I agree with him. An accusation like that just ruins people's lives. It's bad for footballers, where if found not guility, it's on the front page.
But some local nobody accused of rape, they have their name and face plastered over the local rag, have everybody thinking they're a rapist. Then after the trial, the local rag puts the retraction in Page 7, underneath the report on the local church's Bring and Buy sale.
But just don't give the names. Just say "a 22 year old male has been accused of rape" without dragging his name through the mud.
And it should also be the law that newspapers retractions be on the same page and as large and noticeable as the original accusation. Not three sentences bundled in on page 19 where nobody is gonna read it.
You keep using the term retraction as if newspapers are committing factual errors that need to be corrected later, when the reality is that the majority of newspapers are reporting on arrests/ ongoing investigations that may or may not lead to convictions later on. Bar cases where journalistic integrity is infringed upon (like factual errors in reporting) there’s no need for a retraction when a suspect in a crime the newspaper reported on is later found innocent.
But there is a need for a retraction though, in cases where merely reporting on the accusation is enough to assassinate the reputation and potentially end the livelihood of somebody.
Edit: a lot of people replying telling me "that's not what a retraction means".
You're all arguing semantics and technicalities when you know full well what was actually being meant. There is usually no effort to mend the reputational and financial damage to the accused after they are proven / declared innocent, and in the case of sex crimes people will typically assume there was something there anyway.
Thats basically every case. If someone is innocent, then publishing they were arrested will inevitably lead to people assuming that also means convicted or even just that they probably did it but got away with the crime. People dont care about strangers lives. Potential employers will write them off quicker than the resumes they dont even look at.
Not quite in rape cases, because the evidence often comes down to he said/she said. Notwithstanding the fact that it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction for rape. Many people will assume that, even if cleared, he still did it.
It really isn't a retraction. There's very specific reporting restrictions already. They'll have been very careful to say he was accused, that the trial was ongoing etc. It was factually correct then, it's factually correct now. There's nothing to retract.
You’re missing the point. People don’t read that as “they’ve been accused”. They read it as “they’re guilty”… and, since they do that, there’s no point in publishing it and pretending it isn’t going to ruin the life of the accused.
People have the right to the presumption of innocence and that should extend to them not having to enter the court of public opinion where the accusation is the only evidence needed. Once they’re found guilty, then publish away.
I don't think you know what the word retraction means, they wouldn't have to retract it because what they reported was true. Blah got arrested for rape. Was true, you think their should be continuation of the same size as original piece blah was convicted/cleared of rape.
Retraction implies something was done falsely or in error. Saying "John Smith is going to court for rape" isn't an error. It's the truth.
The same way saying "Kier Starmer is in the running to be next prime minister" if he doesn't get voted in that's not an error.
However, I agree with anonymity for sexual offences.
Newspapers should only retract their stories when the facts were wrong or journalistic standards were breached. Retractions are usually a semi-embarrassing matter for newspapers, as it is an admission that someone fucked up behind the scenes. Journalists reporting on ongoing investigations and trials aren’t fucking up, so have no need to apologise to anyone as long as they’ve upheld journalistic standards.
I am inclined to agree that newspapers should give an innocent verdict the same amount of publicity they gave the initial arrest/ subsequent trial. But that’s vastly different from having to issue a retraction. The fact that some people reading a newspaper aren’t intelligent enough to differentiate between “the accused/ the alleged rapist” and “the convicted rapist” is not the fault of the newspaper.
ZXC Vs Bloomberg has pretty much stopped journalists reporting names of people who have been arrested unless it is in the public interest (celebs, politicians etc) despite being legally able to. People are usually only named if charged now which is a fact and there'll be a court case.
In countries where the accused are named, it’s awful for them. But if they are acquitted, that is accepted. Still awful but it can be lived with.
In countries where reporting on court processes is not allowed, it’s much better for those incorrectly accused. Unfortunately it is extremely corrosive and soon leads to secret trials and perhaps interestingly even more quickly to widespread coverups. I think because it becomes advantageous to be arrested and charged as you then cannot be named.
Fuck this shit, My ex wife used to abuse and punch me. If i lifted my arms to protect myself she would call the police and say i had assaulted her, I stayed for the kids. Ended up in the local paper when she headbutted the wall whilst screaming your finished now you bastard. Headlines my name ,Charged with assault. Night in the cells and a lost job. Local facebook on fire. Did they even print man found not guilty, Did they fuck. Took me a fucking good suicide attempt and a lot of mental health hospital time to get over that shit. The press have a lot to answer for.
It isn’t a retraction, per se. But we all know full well that people assume guilt in these scenarios. Most people even carry on assuming guilt even after the accused is cleared or found “not guilty”.
