Sex Crime Charges - A case for anonymity? (38)

Thu 21 Aug 08, 5:41 PM
xjames
UK(SS), 2 yrs AIUI, only victims of sex crimes and children accused of crimes have their anonymity protected by law.
Given the potential public backlash and permanent ostracision that can be meted out to those merely accused of sex crimes (from CJIA-images, to consensual assault, to rape) is there a case for adults who have been charged to have their anonymity protected until found guilty?
I think so.
Obligatory wanky Latin tagline: Neque porro quisquam est qui dolorem ipsum quia dolor sit amet, consectetur, adipisci velit

21 Aug 08, 6:01 PM
Mad_Monk
UK(BH), 15 mths
How about getting rid of the 'guilty' plea altogether?
No more plea-bargaining, no more accepting 'cautions' and a return to assuming innocence until guilt of a specified crime is proven.
And yes, anonymity until that guilt is proved.
Edited to add: Perhaps those in blue might think a little harder and act a little more cautiously if they knew that every action would be put under the microscope by the DPP and Defence Counsel.
"He took a single sip of her pain and found it exquisite"
Edited 21 Aug 08, 6:15 PM by Mad_Monk

21 Aug 08, 10:38 PM
darkwaterfairy
UK(SA), 21 mths
xjames wrote:
...is there a case for adults who have been charged to have their anonymity protected until found guilty?
...

Mad_Monk wrote:
How about getting rid of the 'guilty' plea altogether?
No more plea-bargaining, no more accepting 'cautions' and a return to assuming innocence until guilt of a specified crime is proven. ...
Totally agree with both xjames's and Mad_monk's points. Been proposing the former for a large gamut of 'serious' crimes for a long time now, and the latter just makes additional sense since it's become open to abuse by the Police and CPS in recent years.
Even ignoring the hell that politically motivated antisexualist charges can reak, there is so much evidence of school pupils using accusation of abuse as weapons against school staff (since it needs just an accusation ...sorry, i mean "soft evidence", these days to make you unemployable in child connected jobs) that at least one school teachers union is asking for anonymity until verdict in their cases.

Mad_Monk wrote:
...
And yes, anonymity until that guilt is proved.
...
Not so sure about "anonymity until that guilt is proved", as certain formulations of that (like, say the authorities would refuse to comment at all unless a guilty verdict is brought) could make it hard for someone to publically clear there name (since thing can get picked up upon without there being official statements) after being cleared in court.
Further, I'll add that I think the rest of the UK should adopt the Scottish method of choosing between guilty / "not proven" / innocent (or throw it out) rather than just what is now more-likely-to-be-guilty / more-likely-to-be-innocent (or throw it out). The "not proven" providing a buffer that more fairly reflects the situation where we can't often 100% say which way it was.

21 Aug 08, 10:53 PM
panjaret
UK(B), 5 mths
And what about the poor guy from bristol who witnessed a police van reversing up a one way street yesterday and was told to fuck off by the police driver when it was pointed out, so the guy took a pic of the van and was then arrested, thrown to the ground, cuffed and taken to a station where he was locked up, finger printed and DNA tested etc etc etc
Is this a police state?

21 Aug 08, 10:54 PM
Romola
UK, 3 yrs
I broadly agree with most of the thread, but hate the 'not proven' verdict. If the evidence does not convince a jury, 'not guilty' is the only just conclusion.
Peace and love, through the power of pants!

22 Aug 08, 7:45 AM
sirguym
UK, 3 yrs
I would prefer to have a situation where if one found something on your police record under a Freedom Of Information Act Enquiry, that you believed to be libelous, i.e. was malicious OR defamatory OR untrue, that you could challenge the police to either prosecute you for it and thereby justify it's inclusion. Or if they choose to not prosecute, they'd be obliged to remove it.
Academy Incorporated: turning fantasy into reality, The Academy Club, The Other Pony Club, Tawsingham Society, Miss Prim's Muir Academy, Muir Academy For Maids: fast friendly, helpful, discreet service, with integrity www.tawse.com guy@tawse.com PO Box 135, Hereford, HR2 7WL, UK +44(0)1432 343100 [pi

22 Aug 08, 10:16 AM
emark
UK, 5 yrs
lacuna_kitten wrote:
Further, I'll add that I think the rest of the UK should adopt the Scottish method of choosing between guilty / "not proven" / innocent (or throw it out) rather than just what is now more-likely-to-be-guilty / more-likely-to-be-innocent (or throw it out). The "not proven" providing a buffer that more fairly reflects the situation where we can't often 100% say which way it was.
But the current system isn't "more likely to be guilty / more likely to be innocent", it's "guilty [proven beyond reasonable doubt]" and "not guilty". The burden of proof required in England is not "more likely than not", it's "beyond reasonable doubt".
AIUI, the thresholds are the same in Scotland, it's just that "not guilty" gets split into "not proven" and "not guilty". So if you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other whether someone did it, in England the result should be "not guilty".
I'm sure the Scottish system has some advantages, but it has some disadvantages too. E.g., "not proven" may carry some stigma that the person is really guilty, they just couldn't prove it.
Section 63 criminalises "extreme" images of consenting adults - see http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ and http://www.seenoevil.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Main_... .
Edited 22 Aug 08, 10:17 AM by emark

22 Aug 08, 10:28 AM
kisses_for_me
UK(IP), 2 yrs
I'm with Emark on this.
Not Proven implies there is as much of a burden for the defence to prove innocence as there is for the prosecution to prove guilt.
Innocent until proven otherwise is supposed to be the way of law here, not unsure until proven otherwise either way.
It's easy to tell the difference between right and wrong. What's hard is choosing the wrong that's more right.
I tend to be suspicious of all true believers. Present company included.
Elise Kraft, The Siege.

22 Aug 08, 10:58 AM
DanesWood
UK, 16 mths
Anonymity is something I approve of on both sides, until after the case is proven. I found this useful link that gives a little of the history.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.u...
"The most powerful sexual organ in the body is our brain, open your mind and allow your fantasies free reign. Mutual pleasure between consenting adults is a wonderful thing."

22 Aug 08, 11:52 AM
MrsTopman1
YT, 3 yrs
emark wrote:

lacuna_kitten wrote:
Further, I'll add that I think the rest of the UK should adopt the Scottish method of choosing between guilty / "not proven" / innocent (or throw it out) rather than just what is now more-likely-to-be-guilty / more-likely-to-be-innocent (or throw it out). The "not proven" providing a buffer that more fairly reflects the situation where we can't often 100% say which way it was.
But the current system isn't "more likely to be guilty / more likely to be innocent", it's "guilty [proven beyond reasonable doubt]" and "not guilty". The burden of proof required in England is not "more likely than not", it's "beyond reasonable doubt".
AIUI, the thresholds are the same in Scotland, it's just that "not guilty" gets split into "not proven" and "not guilty". So if you can't prove beyond reasonable doubt one way or the other whether someone did it, in England the result should be "not guilty".
I'm sure the Scottish system has some advantages, but it has some disadvantages too. E.g., "not proven" may carry some stigma that the person is really guilty, they just couldn't prove it.
Indeed - think Madeleine Smith in the nineteenth century - although, despite the stigma that followed her, I'm not doubting that she preferred 'not proven' to 'guilty'.
The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation - Pierre Trudeau
One toothpick in the mouth, looking cool. Two toothpicks, looking like a dickhead.

Next page


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent