I pose a question to the creator of this thread:
If someone accused you of sexual assault of a minor, do you think your name should be publicly released?
Bear in mind you will of course be innocent.
If I may respond, probably not, but that's not what's happened here, is it?
As I understand it, more than one woman made accusations against Clifford to the police as part of the Savile investigations. If their stories and/or previous complaints that were never pursued indicated that something much wider might have been going on, and that he had used his importance and contacts to persuade them to keep quiet about it, you might wish to find out how much wider, might you not? In which case, could you do that effectively without naming him?
As I said, this could be rectified simply by our prurient media and the vigilante nutters accepting that a person is innocent until a court says different.
I never thought there should be anonymity for suspects. What I think we should be more respectful of is the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
I'll agree with this. If we were collectively more mature about the whole thing and could let go of the whole poisonous "there's no smoke without fire" bullshit, it wouldn't be an issue.
Nope, I still believe that both victim and accused should remain anonymous until a verdict is reached. It's all about having a fair trial, the very foundation of our justice system.
Agreed.
But I do think there has to be some leeway.
It's usual practise when someone is charged for them to have an initial hearing, or in Scotland a First Diet. It's pretty much a formality. So why not have both accuser and accused granted anonymity, then at that initial hearing the prosecution can put forward a request for the defendant to be named IF they believe naming them would allow other victims to come forward. The defence can argue their side of why anonymity should remain in place, and the judge can make the final decision after weighing up the pros and cons and deciding what is in the public interest.
But if found guilty anonymity is automatically removed, except in exceptional circumstance (such as the recent case where the guilty party remained anonymous because naming him would expose the identity of the victim). That would seem to be fair to me.
I think there should be no publicity until a trial has finished. It is too easy for someone to claim false rape and hide behind the anonimity they are given at present. Even when a man is found not guilty, there are always people who will say 'There is no smoke without fire', thus ruining the falsely accused's life, and that of his family.
Definitely one for anonymity of both parties in these sorts of cases.
I also believe that if the defendant is found not guilty, then the accuser should be named, and potentially charged with wasting police time.
There have been too many cases recently where lives of innocent people have been ruined because gold-diggers make malicious allegations, and others then jump on the band-waggon. Even a hand brushing a backside while passing in a narrow hallway will be trumped-up to full-on molestation!
Nope, I still believe that both victim and accused should remain anonymous until a verdict is reached. It's all about having a fair trial, the very foundation of our justice system.
It's hardly fair for either side if witnesses can't come forward because they're unaware. Also, some people seem to forget that false accusations are only a very small minority of cases. I would imagine that it's actually quite difficult for such cases to get as far as a trial stage, due to experts weeding them out beforehand.
Definitely one for anonymity of both parties in these sorts of cases.
I also believe that if the defendant is found not guilty, then the accuser should be named, and potentially charged with wasting police time.
There have been too many cases recently where lives of innocent people have been ruined because gold-diggers make malicious allegations, and others then jump on the band-waggon. Even a hand brushing a backside while passing in a narrow hallway will be trumped-up to full-on molestation!
That's a good way to put people off from coming forward, genuine or not. Also, because someone was found not guilty it doesn't necessarily mean that the accuser was lying, just that the evidence wasn't enough to fully convince the jury. Surely, it would have to be proven first that the alleged victim lied?
Definitely one for anonymity of both parties in these sorts of cases.
I also believe that if the defendant is found not guilty, then the accuser should be named, and potentially charged with wasting police time.
There have been too many cases recently where lives of innocent people have been ruined because gold-diggers make malicious allegations, and others then jump on the band-waggon. Even a hand brushing a backside while passing in a narrow hallway will be trumped-up to full-on molestation!
I'd disagree with that.
By all means name the accuser IF there is evidence of them making a malicious allegation, and they are then found guilty in court, but not just because someone they accuse has been found not guilty.
So why not have both accuser and accused granted anonymity, then at that initial hearing the prosecution can put forward a request for the defendant to be named IF they believe naming them would allow other victims to come forward.
Firstly they couldn't prove there is a pattern until other victims have come forward so how can they prove a pattern before even giving them the opportunity to know that this would be the time to come fur awed if they feel able?
Secondly sexual crimes are more likely by their nature to be repeated. The fact that it is a raid or oaedophilia case is enough information to know that they should be investigating if there are other victims.
No if anything it'd made me feel even stronger that the names should be released as if they hadn't both Stuart Hall and Max Clifford would have got away with it and their victims branded as liars
Agree with this.
Just think if that lady had not wrote to a newspaper woman (1000 apologies for not remembering her name) telling her about Stuart Hall which then made other victims come forward he could still be a free man enjoying the trappings of his wealth and perhaps ending his days still believing he was a national treasure.
Why do some have a problem with justice because these crimes were committed many years ago.
I also believe that if the defendant is found not guilty, then the accuser should be named, and potentially charged with wasting police time.
!
That is pretty stupid just because someone is found Not Guilty does not mean the victim was lying
I was a witness in assault case once but the guy was found not guilty so should I have been arrested despite the fact I was telling the truth and I know he did it as I saw him do it.
That's a good way to put people off from coming forward, genuine or not. Also, because someone was found not guilty it doesn't necessarily mean that the accuser was lying, just that the evidence wasn't enough to fully convince the jury. Surely, it would have to be proven first that the alleged victim lied?
The reverse is true also, just because you are convicted, doesnt mean you were guilty, how do you prove you didnt do something one day 30 years previous?
Victims should be encouraged to report things asap, not wait till a person is arrested for something else.
Maybe so but that's in an ideal world and we don't live in one.
Would you really expect little children to have reported Stuart Hall, maybe they tried and were knocked back by adults. Adults that in those days no doubt never would have believed a child over a respected man like SH was. The world was a different place in the 60'/70's/80's.
