Ronaldo
Posted by: bluegirl on 19 October 2005
Obviously a sensitive subject, however, I cannot help but feel that it isn't right to name the accused until proven guilty surely. I don't know the legal logistics of such cases, but as the allegations are becoming more frequent (especially amongst footballers) and yet there has to my knowledge never been a conviction, I am alone in thinking both parties deserve the right to anonymity until the end of the trial at least.
Posted on: 19 October 2005 by JonR
I presume this is the Man United footie player that's been accused of rape?
I think normal practice is to ensure anonymity for the victims. I am not sure why you think suspects deserve the same consideration, even if they are premiership footballers.
BTW, kudos to you for sticking around, bluegirl. I'd concluded earlier that mere mention of 552s and 555s etc had had you running for the hills!
I think normal practice is to ensure anonymity for the victims. I am not sure why you think suspects deserve the same consideration, even if they are premiership footballers.
BTW, kudos to you for sticking around, bluegirl. I'd concluded earlier that mere mention of 552s and 555s etc had had you running for the hills!
Posted on: 19 October 2005 by bluegirl
I presumed all suspects were given such anonymity until proven guilty. I am in no way defending the actions of anybody who offends in this way, it just seems to be in the media a lot more these days, yet with no convictions. I didn't know if all accused were named without it being proven first.
Posted on: 19 October 2005 by JonR
Premiership footballers have, unfortunately, established a reputation for themselves which, IMO, makes them fair game for the tabloid press. The Evening Standard lead with a screaming headline about a Man United player being accused of rape. Why? To sell papers of course.
There's no legal restriction, as far as I can tell, on publishing the names of a suspect, unless an injunction is granted by a judge at the behest of said suspect's lawyers. I personally don't see a problem with this, although it relies to a large extent on people remembering that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Problems do arise when newspapers embark on so-called "name and shame" campaigns, as the News of the World did with suspected paedophiles who had been "relocated". The publication of one particular picture, IIRC, lead directly to a lynch mob beating the cr*p out of a completely innocent individual, his only "crime" being that he bore a vague resemblance to the alledged paedophile.
There's no legal restriction, as far as I can tell, on publishing the names of a suspect, unless an injunction is granted by a judge at the behest of said suspect's lawyers. I personally don't see a problem with this, although it relies to a large extent on people remembering that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
Problems do arise when newspapers embark on so-called "name and shame" campaigns, as the News of the World did with suspected paedophiles who had been "relocated". The publication of one particular picture, IIRC, lead directly to a lynch mob beating the cr*p out of a completely innocent individual, his only "crime" being that he bore a vague resemblance to the alledged paedophile.
Posted on: 19 October 2005 by Chris Dolan
My initial reaction..... this is just another pathetic publicity stunt.
Actually that is a restrained version of my initial reaction.
I wonder whether the "victim" has learnt enough not to bring in a publicist as a double bluff.
Chris
Actually that is a restrained version of my initial reaction.
I wonder whether the "victim" has learnt enough not to bring in a publicist as a double bluff.
Chris
Posted on: 20 October 2005 by Chumpy
It seems that there are enough genuinely guilty individuals/organizations conveniently ignored by our idiot media upon which to focus rather than on a high-profile right-to-anonymity-until-proven-guilty individual.
Unfortunately the human race seems to value paying too much for our media/indulging in its vile gossip.
Unfortunately the human race seems to value paying too much for our media/indulging in its vile gossip.
Posted on: 20 October 2005 by kevj
Please remember that this guy hasn't even been charged yet....
I fully agree with the idea of victims having protection, but strongly believe that the accused should be afforded some sort of protection also, at least until the verdict is in. This would also help to protect agianst the tabloid press prejudicing a fair trial with blanket, prurient coverage - surely a desirable outcome for both sides??
I fully agree with the idea of victims having protection, but strongly believe that the accused should be afforded some sort of protection also, at least until the verdict is in. This would also help to protect agianst the tabloid press prejudicing a fair trial with blanket, prurient coverage - surely a desirable outcome for both sides??
Posted on: 20 October 2005 by Chris Kelly
I was in the US last week and idly channel hopping on TV in the vain hope of finding something vaguely watchable. On one CNN channel a female anchor was conducting what amounted to a trial-by-tv of some guy who had been arrested (not yet even charged as far as I could tell) on suspicion of having perpetrated what sounded like a particularly horrible murder of an attractive teenage girl. The anchor, whose name I didn't catch and who was apparently "sitting in" for another whose name I didn't catch, was all for going to the police station and lynching the guy on the spot, mostly because he had previous convictions on his "rap sheet".
To my British sensitivities the woman was way over the top and would surely have been prejudicing the arrestee's chance of a fair trial had any potential happen to have been watching. Seems like we are in danger of doing the same thing with both "celebrity" and ordinary suspects here, and not just in rape cases.
To my British sensitivities the woman was way over the top and would surely have been prejudicing the arrestee's chance of a fair trial had any potential happen to have been watching. Seems like we are in danger of doing the same thing with both "celebrity" and ordinary suspects here, and not just in rape cases.
Posted on: 20 October 2005 by andy c
there have been mis-trials as a result of too much media intervention in a case potentially influencing jurors.
Posted on: 20 October 2005 by Willy
Had a cousin was accused of rape. The case went to court and he was cleared. (After the trial it emerged that woman had made such accusations on two seerate ocassions against two different men. All were cleared).
My cousin suffered financial loss as a result of this case, not to mention the associated stigma. In the end he moved to a different part of the country to start afresh. Think something needs to be done to protect individuals in such cases.
Willy.
My cousin suffered financial loss as a result of this case, not to mention the associated stigma. In the end he moved to a different part of the country to start afresh. Think something needs to be done to protect individuals in such cases.
Willy.