Should people accused of sex crimes be tried in secret?

BuzzJack - Entertainment Discussion _ General Discussion _ News and Politics

Latest Site News

Hozier climbs to number one

A chart double for Beyonce

Benson Boone remains at number one

Should people accused of sex crimes be tried in secret?, and then name them if they're convicted.

Display modes

Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum

Anonymity until conviction?
You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Total votes: 10
Guests cannot vote

zenon View member profile	Jul 19 2018, 03:58 PM Post #1
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 9 May 2009 Posts: 3,615 User: 8,809	After all that has happened to Cliff Richard, some people think the law should be changed so people accused of sex crimes are granted anonymity until they are least charged, but others think their names should be withheld all the way to any conviction. The disadvantage to naming suspects straight away is that their lives, careers and reputations are totally ruined even if they're cleared in the end. But the disadvantage for anonymity is that it would stop further victims coming forward resulting in some cleared defendants potentially cheating justice and convictions would fall, for example Dave Lee Travis during Operation Yewtree would have been a free man if he had been granted anonymity all the way because the victim he was eventually convicted of sexually assaulting did not come forward until after his first trial. I say keep no anonymity.


Suedehead2 View member profile	Jul 19 2018, 05:09 PM Post #2
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 13 April 2007 Posts: 36,653 User: 3,272	If defendants in sex crimes are given anonymity, that doesn't mean the trial has to be held in secret. After all, victims of such crimes remain anonymous throughout (and after) the whole process.


Popchartfreak View member profile	Jul 19 2018, 08:34 PM Post #3
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	neither option. Fixed ballot. Anonymous until charged. At that point if other victims come forward then it makes the case stronger. If the case isn't strong enough to stand on it's own feet then the police have no just reason to go "fishing" for a stronger case as they did with innocent Paul gambaccini, spending hundreds of thousands of pounds fruitlessly interviewing everyone who has ever know him, in the UK and the USA, trying to dig up dirt when there was no dirt to dig up and all they had was an unreliable accusation. The people who know him to be of sound character all told him what the police were trying to do. He lost well over a year out of his life without being charged, having no job, and being reviled as a suspected paedophile because as we know gutter press and people always think there's no smoke without fire, even when the fire has actually been started by an arsonist rather than a burns victim.


zenon View member profile	Jul 19 2018, 08:44 PM Post #4
BuzzJack Gold Member Joined: 9 May 2009 Posts: 3,615 User: 8,809	QUOTE(Suedehead2 @ Jul 19 2018, 06:09 PM) If defendants in sex crimes are given anonymity, that doesn't mean the trial has to be held in secret. After all, victims of such crimes remain anonymous throughout (and after) the whole process. What I meant is that we would know the defendant's trial was currently happening but his/her anonymity means we would not know whose trial it was until a possible conviction. This post has been edited by zenon: Jul 19 2018, 08:55 PM


vidcapper View member profile	Jul 20 2018, 05:35 AM Post #5
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	If a persons name is withheld until/unless they are convicted, yes it might prevent other victims coming forward, but that wouldn't prevent another trial being held later for the fresh victims. It would discourage false accusations from people just looking to sue for money, though.


vidcapper View member profile	Jul 22 2018, 02:32 PM Post #6
Paul Hyett Joined: 4 April 2006 Posts: 25,346 User: 364	https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentis...must-fight-back


Popchartfreak View member profile	Jul 22 2018, 04:33 PM Post #7
BuzzJack Legend Joined: 18 July 2012 Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376	QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 22 2018, 03:32 PM) https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentis...must-fight-back MP's have just voted to give themselves anonymity in cases involving such things as expenses abuse and any number of isms. The papers should be concentrating on that rather than being unable to name people until they are charged unless they are of "public interest". Cliff being accused of groping a boy by a dubious witness is not "public interest" it's public nosiness.