It's like Len Fairclough all over again. . . (13)

Absolutely. At the point of being arrested, and at the point of being charged, and at the point of being held in prison prior to trial, and up until the end of the trial, the accused person should be entitled to anonymity so that the presumption of innocence - supposedly a keystone of our legal system - can actually be effective and so that any jury pool is not contaminated by the sensationalist media reporting that will undoubtedly occur

Once someone's name is out, and in particular for things like child molestation or rape, the person's reputation simply cannot recover 100% even if the charges are dropped or they are acquitted by a jury because there will always be some people who think "no smoke without fire"

I would add that similarly, victims should *also* be entitled to anonymity, because it may make it easier for them to get over whatever ordeal they have been through.

There's a somebody I'm longing to see, I hope that he turns out to be, someone to watch over me
I'm a little lamb who's lost in the wood, I know I could always be good, to one who'll watch over me (Ella Fitzgerald)

Absolutely. And, after the trial, the identity of the "loser" should be published. If the accused is found guilty, justice being "seen to be done" means their name needs to be released.

And, in the interests of justice, it is also true that anybody bringing a mischievous or malicious accusation should be exposed for what they are too.

It CANNOT be right that someone who can falsely cry rape (for example), and attempt to besmirch the reputation of an innocent person in ways which would affect the rest of their life, should have their identity concealed.

A rapist MUST be convicted, and not have his name withheld (after his conviction). But there are too many instances of women claiming rape when it wasn't (perhaps because they feel rejected, or have boyfriends already, or all the other reasons that have emerged as motives recently), and feeling they can "get away" with a false condemnation of another.

To pre-empt anybody wilfully misinterpreting what I say; rape is an awful crime. Far too many women feel inhibited about reporting it. It can NEVER be excused.

But it can also never be excused for a woman to attempt to ruin an innocent man.

Keep the identities private - until the truth emerges. Then let the names be known and the consequences happen.

English

"It may be that your sole purpose in life is to serve as a warning to others" - Anon

But in general, I think victims and accused ought to have anonymity. Maybe now the press don't have so much power that sort of idea has a chance of being enacted, since you can bet it's the gutter press that would have opposed it most.

The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.

Does "the truth" emerge from a single trial, unless there is a guilty verdict that is then not appealed?.

Talking in general terms, rather than about any particular case:

A verdict of guilty is clear enough, name the convicted party.

A verdict of "not guilty" doesn't mean one can conclude any of:

• a) the accused was innocent (the verdict is "not guilty", rather than "found innocent"),
• b) the accused got away with it, and was guilty but it wasn't "found" / proven (O.K. It is going to be one of a) or b) ; but which?, so leading to not being able to conclude:
• c) "the accuser was lying", if the accused was found "not guilty".

If the accuser was suspected of lying, then an investigation should follow, and if need be then a prosecution for perjury / wasting police time. Once any and all proceedings have concluded, at that stage all parties have had "due process", and then any guilty party should have their name and transgression revealed?

Their conclusion was:

I'd agree with that.

I'm not a robot, I'm a unicorn.

But being found not guilty doesn't mean that the accuser is therefore guilty of false accusations - the standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, so it's possible that there isn't enough proof either way.

If someone is accused of false accusations, then I believe they too should get anonymity, which would end if found guilty.

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

I'd say there is 4th one too. The person does genuinely feel aggrieved, but the accused is found not-guilty on account of having reasonable belief consent was present.

But yes, the long and the short of it is that a not-guilty verdict doesn't make a malicious accuser.

The other thing in this debate is that we all assume 'anonimity' is actually a real concept. In a rape situation, there needs to be an investigation - that generally involves the police arresting people and asking questions of third parties. You can prevent the papers publishing, but you can't protect someone's social network circulating information - which is I suspect where the real harm is done.

And all men kill the thing they love, By all let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

Sign the Consenting Adult Action Network's statement

A trial verdict does not equal the truth.

More hedonism NOW