Yes - then at least if they are falsely accused they can move on with their lives. If they are found guilty however.........
.....chop their knackers off!
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
should men accussed of rape be afforded anonymity?
A tricky topic.
There have been many men " accused " of , but found not guilty. A woman was jailed recently for accusing someone of , only to be found out to be a liar.
I believe ALL parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached. By all means THEN name the guy.
John Leslie is a typical example of what can happen to someone accused of . He was never found guilty of anything, yet he has never worked in tv since. How unjust is that?
If anonymity is to be afforded to the woman, the same should apply to the man. If that anonymity is not afforded to both parties, that would only lead even more women to not report it.
I have never understood how a man can be named but the woman gets the right to remain anonymous. Surely the fairest way would be that no names were released?
There have been many cases of men being falsely accused, yet their lives have been ruined because they were named.
There have been many men " accused " of , but found not guilty. A woman was jailed recently for accusing someone of , only to be found out to be a liar.
I believe ALL parties should remain anonymous until a guilty verdict is reached. By all means THEN name the guy.
John Leslie is a typical example of what can happen to someone accused of . He was never found guilty of anything, yet he has never worked in tv since. How unjust is that?
If anonymity is to be afforded to the woman, the same should apply to the man. If that anonymity is not afforded to both parties, that would only lead even more women to not report it.
I have never understood how a man can be named but the woman gets the right to remain anonymous. Surely the fairest way would be that no names were released?
There have been many cases of men being falsely accused, yet their lives have been ruined because they were named.
Emotive topic but an interesting one.
Yes I think men accused of should be given anonymity until proven guilty - innocent until proved otherwise etc and mud sticks regardless of their guilt or innocence.
I personally know a man who at the age of 18 was accused and found guilty of . His name was released at his arrest which had a snowball effect on his family who were forced to move from their home and his younger brother had to leave college. He has always contested his innocence and knowing the man personally, I believe him. There are a lot of things I won't disclose about the trial itself as an appeal is pending.
I'm in no way condoning or trying to protect those who ARE guilty of or any sexual offense but since seeing the effect on a man wrongfully convicted, and his family, I really can't decide what is right for everyone and that includes the victim
Yes I think men accused of should be given anonymity until proven guilty - innocent until proved otherwise etc and mud sticks regardless of their guilt or innocence.
I personally know a man who at the age of 18 was accused and found guilty of . His name was released at his arrest which had a snowball effect on his family who were forced to move from their home and his younger brother had to leave college. He has always contested his innocence and knowing the man personally, I believe him. There are a lot of things I won't disclose about the trial itself as an appeal is pending.
I'm in no way condoning or trying to protect those who ARE guilty of or any sexual offense but since seeing the effect on a man wrongfully convicted, and his family, I really can't decide what is right for everyone and that includes the victim
Oooh what a tough one.
I ask myself what purpose is served by publicising the details of people yet to be convicted of a crime.
Yep there is the possible advantage of other crimes coming to light but I suppose that has to be weighed against the rights of the innocent.
That said the transparency of the justice system is one of the good things about it. How about a media reporting ban which would also apply to the internet as it does for all cases sub judici? (Ok whos gonna correct my speling.)
I deliberately didnt think about but crime in general because it sometimes helps if I strip out some of the emotional side of a matter to be considered.
I ask myself what purpose is served by publicising the details of people yet to be convicted of a crime.
Yep there is the possible advantage of other crimes coming to light but I suppose that has to be weighed against the rights of the innocent.
That said the transparency of the justice system is one of the good things about it. How about a media reporting ban which would also apply to the internet as it does for all cases sub judici? (Ok whos gonna correct my speling.)
I deliberately didnt think about but crime in general because it sometimes helps if I strip out some of the emotional side of a matter to be considered.
Sex God
YES....easy, ask me another
Far too many false accusations being made for them to name anyone accused of . Not only does the "no smoke without fire" brigade tend to ruin people's lifes, there are also repercussions that could effect genuine cases. Those who falsley cry aremaking it harder for those who really have been subjected to this horrible crime, but if those accused were named it would be a thousand times worse.
Not everything in life is that straightforward, think outside the box.
Not everything in life is that straightforward, think outside the box.
Sex God
Quote by Ben_welshminx
Yep there is the possible advantage of other crimes coming to light but I suppose that has to be weighed against the rights of the innocent.
Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.
However, the naming of men accused is I think a hangover from the days when less than 30% of cases coming to court actually ended in conviction, and the percentage of accusations that actually came to trial was lower still, and naming them was I think a crude way of redressing that situation, what with the no smoke without fire thing. If we can't get you in court, we'll get you in the court of public opinion anyways, and that's how we'll protect other women from you seems to be the idea behind it. These days, conviction rates in cases that come to trial run at something like 50-60%, so I'm not sure it's quite so justifiable. It seems entirely wrong that only one side should enjoy the protection of anonymity.
