I voted yes always innocent til proven guilty. I hate the fact that men accused of rape are named when they may well innocent. Also, the naming and shaming before a guilty verdict affects other members of the family and they probably have to live with the consquences of what the accused has allegedly done.

I voted depends on the charge. I agree with Orchid about men being accused of sex offences but not sure about the ones who have previous convictions for rape

hi Orchid
yes I tend to agree with you, it's a really difficult one but it worries me that men are named in rape cases before any conviction has taken place and there seem to be a lot of the 'there's no smoke without fire' mentality around.

quote:

Originally posted by boltonfan2:
I voted depends on the charge. I agree with Orchid about men being accused of sex offences but not sure about the ones who have previous convictions for rape

The jury will on try on the facts on the case in hand. So even if previously convicted he may not have actually committed the present crime.

Veggie baby

I think I have made my point today about how I feel. Innocent till proven guilty!

Hi Veggie,I voted innocent until proven - but I would say crimes where kiddies are involved take on a completely new meaning - any human being hurting a child - i will stop there - i love the wee ones - a pain at times(jokingly) - but - INNOCENT ! and they need us to protect them.

Sometimes their identities being revealed can help with the case though, as there may be people who come forward with evidence to prove them innocent or guilty.

However, I do think that the dangers of being wrongly accused are ridiculous. Especially in the cases of rape or paedophilia crimes. Sticky labels and all that.

Yes.

quote:

Originally posted by boltonfan2:
I voted depends on the charge. I agree with Orchid about men being accused of sex offences but not sure about the ones who have previous convictions for rape

Hiya

This is where it gets difficult though isn't it. Just because someone has committed a crime before it doesn't mean that they are guilty this time.
I think that's why a defendants prior convictions cannot be disclosed to a jury - every case has to stand on it's own merits.
If I was on jury duty I think that knowing that someone had been convicted for a form of sexual assault (whether it was against adults or kids) would make me more likely to vote guilty.

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
hi Orchid
yes I tend to agree with you, it's a really difficult one but it worries me that men are named in rape cases before any conviction has taken place and there seem to be a lot of the 'there's no smoke without fire' mentality around.

I agree with that. I think in this child abuse case we have been debating, it was right to name her.

Such lovely peeps in dis fred
thanks for voting all of you.

quote:

Originally posted by mary_bee:
Sometimes their identities being revealed can help with the case though, as there may be people who come forward with evidence to prove them innocent or guilty.

Exactly.

Anonymity wouldn't matter so much if people didn't assume guilt before a trial. Any sort of sexual offence seems to trigger this. Also, if as much attention was given to the times when people were released without charge, or the reasons explained properly when people were not convicted after a trial, or the reasons for sentencing made clear, then it'd be a bit fairer all round.

Anonymity for witnesses yes, defendant/accused no,never.All defendants are innocent until proven guilty.
How could you possibly run a court were the defendant/accused has anonymity and the victim and witnesses have no anonymity.

No, no names....

I had an interesting debate about this, Jasmine raised some really good points that made me think...about how naming can cause further victims to come forward. I can very much see her point...but on balance...no I still think it's wrong.

Imagine you hear that X Nursery is involved and a member of staff (un-named) has been arrested.

Now imagine you are told X Nursery is involved and Z (named) member of staff is involved. Do you then think, oh that's ok then because my child was always with Y member of staff? Course not!

I don't really understand how (at this stage) knowing which specific one it is helps anyone?

If there are other victims from previous places of employment, they could still come forward...she could still be convicted after this trial?

I'm just musing here really...waffling a bit.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Anonymity wouldn't matter so much if people didn't assume guilt before a trial. Any sort of sexual offence seems to trigger this. Also, if as much attention was given to the times when people were released without charge, or the reasons explained properly when people were not convicted after a trial, or the reasons for sentencing made clear, then it'd be a bit fairer all round.

But in regard to the nursery woman, did the police not have enough evidence from what they had seized without needing to name her?
I'm not defending her btw, just that they must have had enough evidence to be able to charge her so why name her?
Was it to secure more evidence or allegations to bring further charges?

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

I'm just musing here really...waffling a bit.

Leccy

Yeah, me too.
I've voted that there should always be anonymity but I can certainly see why other people feel the way they do.
It's an interesting debate, I think that whichever way it is done someone will come off worse or feel that justice wasn't done

ARSEFLAKES!!!!!!!

Just seeing if anyone is listening

yes anonymity should be enforced for the accused in all cases, its not up to the media to do the job the police are supposed to do in finding witnesses and evidence, let the media have their feeding frenzy AFTER someone has been proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

Veggie

Do you want milk for those flakes Ennis?

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Veggie

Do you want milk for those flakes Ennis?

Nah I am lactose intolerant Leccy

I wish I was doing this subject as an essay question, instead of ADR

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
ARSEFLAKES!!!!!!!

Just seeing if anyone is listening

I prefer Special k though they are only a tiny bit different.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
Anonymity wouldn't matter so much if people didn't assume guilt before a trial. Any sort of sexual offence seems to trigger this.

I think you're right Daniel, as I said earlier, if I was on a jury then knowing that someone had been convicted of a sexual assault previously would make me more likely to find them guilty.
I wouldn't feel the same about most criminal charges but sexual assaults (and actually cruelty to animals or any vulnerable groups) I think are actually a sickness and I tend to think that those convicted would reoffend.
Sorry I'm not sure that makes sense but I know what I mean.
I would not want to serve on a jury if prior convictions were known

She would have been charged with the said offence, she then would appear with her agent in court to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty,her name is called and she confirms or her agent will confirm name address and plea, its then a trial diet date will be given and based on the charge she will be told to return on that date or she will be held in custody until that date, when that date arrives both the crowm/defence will indicate if they are ready to go to trial if yes a date is given for trial.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
ARSEFLAKES!!!!!!!

Just seeing if anyone is listening

Ennis

Sorry hun, just really considering the answers given here.
You souldn't have named the Arseflakes though
They are also deserving of anonymity

there will always be 'the no smoke without fir ' syndrome ; often its right and will stimulate activity from the public in rape cases (a victim i mean ) and as the years go on and med sciences improve ,there will be more and more convictions hopefully.

I am a total believer in NO MEANS NO - and any idiot knows if a woman struggles she is saying no.
Identity should maybe be left to the Police ?? Ifthe KNOW they have him,it might just warn other women - beware - because a jury can make mistakes.

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
I would not want to serve on a jury if prior convictions were known

No, me neither.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
I would not want to serve on a jury if prior convictions were known

No, me neither.

Nor me. Destroys the whole concept of blind justice imo.

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
I would not want to serve on a jury if prior convictions were known

No, me neither.

Previous convictions are only submitted when the defendant is found guilty.

I agree with Veggie, Dan and Orchid.

Iknow I'm not a good enough person to not let any previous prejudice me.

quote:

Originally posted by erinp:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:
I would not want to serve on a jury if prior convictions were known

No, me neither.

Previous convictions are only submitted when the defendant is found guilty.

We know. We're talking hypothetically here.

Yes...it is not up to the press to send out thier unqualified snoopers until a person has been found guilty by trial and evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Syd:
Yes...it is not up to the press to send out thier unqualified snoopers until a person has been found guilty by trial and evidence.

I like that, that's exactly what they are.

Porto

Hope you're feeling better hun.

There is a real problem with the conviction rates in rape cases though isn't there? I'm sure I read somewhere that the rate is less than 10%

I'm not sure how they get the figures tbh. I mean are they based on the numbers of women reporting rape and taken as a % of that figure or are they working on the only X% of rapes are actually reported and working from that (which in fairness is an unknown)

i do think there is a problem with tabloid journalism paying some women huge amounts if they allege rape against someone famous

I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

It's the reporting in papers like the Sun that get me. For instance, if someone is charged with, say, shoplifting, the paper reports the case like this: Smith, an unmarried mother with 4 kids from different fathers who has never worked, appeared in court today [...].