of rape getting anonymity when that would stop other victims coming forward.

[ronthenekred]

It isn't surprising that victims have real issues with coming forward. In some cases not only do you have the perp to contend with but Special Branch, CPS, IPCC, politicians, friends, colleagues, actively protecting abusers.

[Marx]

That's not really right. Or fair. Are you saying that all people who are brought before the courts must be guilty? I don't think so.

 

By the same rule, someone found guilty could be innocent then? They're defense was weak, but they couldn't disprove the allegations.

 

There are very few false rape allegations. Most are weeded-out during the investigation. So few rape allegations actually make it to Court (Less than one in ten?) because it is 'her' word against 'his'. Then the woman is sullied and called in to disrepute by any means possible. I wonder how the alleged victim of DeVell is feeling now? Do people really think that she imagined the whole thing? The 'Not guilty' verdict is because there is some doubt in jurors minds.

 

I know cases where individuals have been accused of several rapes, only to be found 'not-guilty' each time. The jury was not privy to the previous accusations until after the verdict, when several of them burst in to tears. The prior form would have caused them to find him guilty. Surely a track record of being accused of rape should hold some sway in a prosecution? What about Soham?