See another case has come up where the 'victim' has made false accusations in the past - with one being a close relative. She has remained anonymous, while the life of the accused has become almost unbearable. Of course we will be told women will find it harder to come forward if the law was changed, but is it time to realise some women know how quick the media are to jump to 'nasty man' conclusions...and when it's found that she was the guilty party, she can slink away while 'nasty man', without past dealings with the police will have to face what comes next; loss of employment, friends...and perhaps even self-respect?
2007-01-09 23:23:50 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Nice one, roseyC...or rather it was until I realised your eagerness to overstate your argument about men who are guilty. Come...I realise the guilty far outnumber the innocent, but my concern was about women who (whether you like it or not, ma'am), for whatever reason will accuse everyone from their father, to some man who ignored their show of 'admiration' - and will accept the sorrow and care from people on the case with wide-eyed tearful gratitude while the poor bastard who has been charged is in custody...with the chance of him being beaten to a pulp by fellow inmates - and this is before he has even been in court.
There was a circus here in the UK not too long ago when 5 women were murdered. The first man they picked up was totally trashed in the national newspapers - with some dears in Yahoo Answers also putting their boot in. He's now been released, and someone else has been charged. If there is any country that should have anonymity for both, UK should be first in line
2007-01-10 02:51:05 · update #1
Okay, Rosey...as 'elaborate' and 'intense' your return of serve is, what about the other decision in mind, which I think is fairly mature - do not name EITHER participant (victim or accused) until the case ends - and sting the sections of the press who decides to 'inform the public' (id est; name the male 'participant' in order to sell more copies).
Mr. Simpson 'got off' not on any 'technicality' - but merely because of his defense team...and as we know, money ensures victory.
It seems the law concerning sexual crime is different in the UK - but our media likes to think it's 'legally informing' Brits, when in fact all it's doing is stirring the dirt...and if the 'suspects' possess the social skills of, say, Colin Stagg - or who's origin is West Indian/African, the press has a field day with prose bordering on the extreme - as Mr. Stagg experienced 14 years ago.
2007-01-11 05:18:23 · update #2
Anyone accused of anything should be anonymous until found guilty. Only a few weeks ago, the coppers arrested a fella for the murders of those women in Ipswich. the telly and papers gave his name, showed his house and gave the address. 24 hours later, they arrested and charged someone else and let the first fella go. This can't be right...apparently, he did nothing and now he is probably stared at when he goes out and the 'no smoke without fire' brigade will be having a field day.
2007-01-09 23:39:46 · answer #1 · answered by gaz 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the accused should be treated whith equal rights and not as they are now! People always will jump to the conclusion that the man is guilty and that their is no smoke without fire!
Their are evil and spiteful women out their that will make accusations and even if their is no evidence to support her accusations she still has the upper hand because it is her word against the accused!
2007-01-10 04:59:54 · answer #2 · answered by azman5998 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think that the press needs to be kept out of cases like this; they sensationalize everything, they jump to conclusions, and they feed stereotypes. This doesn't help anyone, victim or alleged perpetrator alike. More and more they are finding situations in which men have been wrongly accused after they have spent years in prison. Bottom line, courts need to be objective.
2007-01-09 23:37:03 · answer #3 · answered by R C 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
When a woman, who has a history of crying 'wolf' makes an accusation of rape, the police should take consideration of what she is claiming but with extreme caution.
Where a man was found guilty of rape and subsequently had a sentence quashed by the Appeal Court, the accuser, (the woman who accused him originally), should in my opinion, be named and shamed.
2007-01-09 23:51:48 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I believe that the laws need to be changed so that anyone who falsely accuses another of such crime, will end up suffering legal consequences for attempting to slander the reputation of another. Such consequences should include jail time, as well as being financially responsible for any costs that their victim had to pay in defending themselves against the false charges.
2007-01-09 23:33:44 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The complainant should NEVER be anonymous.
This is the British system. Somebody makes a complaint. It is the person complained about who should be protected by anonymity.
2007-01-09 23:41:26 · answer #6 · answered by Perseus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The is unless your a pro-life liberal than you will have the support of the liberal and N.O.W. will come to your aid. The terms will be used like it was just sex between two adults and it is nobody's business.
2007-01-09 23:32:10 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes.
2007-01-09 23:39:00 · answer #8 · answered by Alice S 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course they should. they are entitled to equal treatment while not yet proven guilty
2007-01-09 23:32:05 · answer #9 · answered by leannexfairy 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
their name should be kept secret until PROVEN guilty, and her name should be published for lying
2007-01-09 23:35:45 · answer #10 · answered by button moon 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