BuzzJack
Entertainment Discussion

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register | Help )

Latest Site News
 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Should people accused of sex crimes be tried in secret?, and then name them if they're convicted.
Track this topic - Email this topic - Print this topic - Download this topic - 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
post Jul 19 2018, 03:58 PM
Post #1
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 3,009
Member No.: 8,809
Joined: 9-May 09
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Suedehead2
post Jul 19 2018, 05:09 PM
Post #2
BuzzJack Legend
*******
Group: Admin.
Posts: 26,157
Member No.: 3,272
Joined: 13-April 07
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Jul 19 2018, 08:34 PM
Post #3
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,256
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zenon
post Jul 19 2018, 08:44 PM
Post #4
BuzzJack Gold Member
*****
Group: Members
Posts: 3,009
Member No.: 8,809
Joined: 9-May 09
   No Gallery Pics
 


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Jul 20 2018, 05:35 AM
Post #5
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,674
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vidcapper
post Jul 22 2018, 02:32 PM
Post #6
Paul Hyett
*******
Group: Members
Posts: 22,674
Member No.: 364
Joined: 4-April 06
   No Gallery Pics
 


https://www.theguardian.com/media/commentis...must-fight-back
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Popchartfreak
post Jul 22 2018, 04:33 PM
Post #7
BuzzJack Platinum Member
******
Group: Moderator
Posts: 13,256
Member No.: 17,376
Joined: 18-July 12
   No Gallery Pics
 


QUOTE(vidcapper @ Jul 22 2018, 03:32 PM) *


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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post


Reply to this topicStart new topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:


 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th November 2018 - 06:38 PM