I have been in this situation and if I had said anything about my abuser I would have got a slap round the head for lying. To late for me now as he is dead but I am glad these ladies are getting justice at last.
No. My view has always been that naming people in the press before they're found guilty of a crime is a bad idea because it can cause discussions and debates that can prejudice a trial, if the person is found not guilty their life is often ruined anyway and it can cause people to take the law into their own hands.
Victims should be encouraged to report things asap, not wait till a person is arrested for something else.
Yes but rape us a very personal thing to discuss openly. Not everyone is comfortable exposing even their consensual sex life.
Also abusers seek out children, druggies, drunks and the disabled not only because they can be vulnerable but because they are less likely to be believed - especially compared to an abuser in a position of influence.
In this case only days before the verdict here people were talking about money grabbing reporters of abuse. Not everyone us equipt to deal with that bring said about them. Some can only do it with or fir the support of other victims.
No. My view has always been that naming people in the press before they're found guilty of a crime is a bad idea because it can cause discussions and debates that can prejudice a trial, if the person is found not guilty their life is often ruined anyway and it can cause people to take the law into their own hands.
I agree. Even if a person is found to be innocent the trial by media can ruin them. That and the tired old adage "There's no smoke without fire".>:(
Yes but rape us a very personal thing to discuss openly. Not everyone is comfortable exposing even their consensual sex life.
Also abusers seek out children, druggies, drunks and the disabled not only because they can be vulnerable but because they are less likely to be believed - especially compared to an abuser in a position of influence.
In this case only days before the verdict here people were talking about money grabbing reporters of abuse. Not everyone us equipt to deal with that bring said about them. Some can only do it with or fir the support of other victims.
We often hear that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man be convicted. On that basis, is it a good idea to give an innocent man a bad name for life just on a trawl for potential victims ?
Comments
If I may respond, probably not, but that's not what's happened here, is it?
As I understand it, more than one woman made accusations against Clifford to the police as part of the Savile investigations. If their stories and/or previous complaints that were never pursued indicated that something much wider might have been going on, and that he had used his importance and contacts to persuade them to keep quiet about it, you might wish to find out how much wider, might you not? In which case, could you do that effectively without naming him?
I'll agree with this. If we were collectively more mature about the whole thing and could let go of the whole poisonous "there's no smoke without fire" bullshit, it wouldn't be an issue.
Agreed.
But I do think there has to be some leeway.
It's usual practise when someone is charged for them to have an initial hearing, or in Scotland a First Diet. It's pretty much a formality. So why not have both accuser and accused granted anonymity, then at that initial hearing the prosecution can put forward a request for the defendant to be named IF they believe naming them would allow other victims to come forward. The defence can argue their side of why anonymity should remain in place, and the judge can make the final decision after weighing up the pros and cons and deciding what is in the public interest.
But if found guilty anonymity is automatically removed, except in exceptional circumstance (such as the recent case where the guilty party remained anonymous because naming him would expose the identity of the victim). That would seem to be fair to me.
I also believe that if the defendant is found not guilty, then the accuser should be named, and potentially charged with wasting police time.
There have been too many cases recently where lives of innocent people have been ruined because gold-diggers make malicious allegations, and others then jump on the band-waggon. Even a hand brushing a backside while passing in a narrow hallway will be trumped-up to full-on molestation!
Seems pretty spot on to me.
It's hardly fair for either side if witnesses can't come forward because they're unaware. Also, some people seem to forget that false accusations are only a very small minority of cases. I would imagine that it's actually quite difficult for such cases to get as far as a trial stage, due to experts weeding them out beforehand.
I'd disagree with that.
By all means name the accuser IF there is evidence of them making a malicious allegation, and they are then found guilty in court, but not just because someone they accuse has been found not guilty.
Secondly sexual crimes are more likely by their nature to be repeated. The fact that it is a raid or oaedophilia case is enough information to know that they should be investigating if there are other victims.
Agree with this.
Just think if that lady had not wrote to a newspaper woman (1000 apologies for not remembering her name) telling her about Stuart Hall which then made other victims come forward he could still be a free man enjoying the trappings of his wealth and perhaps ending his days still believing he was a national treasure.
Why do some have a problem with justice because these crimes were committed many years ago.
That is pretty stupid just because someone is found Not Guilty does not mean the victim was lying
I was a witness in assault case once but the guy was found not guilty so should I have been arrested despite the fact I was telling the truth and I know he did it as I saw him do it.
The reverse is true also, just because you are convicted, doesnt mean you were guilty, how do you prove you didnt do something one day 30 years previous?
Maybe so but that's in an ideal world and we don't live in one.
Would you really expect little children to have reported Stuart Hall, maybe they tried and were knocked back by adults. Adults that in those days no doubt never would have believed a child over a respected man like SH was. The world was a different place in the 60'/70's/80's.
I have been in this situation and if I had said anything about my abuser I would have got a slap round the head for lying. To late for me now as he is dead but I am glad these ladies are getting justice at last.
Yes but rape us a very personal thing to discuss openly. Not everyone is comfortable exposing even their consensual sex life.
Also abusers seek out children, druggies, drunks and the disabled not only because they can be vulnerable but because they are less likely to be believed - especially compared to an abuser in a position of influence.
In this case only days before the verdict here people were talking about money grabbing reporters of abuse. Not everyone us equipt to deal with that bring said about them. Some can only do it with or fir the support of other victims.
I agree. Even if a person is found to be innocent the trial by media can ruin them. That and the tired old adage "There's no smoke without fire".>:(
Perhaps the police are hoping some of their other victims will come forward as well.
;-)
We often hear that it's better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man be convicted. On that basis, is it a good idea to give an innocent man a bad name for life just on a trawl for potential victims ?