Well I dragged this thread back up again as this is now being said...
I always thought it was sensible to keep everyones name secret until after a guilty verdict is reached, if indeed one is.
The new Government have now taken some of these laws and turned things around...here is hoping it will not take too long before it becomes law.
No blue....anonymous until proven guilty.
I do understand to a point the arguement that a lot of women may not come forward, if this law is brought in, but for me I cannot see what difference it makes other than to give the guy the anonymity he should have.
By all means if the guy is guilty then name him, but then the other side of the coin could be, IF the guy is found not guilty is it just that the woman should be named for bringing a charge that could not be proved?
We have heard of women who have done this and did it for nasty reasons and nothing else. Should those women be named if that was the case?
We live in an increasingly vigilante socitey. Innocent until PROVEN guilty is the law of the land but that freedom and right is erroded bit by bit usually in the name of the greater good. But what of the rights of the accused? Im perhaps drawing too many comparrisons to the terrorist laws that we now have but it still is the law. The courts should judge people not the press. Annonimity is vital for a fair trial - and for a fair life afterwards if innocent.
Just recently the news reported someone as being one of the James Bulger killers Venebles i think - i cant remember the accused's name though. It wasnt true yet his life has been made hell by the false accusation.
Innocent until proven guilty does seem to be a thing of the past.
I'm suprised that no one has pointed out that women are also accused of as well as men.
Seems a tad one sided.
That is a fair arguement and in the nature of equality, of course all parties should remain anonymous.
This may have as much to do with the irresponsibility of the press and the various legislation they are allowed to work under.
With at least someone being named a 'story' can be developed and ultimately newspapers can be sold.
If both parties remain anonymous then there is nothing that can be made use of by the press.
Also if both parties are named then there is an entirely different type of reportage created. And subsequently a quite diferent level of sales.
For me Kenty, it is simple,
Anonymity for both or neither!
Huh. Very tempting to say "yes".
What do we feel about anonymity for anyone accused of any crime at all, then? Until they're convicted. isn't the only crime where false accusations can affect your life. An accountant accuse of fraud or embezzlement would find their reputation tarnished, I'm sure. Or a schoolteacher accused of assault maybe?
I mean your basic argument against is that in a democratic country committed to the principle of freedom of speech, the press should be able to report on trials in progress, and often the identity of the accused is key to explaining the case; thinking of cases against companies, or, say, people in public office accused of corruption (although I can't think of any examples just now). And it would certainly make "the police are looking for THIS MAN (blurred out picture, no name given)"-type appeals considerably less successful... and much though the Daily Mail loves the idea of anonymity of suspects, if they weren't allowed to name suspected pedophiles they'd have to come up with about 20% more "Call Centres in India Give You Cancer" stories to fill their pages.
But there again, given the effect that a false accusation could have on someone's life, is anonymity of suspects more in keeping with the principle of innocent until proven guilty?
I'm genuinely on the fence about the issue of general anonymity of suspects; if we continue to name suspects in most cases I think there is a case for making sex crimes an exception.
