Options
Anonymity until guilty for accused sex offenders - yes or no?
chemical2009b
Posts: 5,250 Forum Member
✭
Had Rolf Harris been granted anonymity then here's how it could have played out in the worst case scenario
*Harris arrested
*Harris later told he would not be prosecuted in secret
*Therefore no other victims come forward that would have seen him charged and eventually convicted
*Harris is free to resume his career
*Harris dies taking his sordid past with him to the grave
*Like Savile, Harris eventually gets posthumously exposed
*Police then forced to confirm that Harris was arrested before being released without charge sparking a huge uproar among his victims.
Which shows that Rolf Harris could have got off Scot free had he never been named. No anomymity is a must.
*Harris arrested
*Harris later told he would not be prosecuted in secret
*Therefore no other victims come forward that would have seen him charged and eventually convicted
*Harris is free to resume his career
*Harris dies taking his sordid past with him to the grave
*Like Savile, Harris eventually gets posthumously exposed
*Police then forced to confirm that Harris was arrested before being released without charge sparking a huge uproar among his victims.
Which shows that Rolf Harris could have got off Scot free had he never been named. No anomymity is a must.
0
Comments
I'm not saying this is my view, but; Courts do not find anyone innocent, only that there is not enough evidence to find a person guilty without reasonable doubt.
I think it's a tricky one. I do see the merit in previous victims feeling encouraged enough to come forward thereby a case being strengthened, but does it happen enough to balance out the complete and utter devastation that any person goes through when they're charged with such a crime, even when they're found not guilty in the end?
I suppose there's also the problem of malicious nutters seeing a chance to get attention by making false claims, but I suspect this more of an issue for celebrity defendants than the common man.
The result is the modern perception that the "not proven" verdict is an acquittal used when the judge or jury does not have enough evidence to convict but is not sufficiently convinced of the accused person's innocence to bring in a "not guilty" verdict. Essentially, the judge or jury is unconvinced that the suspect is innocent, but has insufficient evidence to the contrary. In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as "not guilty and don't do it again".
To answer your question, no.
So there is obvoiusly an argument to be had from both sides.
I think the recent. Oxford Union case shows that if nothing else nobody should be nameduntil they are at least charged.
Ain't that the f**king truth.
People are often convicted by the kangaroo court of social media opinion long before the case even gets to court.
I don't think this would change were anonymity granted to the accused in sexual assault cases as the newspapers would find some way to break the injunction in the name of protecting or alerting potential victims (and selling newspapers).
Absolutely this. This is one of those rare situations where I can see the argument for either case.
It would probably work in the same way as for victims of sexual assault who currently have anonymity.
I'm not sure why you find it so confusing ?
In answer to the op's question, yes.
The Crown does not have anonymity,
The victims have anonymity.
It is not in the public interest to know who the victims are.
best of both worlds
Not any more it seems, or more precisely not when it comes to sexual offences. There is an disturbing subversion of this concept going on right now, I never thought I would see such a sustained mockery of perhaps the most important rule of natural justice going on in the society in which I live.
Much as I like to know about these cases out of interest and curiosity, I don't think the names should be released, as certain people who were found not guilty I have my doubts about and that is unfair to them to have their reputation forever tarnished.
And this realistic reaction is particularly valid in sex crime cases because everybody with any interest in the topic knows that the vast, vast majority of sex crimes aren't prosecuted or convicted.
It has been complicated by mass media, though, because that magnifies everything.
I think that's how it works anyway, for people who aren't celebs and so their questioning by the police isn't going to end up in the newspapers.
It would be much better if we could all just get a grip and start fully understanding what 'innocent until proven guilty' actually means.