N x x x ;)
There will never be anonymity for suspects. The police rely on that publicity to prompt persons who may have been in the past to come forward. In any case, it is a useless gesture, as is the anonymity for persons . Everyone knows anyway....it is just the people not local to the event, or concerned in the event, that do not know.
The person whose arrest prompted this thread will never know normality again. Any search of his new name will throw the events out (the inevitability of the new name and the old name being linked) and any crb check also.
There is no verdict of innocent in this country: Just "got away with it".
Truly a sad indictment of justice.
I cannot remember whether the accuser had the right of anonymity removed by the court....hopefully she did....
The person whose arrest prompted this thread will never know normality again. Any search of his new name will throw the events out (the inevitability of the new name and the old name being linked) and any crb check also.
There is no verdict of innocent in this country: Just "got away with it".
Truly a sad indictment of justice.
I cannot remember whether the accuser had the right of anonymity removed by the court....hopefully she did....
Sex God
Quote by JTS
There will never be anonymity for suspects. The police rely on that publicity to prompt persons who may have been in the past to come forward. In any case, it is a useless gesture, as is the anonymity for persons . Everyone knows anyway....it is just the people not local to the event, or concerned in the event, that do not know.
The person whose arrest prompted this thread will never know normality again. Any search of his new name will throw the events out (the inevitability of the new name and the old name being linked) and any crb check also.
There is no verdict of innocent in this country: Just "got away with it".
Truly a sad indictment of justice.
I cannot remember whether the accuser had the right of anonymity removed by the court....hopefully she did....
And how does all the above mean that the right to anonymity should be withheld? All you are saying that it doesn't work completely. But there is a vast vast enourmous difference between coming up on a search if someone bothers to search and having your name splashed across national newspapers on a daily basis until the enod of a trial.
Each to their own. Before long a person accused of will be held to be guilty until they PROVE themselves innocent.
What price anonymity then ?
And it will still make no difference. A name change AND a place-change will still not enable a person to live a life.
CRB and the new Vetting and Safeguarding scheme will still be able to compare name to name. And do not forget, the vetting and safeguarding scheme does NOT accept a not guilty verdict as valid...it operates on the civil law....probability.
Sexlightened
My first instinct on this was the anonymity should be reserved for the claimant and not the defendant, but upon reflection I think that the defendant should be afforded the same right.
If the police are looking for victims to come forward then this appeal should not remain in the dominion of the media, but in better treatment for all victims of , male or female.
For the record, I think that anyone making a proven false accusation of should be afforded the sentence that would be attributed to the defendant if that person were found guilty.
It's shameful and detrimental to real victims.
Amber
If the police are looking for victims to come forward then this appeal should not remain in the dominion of the media, but in better treatment for all victims of , male or female.
For the record, I think that anyone making a proven false accusation of should be afforded the sentence that would be attributed to the defendant if that person were found guilty.
It's shameful and detrimental to real victims.
Amber
name should be withheld during the whole process until a verdict is reached in court.
if they are innocent they are free but if they are found guilty then their name should be released.
but any man or woman for that matter who was found guilty and knew they were innocent id have no problem with righting the wrong by taking the law into their own hands.
lets face it once the court decision is made your pretty much fucked for the rest of your life so you may as well deal with the lieing bastard.
if they are innocent they are free but if they are found guilty then their name should be released.
but any man or woman for that matter who was found guilty and knew they were innocent id have no problem with righting the wrong by taking the law into their own hands.
lets face it once the court decision is made your pretty much fucked for the rest of your life so you may as well deal with the lieing bastard.
Any sex crime suspect and their accuser should remain anonymous until the matter is resolved.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
Quote by Rob_hood
Any sex crime suspect and their accuser should remain anonymous until the matter is resolved.
People just love a bit of mudslinging gossip which ruins innocent peoples lives as the damage is then done.
When the police are involved and visit a suspects home i would think that the sight(from behind a neighbour's twitched net curtains) of someones computer being taken away by the Police will spell social 'curtains' for the suspect.
If found Guilty then they should be exposed.
If innocent then they still lose.
Vindictive people know this.
Anonymity makes no difference to the accused.
And not much to the accuser either.
Locally they will both be known.
The accuseds life will end, whether guilty of not.
And accusers life will also change, whether the event happened or not.
Warming the Bed
is a horrible, horrible crime that can ruin a woman's life for ever and if a man is found guilty beyond any doubt then they should throw away the keys, chop his balls off to boot or just save us taxpayers a whole pile of money and lock him up in the general population i.e. not segregated of a nice tough prison. They won't last long in there.