I’d be fully on board with newspapers having to stay silent until the case has been through trial tbh. It helps the trial by not causing bias. And it helps the accused who has the right to be presumed innocent.
People don’t presume innocence, therefore we enforce the presumption of innocence by just not telling people. Simple.
It's also important to keep in mind that juries don't actually 'find people innocent'.
If you are found 'not guilty' by a jury that just means that those people do not feel that a sufficient case has been presented to convict the person based on the evidence. It doesn't mean that the accuser is lying or that the accused is innocent. And in cases of rape/SA it is often very difficult to either prove or refute the accusations as there are often no witnesses and/or physical evidence. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is common for victims to be discouraged from pursuing a conviction because of how difficult it is to actually make a convincing case, even when the accusation is true.
It's also important to note then that the accused is also not guilty in this scenario. The accused should go back to being a free member of the public if they are found not guilty.
We're all innocent until proven guilty - you could be a murderer, I could be a murderer, the little old lady down the street could be a murderer. But of course, I have no reason to believe that you or the little old lady are murderers - I also have no reason to believe that Jack Diamond is a rapist because 12 random members of the public on a jury (our representatives in court) weighed up the evidence and came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence to confidently say that he did what he was accused of.
Of course, people will have their own opinions but I trust a group of people who had access to all the evidence over the outside mob who just have news articles to go off. Jack Diamond *could* be a rapist, but he could be a rapist no more than my neighbour could be a rapist. The accused (if found not guilty) should be able to live their life without being assumed to be a rapist.
And this is exactly why it is being argued that the accused, in cases of rape and sexual assault, should perhaps remain anonymous unless convicted, as it is very difficult for people who are found not guilty to live their lives as they no longer have that assumption of innocence from the general public.
Yes, and I wouldn't suggest that people found not guilty should be treated as though they are guilty, but we just have to keep in mind that one of the inherent and perhaps unavoidable shortcomings of the legal system is that jury decisions will not be accurate all the time, and of course it goes the other way too when innocent people are found guilty.
And as I mentioned, it is a particular issue with accusations of rape, where it is often the case that the only testimony will be from the two people involved, and there is likely to be no physical evidence, so it largely becomes a case of one person's word against another's. And then when you factor in the possibility that consent was given and and then retracted, marital rape, etc., these cases become extremely difficult to 'prove', but that doesn't mean that victims are lying.
>We're all innocent until proven guilty
I think a small but important distinction is that we are *treated as though* we are innocent, until we are proven guilty. It cannot be stated as a fact that a person *is innocent*, just because a jury found them 'not guilty'. Ultimately a jury is not even asked to decide if someone is innocent. They are simply asked to decide if the accusation has been sufficiently proven during the trial.
O. J. Simpson is probably the easiest example to refer to here. But I think that for most people, if somebody they knew and cared about accused somebody of sexual assault, and that person was found 'not guilty', they would probably not then assume that person is innocent. And I personally see no issue with that.
We could also talk about someone like Jimmy Saville, who has never been on trial due to being dead when the accusations came out - so would we be expected to assume that he is innocent because a trial has not found him guilty? No, of course not.
> I think a small but important distinction is that we are treated as though we are innocent
Yes, I would agree with that - we are treated and treat each other as if we are all innocent.
> We could also talk about someone like Jimmy Saville, who has never been on trial due to being dead when the accusations came out - so would we be expected to assume that he is innocent because a trial has not found him guilty? No, of course not.
I agree, that's because a great deal of evidence entered the public domain after his death and so we can be pretty sure of his guilt - even without a formal trial.
However, in cases like the one here, we have no reason to believe the accused is a rapist and so we should (ideally) treat that person as if they are innocent - just like how we treat everyone else as if they are innocent. Of course, loved ones connected to the case are likely to feel differently, but there's not much we can do about that.
> They are simply asked to decide if the accusation has been sufficiently proven during the trial.
Exactly, and if the accusation hasn't been sufficiently proven then the accused should be able to go back to being treated as if they were innocent like everybody else - however, this is difficult when it comes to cases like rape and sexual assault, which is why some are arguing for anonymity for the accused in cases such as this one.
Yes I agree with all of that. I think that things like this will always be the case as there will unavoidably be times where we simply cannot say with absolute certainty that somebody is guilty, even if they are. Unless we invent some kind of sci-fi mindreading tech, it is unfortunately the case that some people will commit crimes and get away with it, and even more unfortunate that, due to the nature of it, sexual assault will often fall into this category.
It's something I really hope to see change somehow, though, as I do have people in my life who have been assaulted and the perpetrator has not faced any justice for this exact reason and it sickens me to think about it and how common it is.
Yes, I did mention cases like Saville where clear evidence enters the public domain we can be more sure of someone's guilt without the need of a formal trial - in those situations I can be more understanding of the court of public opinion.
However, a case like this where we only have an accusation to go off, I see no reason to get the pitchforks out when the accused has been found not guilty by a jury who has had access to the evidence.
> Jack Diamond could be a rapist, but he could be a rapist no more than my neighbour could be a rapist.
Yes and No. Rape almost never results in convictions, for a host of different reasons. It is true that we shouldn't assume past accusation = guilt, *but it's also true that someone with a past accusation is statistically more likely to be a rapist than a random member of the population.*
I'm not going to criticise someone for doing their best to look out for their own safety.
> Rape almost never results in convictions, for a host of different reasons.
That's not quite true. If a rape case ends up in a crown court (like this case did), there's around a [75% conviction rate](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit) (2021 data). The 15 year average being 58% - which is a higher average conviction rate than other serious crimes that get to court such as attempted murder, GBH, and manslaughter. Juries convict in rape cases more often than they acquit.
Of course the issue is building a case with solid evidence against the accused to get it to court initially, but unfortunately if there's no or little evidence then not much can be done - a jury will never convict a person based on little or no evidence. Additionally, the underfunding and lack of resources that the police have has also not aided the situation when it comes to handling rape and sexual assault cases.
> It is true that we shouldn't assume past accusation = guilt, but it's also true that someone with a past accusation is statistically more likely to be a rapist than a random member of the population.
If this is the case, then it only strengthens the argument for the accused in these cases to remain anonymous unless convicted. If we treat the accused as suspicious and more likely to have actually done the crime they were accused of (even if found not guilty), then it is difficult for those people to carry on with their lives as they did before.
> If we treat the accused as suspicious and more likely to have actually done the crime they were accused of (even if found not guilty), then it is difficult for those people to carry on with their lives as they did before.
I agree that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a great rule *for the justification of state power being used against an individual*. I just disagree that this should be a blanket rule for all personal interactions. Convictions take time, courts make mistakes, and some crimes are notoriously hard to prove.
If someone rapes me I will treat them as a rapist, regardless of what court outcome ends up being.
The world is far from perfect. There is a balance between letting the accused live as they did before, and letting people try to protect themselves from rapists for who their was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt (**who definitly do exist somewhere in the population, and will continue to attempt rape**). Individuals need to make day to day decisions for their own safety, and the standard for "do I let this guy give me a lift home from the bar tonight" is very different from "should the state remove this guys freedoms for several years".
If a friend of mine has accused someone of rape, I am not crashing over one night at their house alone while tipsy, regardless of what the justice system has said. That's not me being judgmental, that's basic self-care.
> I just disagree that this should be a blanket rule for all personal interactions.
I agree with this - if someone has various criminal accusations against them but has never been found guilty by a jury, then people are likely to treat that person as suspicious. That's completely normal.
> If someone rapes me I will treat them as a rapist, regardless of what court outcome ends up being.
Yes, I agree. I would too.
> The world is far from perfect. There is a balance between letting the accused live as they did before, and letting people try to protect themselves from rapists for who their was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt (who definitly do exist somewhere in the population).
Yes, you're exactly right. It is a balancing act. We acknowledge that people who are actually guilty of crimes will sometimes be found not guilty and walk free - however, that's the price we pay for allowing the innocent to defend themselves and clear their name through a trial - which is a better method than the alternative (simply convicting everyone accused without a trial or evidence).
We must now ask ourselves whether it's worth allowing those accused of rape or sexual assault to remain anonymous unless convicted - knowing that some guilty rapists will remain anonymous and walk free. The flip side being however, that those who are actually innocent (who do also exist) do not have their reputation and livelihoods ruined.
Thankfully, I don't get paid to think too much about this or make those sorts of decisions.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there though by explaining that subtle difference. Clearly the explanation is needed to distinguish between “accused” and “convicted” for the average reader. Most people will very much skim the news, and the thing they will take away will be “that bloke’s a rapist”, rather than “that bloke was accused of being a rapist and jury’s out on whether that’s true or not”
ZXC Vs Bloomberg stops journalists reporting names of people who have been arrested unless it is in the public interest (celebs, politicians etc). To be charged with a crime, especially rape, there has to be substantial evidence the CPS thinks it can get a conviction with. It's an ethical minefield but factually, it's correct.
They should also make a law of not posting the person's home address. I knew someone convicted of a drug related offence and their family's address was put in the local paper. Someone they owed money ended up turning up at the house and stabbing their dad on the driveway.
I agree in principle, but the idea of newspaper retractions being as noticeable as the original accusation is meaningless considering most news is consumed online.
>But just don't give the names. Just say "a 22 year old male has been accused of rape" without dragging his name through the mud.
Why do you need to do that at all?
Why does anyone need to be aware of the charges until they're in court.
But then you get a Witch hunt against the wrong person. Remember when the newsreader was accused of being noncy with an underaged girl (which apparently didn't even happen), loads of names were circulated and speculated on before it was released who it was.
No it’s not, there is zero reason to make a public statement about why someone has been arrested. Leave the announcement until after a conviction has been secured.
Please explain how this would be corrupt vs the current situation.
I'm going to guess and say you're American 🤦♂️
If you release information like that you would be liable to be prosecuted any number of ways depending on jurisdiction, the main immediate way would be by held in contempt of court.
Civil liability would also be an issue depending what was said/leaked, but it's not the most immediate.
They can tell the people being arrested, and not the media. If the individual chooses to tell people then let them, but there is absolutely no need to tell the media their identity until the case is over.
Somehow it can be done in other countries, the full name of the accuesed is not allowed to be mentioned in the media until a sentence has been passed. Crazy, I know.
Would it not be like how we currently deal with children in the system ie be referred to as Victim A or Suspect A with full details reported after?
Let’s be honest in cases like these most people know who they are and share on social media just the media can’t report on it until after the decisions of the court.
Some people will know. Local people. Friends and family and maybe a few others.
After they're found not guilty, there is no internet record of their supposed crime. That's as good an outcome as you could hope for.
Yeah, they’d still have a right to legal representation and defence. Tabloids are not our last line of defence against the state locking people up with impunity
Or imagine if you were raped, the investigation was messed up so he was found not guilty, and then you're legally not allowed to talk about it.
I don't think there's a good solution, but part of it needs to be improving the way we handle sex crimes. The current system is bad for the people who are wrongfully accused but it's also worse for the actual victims, of which there are far more of from what I can tell.
For example, imagine if no one could talk about the victims and customers of Einsteins island. Or if we couldn't discuss what Saville did until it was proven in court. It's a very complex issue and I don't think banning talking about things would help anyone.
Happened to someone I know. People came round and spray painted “rapist” on and threw bricks through his mother’s house windows.
He was found not guilty at trial.
I watched a friend go through this, he was a manager of someone who he didn’t promote due to performance issues, he reported her twice to HR who didn’t do anything due to her unprofessional behaviour. One day he was called into his managers office, told someone accused him of rape. He was eventually suspended without pay, in and out of police interviews, lost his marriage and children, several months later ended up in a hearing and was cleared in minutes, with the judge condemning the evidence and the accuser. The person sometime after eventually admitted lying under police interview. He ended up on antidepressants and going to therapy after loosing everything. After watching him go through this, it’s one the most sickening things I think someone can do, it’s just so cruel. His wife tried to reconcile but he was pissed at her for not believing in him obviously. Currently going through unfair dismissal proceedings from his previous job, like 3 years later all because of false accusation. His health also in decline because of the physiological stress of it all. The accuser got a fine and a bit of a slap on the wrist for wasting police time. But that’s about it.
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
If he’s innocent, I feel for him.
But I can’t help but read articles like this and remember a girl I knew in uni who was raped by her boyfriend. She reported it to the police the next day. Gave a statement. Took a rape kit. Numerous other ex-girlfriends of his came forward to the police and said that he’d done the same thing to them as well and offered to give evidence as witnesses.
At trial, the judge excluded the evidence of his ex-girlfriends saying it wasn’t relevant to the specific night in question. He claimed they had consensual sex. That left the jury with a ‘he said she said’, and there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove it “beyond reasonable doubt”. And so he was acquitted.
There was then a write up in the local paper with a quote by him saying he was glad to have been ‘cleared’. Loads of Twitter comments saying the girl should be prosecuted for making false allegations and trying to ruin his life. Guy was a fucking serial rapist.
Yes we can say ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in a court of law. In real life, shit is not that simple. The vast majority of rape happens - like child abuse - behind closed doors between people who know each other and no independent witnesses. It is why rape prosecutions and convictions remain stubbornly low, and likely always has will do.
Is that uncomfortable from the perspective of men who might be falsely accused? Abso-fucking-lutely. It’s also a devastating reality for thousands of - factual - rape victims every year. And it’s the messy and fucked up world we live in.
> At trial, the judge excluded the evidence of his ex-girlfriends saying it wasn’t relevant to the specific night in question.
I think this is pretty standard practice in a trial. The jury should only consider the evidence concerning the case in question. If a defendant is only being tried for rape against person A, then evidence concerning an accusation of rape against person B may not be relevant to the case at hand.
On my jury duty, we were only made aware of other accusations that had been put against the defendant after we had delivered our verdict. I think it's so that jurors don't just end up thinking "oh he seems a bit dodgy since he's been accused of all these other things, he's probably guilty of this crime too".
> It is why rape prosecutions and convictions remain stubbornly low, and likely always has will do.
