Should an alleged sex offender remain anonymous until convicted? Confidence in UK Police is at a low. This has been brought to the fore by the concealment of evidence detrimental to the prosecutions's case in alleged rape trials. [lbc.co.uk]
What is even more concerning to me is that it shows how poor the standards of policing can be in a country that holds its force to be "best".
0
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
11 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Only if it is the first time he has ever been accused (or if it's only for public urination or an 18 year old dated a 15 year old.) But an innocent person does not get accused by multiple people, and it's easier for people to protect themselves and their kids when they know who not to trust. Because the reason these guys rack up so many victims is that they manipulate people into trusting them.
Solidarity
Level 4
Jan 27, 2018
0
Thank you for your comment. Whenever there is reasonableness, there is an argument. What is not being picked up in the responses here is the undermining of public trust in the Police to do an impartial job in investigations. It is so bad that in some Police districts, all rape and serious sexual assault cases have been suspended for review. I believe that such Police bias and actions go much further than the most serious cases.
Yeah, when you can't trust the system there are only two options...vigilanteism or public shaming. The best protection for the one in a million falsely accused is to have a trustworthy justice system willing to prosecute and convict the guilty.
Law enforcement and justice system should protect anonymity--of alleged perps and victims.
Employers, schools, and other such "civilian" institutions and groups should deal with it the way they want to. Maybe some new laws are called for, re temporary suspensions, reinstatements, and restitution, etc.? I dunno, but I think a university should be able to suspend accused faculty (see below).
Proven false accusers should be hit with the full force of the law: i.e. with whatever sentence the falsely accused would have otherwise received. At least. Their name should be dragged through the mud as restitution.
stinkeye_a
Level 8
Jan 27, 2018
1
There was a time that the community wrought justice. They were hangings, burning to death. A whole lot of satisfaction to the spectacle. Justice was bread and circuses. Today? Do we want justice to be right (convict and punish the guilty), justice to be wrong (innocent people convicted and punished), or correct (both guilty and innocent people convicted and punished)?
Jack-of-scythes
Level 6
Jan 27, 2018
0
Sorry, I sort of agreed with your logic then you lost me. I do not agree with your "correct".
Did not agree with justice be "wrong".
I believe the spectacle was to deter people from committing crimes. Detection was poor. Deterrent was necessary and to do that they made public examples of people whether they were truly guilty was secondary. The intention was to generate fear and discourage further crimes.
The logic is correct because it is statistically necessary to allow innocent people to be punished. The state can't be wrong prosecuting and punishing. Therefore...it is correct.
@Jack-of-scythes You may hold that point of view. Most civil societies maintain that only the guilty should be punished. That is partly what drives forensic science, to ensure that only the guilty are dealt with. Certainly in the UK compensation has been paid out to victims of miscarriages of justice. While the State was not itself can now be sued in the UK, it's employee's and agents can be dealt with for perverting the course of justice. I have to disagree with you there.
I can't describe the hate and disgust that I feel in regard to sex offenders, especially pedophiles. With that in mind, due process is the right of all people. I don't think it's right to publish that information until a verdict is reached. Even if they are innocent that sort of publicity can be devistating. Once again, sex offenders and pedophiles deserve what ever punishment they get.
jayneonacobb
Level 7
Jan 27, 2018
4
Exactly what I feel. Anonymity is important in case you have the wrong suspect. If they committed the crime, absolutely, those people's name should be disclosed for safety, but if there is doubt, it can ruin an innocent person's life.
@SocraticAddict the point of the post.
Any punishment & rehabilitation should be appropriate to the crime?
You can't rehabilitate these people. Yes, punishment should fit the crime.
no, he shouldn't be given bail but it shouldn't be known until he is charged what he or she is.
LeighShelton
Level 8
Jan 27, 2018
0
Thank you for your contribution, bail is another consideration. Bail is considered on various other factors. At least with your proposition, anonymity is retained till the court case starts, why not maintain anonymity till conviction?
well, it's a good thought but not easy out of prison as there are at least a few people who hate and know you and because they think you crossed the line. people get angry about these things.
Once a person is painted as charged with a crime, even if not found guilty their life is changed forever. Keeping defendants anonymous is paramount, as disgusting as it may seem.
I also think western criminal system fails by principle, but that's an unrelated issue.
hlfsousa
Level 6
Jan 27, 2018
2
I would be interested in what you mean by fails by principle.
There have been a few cases in the UK where naming a suspect who later turned out to have been innocent has completely destroyed that persons reputation and life.
I've thought for quite a while that naming people who are under investigation but have not yet been charged should stop and, arguably, naming people who are charged but not yet convicted is probably not a great idea either
JimmyM
Level 7
Jan 27, 2018
2
Why I suggested till proven guilty.
We need to protect the possible victims.
GipsyOfNewSpain
Level 9
Jan 27, 2018
0
Yes we do. You miss it totally that the "victims" are protected. But if the "alleged assailants" are totally innocent, they have been socially tarnished perhaps beyond repair.
Anonymous because they may be innocent, but watched in case they are now.
Rugglesby
Level 8
Jan 27, 2018
1
It was a matter of the persons social standing, "victims" retain their anonymity and frequently did even though the claims were proven false. We do not then hear the "victims" were tried for perjury.
I don't know about in the UK, but here in America I think it would be impossible to keep Trump's annonymity
Rudy1962
Level 9
Jan 27, 2018
4
One of hundreds possibly. It is a matter of law and justice we are looking at.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Memes R Us
3037 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.