However, until that man is found guilty then he should IMO also be offered the full anonymity that the accuser receives. How many cases have we seen where a girl has willingly slept with a guy and then basically regretted it in the morning, or her boyfriend has found out, so she cries ! Or other instances where the accuser is just a vindictive bitch who wants to ruin someone's life. As has been said, mud sticks and it doesn't matter if you're accused but found innocent there are plenty of people who will still see them as guilty but just got away with it, as opposed to actually considering that they were innocent.
There have been cases where the accusations by the girl have been so obviously false and thrown out very quickly in court (why the CPS decided it should have gone to court is another matter though!) but still that poor sod has been named publicly. At least in some, not many, cases of obviously false allegations the girl has been prosecuted for it and the guy fortunately has not had his name smeared or life ruined.
I can't see the reasoning behind that TBH. If a is convicted and then named (as he should be) then that will bring other people forward if they had also suffered at that person's hands. That will bring further trials and if found guilty of the other rapes make sure that the guy won't be getting out for a very long time.
However, if a guy is on trial for A and named beforehand as in the current system then that will make not one iota of difference to the chance of conviction of that trial as the prosecution simply aren't allowed to bring into court the fact that other people have come forward accusing him of - it's simply not allowed. Those other cases would need to be tried on a separate basis so there's simply no reason therefore for the argument of naming the accuser when first accused. Both should be given anonymity until any verdict. If the guy is innocent then he shouldn't be named but if the accuser has blatantly made up the accusation then IMO she should be named,and she would be anyway if the Police then took action against her or the judge found her in contempt.
However, until that man is found guilty then he should IMO also be offered the full anonymity that the accuser receives. How many cases have we seen where a girl has willingly slept with a guy and then basically regretted it in the morning, or her boyfriend has found out, so she cries ! Or other instances where the accuser is just a vindictive bitch who wants to ruin someone's life. As has been said, mud sticks and it doesn't matter if you're accused but found innocent there are plenty of people who will still see them as guilty but just got away with it, as opposed to actually considering that they were innocent.
There have been cases where the accusations by the girl have been so obviously false and thrown out very quickly in court (why the CPS decided it should have gone to court is another matter though!) but still that poor sod has been named publicly. At least in some, not many, cases of obviously false allegations the girl has been prosecuted for it and the guy fortunately has not had his name smeared or life ruined.
Quote by brucie
what about the argument that as is an under reported crime, by naming suspected rapists you could draw past victims out and in to making a complaint?
Quote by neilinleeds
Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.
I can't see the reasoning behind that TBH. If a is convicted and then named (as he should be) then that will bring other people forward if they had also suffered at that person's hands. That will bring further trials and if found guilty of the other rapes make sure that the guy won't be getting out for a very long time.
However, if a guy is on trial for A and named beforehand as in the current system then that will make not one iota of difference to the chance of conviction of that trial as the prosecution simply aren't allowed to bring into court the fact that other people have come forward accusing him of - it's simply not allowed. Those other cases would need to be tried on a separate basis so there's simply no reason therefore for the argument of naming the accuser when first accused. Both should be given anonymity until any verdict. If the guy is innocent then he shouldn't be named but if the accuser has blatantly made up the accusation then IMO she should be named,and she would be anyway if the Police then took action against her or the judge found her in contempt.
Sex God
Quote by Sexysmilingeyes
Anonymity for both or neither (accussed and victim that is).
:thumbup:
I would like to see an end to victims being shamed. ...but sex has a way of warping facts. It is sad but true. Even an innocent man/woman may have blame attached to them.
So anonymity for all until found guilty. As for others coming forward in response to a charge; it seems a poor argument.
The sooner sex and shame can be separated the better.
Travis
So anonymity for all until found guilty. As for others coming forward in response to a charge; it seems a poor argument.
The sooner sex and shame can be separated the better.
Travis
Quote by
Men accused of should be castrated, just in case they may be guilty.
And probably their sons as well....you never know with genetics.
Men found guilty should be castrated.
It is a common misconception that castrated males are unable to perform sexually.
Their sex drive may be lowered and they may be unable to maintain an erection for much time (and they will be sterile) but they can still .
And the effects of castration can be reversed by "hormone treatment".
Eunuchs castrated before puberty were also valued and trained in several cultures for their exceptional voices, which retained a childlike and other-worldly flexibility and treble pitch. Such eunuchs were known as castrati. Unfortunately the choice had to be made at an age when the boy would not yet be able to consciously choose whether to sacrifice his sexual potency, and there was no guarantee that the voice would remain of musical excellence after the operation.