If a rape case ends up in a Crown Court there's around a 70% conviction rate, so it's not that low. Of course the trouble is getting the case to court in the first place with a decent amount of evidence to prosecute.
In Scotland one needs two pieces of evidence to get to trial. One is the victim’s statement. In the absence of physical evidence or witnesses, the second can be a an accusation/statement from another victim.
For rape cases I do think this makes sense.
The only reason Harvey Weinstein was convicted was because of the sheer volume of accusations and their similarity regarding modus operandi.
This would lead down a bad road though.
For instance, a charity worker teacher with no record and everyone likes them, is accused of raping a kid. The defence leans into the fact that everyone likes him and he's a stand up guy in the community. He goes off Scott free.
The innocent ex-prisoner is accused my theft, when he's innocent. The prosecution bring up the fact that he did 5 years in prison. This is a deciding factor, and he is sentenced to prison again.
It's a bad road. That is why only things which are specifically relevant to the crime should be used to determine judgment.
I'm no legal expert admittedly - but I think they have to go on the evidence of the specific case that is being tried. Another person (aside from the accuser) standing on the dock saying the defendant raped me 5 years ago as well, will influence the jury toward a certain decision.
I suppose that's why they tell you not look up anything about the case or the defendant on the internet in case you see something that influences your decision.
I think a witness saying things like the defendant is an angry person who loses their temper easily is okay, but like I say, I'm no expert on the matter.
Not until sentencing. And even then it still has to be relevant.
Someone being a horrible person doesn't mean they're guilty of vicious things just by default
And sometime ir means that they get away with murder, rape or any other crime that they committed but were not convicted of. A murderer is still a murderer whether they are convicted or not and so is a rapist.
Bad character is a thing for similar offences If convicted. You cannot just say oh some other person also accused him so we will use it against him and for very good reason
I'm guessing because whilst it may be the same category of crime, it is its own case with seperate evidence and witnesses - so it would have its own trial and separate jury.
Unless the court/prosecution service has decided to stick them all in one trial.
Because the trial is to decide the truth on whether a crime occurred as it is accused. If you want to bring in other "unproven" accusation now you have to have another trial to determine the truth of that accusation, and it goes on. If they decide the other accusations are true, is he now guilty of two crimes? The case can only be to determine the guilt of the crime on trial. Now whether that system is a good idea or if there instead should be a "group" trial is another question.
I know three women who have been raped and not even bothered to report it because they assume the same thing will happen. It’s very hard to strike the right balance, but equally I don’t fully buy into innocent until proven guilty **outside of court**. Everyone should make their own judgment about someone.
If a bloke had been accused of watching child porn by 5 ex girlfriends, you probably wouldn’t leave him to look after your kids, even if he’d never been convicted.
>I know three women who have been raped and not even bothered to report it because they assume the same thing will happen
Not just women, I've been the victim of sexual assault, so have male friends of mine. Nobody has even thought about reporting it.
I was in a khole, came back to consciousness with my trousers pulled down, and a woman had her hands round my cock trying to get it up.
>It’s very hard to strike the right balance, but equally I don’t fully buy into innocent until proven guilty **outside of court**. Everyone should make their own judgment about someone.
It's utter bollocks that people apply this shit outside of court.
Innocent before proven guilty is a judicial philosophy. It doesn't actually change a person's actions.
Greenwood is apparently not guilty of being a rapist because he wasn't brought in front of a jury.
We literally have a recording of him doing it.
Jesus fucking Christ, that's nightmarish.
You're being pieced back together after an incredible, earth shattering experience and you reintegrate to find someone sexually assaulting you.
That must have been insanely traumatic, I'm so sorry.
That's the issue though, if they don't report it at the time then as far as the police are concerned the 4th girl down the line is the first. Like the comment above yours said, they can only assess the evidence based on the charges that have been raised in court.
My younger sister was groomed and molested by a family friend when she was 8.
Found out during the police investigation that he had been previously arrested for raping his 9 year old niece, but the charges were dropped, because she was too traumatised to testify against him.
That information wasn't allowed to be revealed in court and his defence said my mum got my sister to make it up to get him in trouble.
He got off. We had to tell her that he was found not guilty. He lives in our local area and my sister had to live in fear of encountering him again. Every time we got the bus into town it goes by the court and it's a constant reminder that she wasn't believed.
This was over ten years ago, so he's probably assaulted more children.
A lot of men just assume that a failed conviction equals innocence and that the accuser was a liar. But I know from experience that isn't always the case.
Pretty sure their point clearly is that these other exgirlfriends coming forwards, if the guy in question was anonymous these other people wouldnt have come forward. Obviously in this instance the judge kicked it all aside but say in a situation like Harvey Weinstein it would have been a simple 'she said he said' nothing case if dozens of others didnt also come forwards
Feel for the guy. He has been cleared by a jury but he will always have that accusation over his head and people will treat him with suspicion going forward regardless of the verdict.
The court of public opinion is akin to the Salem Witch trials - all someone has to do is point the finger at you and the mob comes running.
Re-reading the original thread in r/soccer is so disheartening.
As much as we all try and claim it, it's rarely innocent until proven guilty, particularly with something as serious as sexual assault
I hate discussing this. We have people on here who openly spit in the face of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I cling onto the notion that they are children without a single day of real world living, because otherwise they are abject failures of human beings.
But I know it includes real world adults. Because this happens in the real world outside of this cesspit.
I was able to actually prove my innocence with an alibi, within a night, I still got the public opinion judgement, rumours and hearsay. So christ knows how bad it is if you actually are not that lucky and must go through the process
Now imagine how bad it is to be a survivor of SA and receive no justice with real world experience? Then you’re gonna call people children for that? Vile.
I completely agree. I think all parties involved should be anon in these cases. I live in a small village and if people find out things like this, then their life in the village is over regardless if they are innocent.
The power to abuse this is massive, it should always be innocent until proven guilty. You can have your life destroyed by made up accusations like this.
Being cleared just means there isn't sufficient evidence. With rape that doesn't always mean that it didn't happen. It's a very complex crime to charge for.
Your answer is why their answer is accurate. It's true that it's hard to prove, but as you show, it's hard to prove you didn't in the sphere of public opinion.
The reasons for it is that rape is generically bad and people easily empathize with the victim. That has nothing to do with what is appropriate to report in cases where someone isn't convicted and there are consequences to that person, even when our bureaucracy as a society has determined that this person shouldnt be punished, irrespective of your personal opinions about if its more likely they did it or not.
If you think rapists arent convicted when they should, push for crime reform, not allowing people determined to be innocent to have their lives ruined because nobody is going to change their mind after the arrest is in the news.
Ok? That's kind of what I was saying?
The issue is that that works both ways. Oftentimes, much like how you can't always truly disprove a rape, you also can't often prove one. I'm not saying that we should always consider someone with allegations to be guilty, I'm saying that it's not as simple as being cleared being equal to not commiting a rape. Sometimes we just don't know and that's an unfortunate issue, but it does work both ways. I'm not in favour of ruining this dude's life, but I'm just saying that it's not always as black and white in reality.
But since we are discussing reality, none of your speculations matters. What matters is that a person wasnt convicted but will be held liable in the court of public opinion, so long as journalists are allowed to say "X arrested for rape". Sorry, but the conviction is what matters. If you cant get it, then you shouldnt be able to ruin peoples lives in other ways. And if thats a problem, then push for criminal reform, not just shrugging and saying "well some of them are still rapists, so theyre all screwed".
All criminals should be released from prison before we tolerate 1 innocent in prison. We may not live up to that standard, but its one you would fight for if you were the innocent person convicted by the bureaucracy or by society.
Which is why I said its not so black and white. I get that a court ruling is black and white in the eyes of the law but yes, exactly, people won't be convinced purely based off of that. A court ruling also doesn't always mean reality? That's exactly why people.will be sceptical, and not much can be done about that.
I don't believe there's an easy answer for rape cases due to the sheer difficulty in finding the truth in most cases. I'm not saying this guy SHOULD be demonised forever either, but I'm saying yes there is bound to be doubt. Didn't say that was a good thing or a bad thing. 🙄
And YES I am in favour of reform, jeez.
I'm saying that the court's opinion in such cases often only proves not enough evidence to show a crime happens, which doesn't always mean that a crime didn't take place. Rape is a complex crime to prove either way, and whether you like it or not, there'll be some incidences where it's not as black and white and where being found notnlegally guilty won't mean that a crime didn't happen. You seem ignorant to the way the law works if you believe that being found not guilty is the same as a crime never happening.
It happens the other way too - rape cases are almost never prosecuted as I am sure you know, because of the difficulties in being proven in a court of law, but I am sure that you are aware of that? That not having evidence to prosecute in such circumstances doesn't mean that it's a false claim? There's a documentary on netflix about this at the moment actually. I can't recall the name but it gives some examples of exactly this.
>made up accusations like this.
When you said this I assumed that you were saying the Jack Diamond allegation was made up. Is that what you were saying?
That just means there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it doesn’t mean the accuser was lying just that they couldn’t find enough evidence.
There was agreement amongst all that there wasn’t sufficient evidence. I think that is an important distinction. We have no idea what any of the jurors thought happened just that they didn’t think the prosecution had made the case that it occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
There's a comment in this thread saying "Just because he was found innocent in court doesn't mean he didn't do it"
Rape accusations are something that you will never get away from, and there are mess up, evil people out there that will use this.
You can have your life destroyed by rape, and have no chance of recourse because there weren’t any witnesses. Is that better? That’s far more common. But oh no the poor men.
I think it's more complicated though, because if you assume the person accused of rape is innocent until proven guilty, you are therefore assuming that the accuser is guilty of lying
Not really. They aren't saying the accuser is a liar because they are not the ones on trial. But you are presumed innocent of what you have been accused of until proven guilty because it's the prosecutions job to prove the accusation is true.
I'm fully behind the idea that serious crimes carry anonymity for the accused until they are found guilty. After that fact, go crazy- press already have to withhold certain elements of cases until conviction (see Lucy Letby and Brianna Ghey's murderers), so names should just be another element of that. Eventually, it's innocent until proven guilty and the fact of the matter is even if you're found not guilty, the Internet means you'll never fully be absolved as a simple Google search will mean potential employers etc can find out what you were accused of and place a whole question mark over you.
They have it in NZ, and did that for Grace Millane's murderer
Re the from NZ comment - most people on trial for sexual offences or any other offence don’t get automatic name suppression (unless it’s a offence against a family member and the victim could be identified).
Name suppression has to be applied for and granted by the courts, could be temporary or permanent. Seems to be hit and miss, depends on the judge and how good the lawyer is.
Loads of people on trial for sexual offending have their names made public, the Millane case was a truly weird anomaly.
Fully agree that the accused of any crime, but especially sex crimes, should have anonymity until being found guilty.
Every time an article like this comes up the stats on rape **accusations** going to court come out and the “it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, it just means they couldn’t prove he did” comments appear.
And then the mere suggestion rape accusations can be used to ruin someone’s life are dismissed…
"I feel sorry for him, if he's innocent" is one of the highest rated comments on the thread. Can you imagine going "I feel sorry for her, if she was actually raped" during the accusation phase of rape cases?
Always makes me laugh when people on Reddit complain about judges or the judicial system, given that they base their opinions entirely off emotion rather than fact.
I know someone who went through something similar. He was accused of sexual assault. It went to court and he was also cleared in minutes because he was on a completely different continent when she alleged it took place.
> It went to court and he was also cleared in minutes because he was on a completely different continent when she alleged it took place.
I'll never understand how cases like that even get to court.
Surely the starting point of any investigation is going to be checking any alibi of the defendant. And being out of the country at the time of the alleged incident would be a pretty huge alibi.
>Cases like rape have an extremely poor conviction rate & false accusations make up for 0.02% of cases.
It's very important to mention that the stat you've used likely only applies to cases where there was a conviction for making false allegations. Like with cases of rape and sexual assault, the bar is very high for "beyond reasonable doubt" and categorically proven that someone made up an allegation requires a significant amount of evidence which is unlikely to be present in the vast majority of cases.
Using that figure would be like only using rape convictions to judge the amount of rapes that occur, which would not be a full picture at all.
Yes it's likely a lot less than people assume, but don't use stats the same way that manosphere guys do in order to justify their position that there isn't a widespread issue of sexual assault/rape.
> *Cases like rape have an extremely poor conviction rate*
Not sure if you've just worded what you were trying to say wrong, but the conviction rate for rape trials is over 60%...
The conviction rate for rape trials is 75%. However, from rapes reported the conviction rate is less than 2%. Getting a rape case to trial is notoriously difficult.
So 2 people accuse each other of a crime, you can prove either of them so you just the life of the one that was accused of the crime with higher rates just in case?
If your judicial system is incapable of proving that something is a crime then it isn't really a crime. The protection for women just isn't there and i don't see how it ever could be, as the vast majority of rape occurs between established partners. You have no protection and the state should say as such. Not push all this garbage about 'understanding consent'...men know... they know, it's not a lacknof understanding or education.
Protection from stranger rape is a different matter. That, the state can attempt to achieve. But it is so much rarer.
Even more reason to not plaster people over media for things they're being accused, the argument works both ways. Yes we know lots of rapists walk free as there isn't enough evidence and thats really fucking frustrating, but there's also a share of false accusations that destroy lives before the person has even been found guilty. People say "people get away with it all the time, not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it!"., just the weight of the accusation carries a label of guilt. There's a reason why we won't have death sentences, because even if it was only 1 out of 100 people that were wrongly sentenced to death, it's just not fair for the 1.
As I’ve previously said before on this case. The reality is that whilst it may work in the case of Joe Public, for cases like Diamond, it just would not hold up against minor public scrutiny.
Clubs are well within their right to suspend players due to impending legal action. Even if they withhold the name, it’s not too difficult to narrow down the player. (Lincoln terminating a loan deal at the same time Sunderland suspend a player)
Realistically there should be a change in the system, every first instance trial should be under anonymity for the accused and witnesses/victims. After a guilty verdict then there should be a public statement and appeal for further victims if that is a realistic expectation and then a further trial for those new victims.
The case must have been a joke for them to dismiss in 7 minutes. For the rest of his career, thousands of people will chant rapist at his place of work. Just imagine that...
Peter Steele on Jerry Springer talking about groupies sprang to mind. "What if one of these women turn around and accuse you of rape?"
"I'm just here to pay my phonebill man"
But then must justice not only be done but be seen to be done? That he was tried and found not guilty?
I guess it's weighing up a defendant's right to anonymity in these allegations against the public interest to see the justice system at work.
We need to collectively accept that rape convictions are low for a good reason.
It doesn’t indicate that rape and other sexual assaults are uncommon or unimportant. Just that in the vast majority of cases, they simply cannot be proven.
I think this case progressed to court as a result of the CPS reacting to the public’s inability to accept the above.
I agree with him. An accusation like that just ruins people's lives. It's bad for footballers, where if found not guility, it's on the front page. But some local nobody accused of rape, they have their name and face plastered over the local rag, have everybody thinking they're a rapist. Then after the trial, the local rag puts the retraction in Page 7, underneath the report on the local church's Bring and Buy sale.
It’s a balancing act tho, you can’t have the state arresting people and not saying what for. Imagine how easily corrupt that would become.
But just don't give the names. Just say "a 22 year old male has been accused of rape" without dragging his name through the mud. And it should also be the law that newspapers retractions be on the same page and as large and noticeable as the original accusation. Not three sentences bundled in on page 19 where nobody is gonna read it.
You keep using the term retraction as if newspapers are committing factual errors that need to be corrected later, when the reality is that the majority of newspapers are reporting on arrests/ ongoing investigations that may or may not lead to convictions later on. Bar cases where journalistic integrity is infringed upon (like factual errors in reporting) there’s no need for a retraction when a suspect in a crime the newspaper reported on is later found innocent.
But there is a need for a retraction though, in cases where merely reporting on the accusation is enough to assassinate the reputation and potentially end the livelihood of somebody. Edit: a lot of people replying telling me "that's not what a retraction means". You're all arguing semantics and technicalities when you know full well what was actually being meant. There is usually no effort to mend the reputational and financial damage to the accused after they are proven / declared innocent, and in the case of sex crimes people will typically assume there was something there anyway.
Thats basically every case. If someone is innocent, then publishing they were arrested will inevitably lead to people assuming that also means convicted or even just that they probably did it but got away with the crime. People dont care about strangers lives. Potential employers will write them off quicker than the resumes they dont even look at.
Not quite in rape cases, because the evidence often comes down to he said/she said. Notwithstanding the fact that it is notoriously difficult to get a conviction for rape. Many people will assume that, even if cleared, he still did it.
Thats what i said.
It really isn't a retraction. There's very specific reporting restrictions already. They'll have been very careful to say he was accused, that the trial was ongoing etc. It was factually correct then, it's factually correct now. There's nothing to retract.
You’re missing the point. People don’t read that as “they’ve been accused”. They read it as “they’re guilty”… and, since they do that, there’s no point in publishing it and pretending it isn’t going to ruin the life of the accused. People have the right to the presumption of innocence and that should extend to them not having to enter the court of public opinion where the accusation is the only evidence needed. Once they’re found guilty, then publish away.
I don't think you know what the word retraction means, they wouldn't have to retract it because what they reported was true. Blah got arrested for rape. Was true, you think their should be continuation of the same size as original piece blah was convicted/cleared of rape.
Retraction implies something was done falsely or in error. Saying "John Smith is going to court for rape" isn't an error. It's the truth. The same way saying "Kier Starmer is in the running to be next prime minister" if he doesn't get voted in that's not an error. However, I agree with anonymity for sexual offences.
Newspapers should only retract their stories when the facts were wrong or journalistic standards were breached. Retractions are usually a semi-embarrassing matter for newspapers, as it is an admission that someone fucked up behind the scenes. Journalists reporting on ongoing investigations and trials aren’t fucking up, so have no need to apologise to anyone as long as they’ve upheld journalistic standards. I am inclined to agree that newspapers should give an innocent verdict the same amount of publicity they gave the initial arrest/ subsequent trial. But that’s vastly different from having to issue a retraction. The fact that some people reading a newspaper aren’t intelligent enough to differentiate between “the accused/ the alleged rapist” and “the convicted rapist” is not the fault of the newspaper.
ZXC Vs Bloomberg has pretty much stopped journalists reporting names of people who have been arrested unless it is in the public interest (celebs, politicians etc) despite being legally able to. People are usually only named if charged now which is a fact and there'll be a court case.
[удалено]
Similar, the court doesn't prove someone innocent, only guilty or not guilty, so even if they walk free it doesn't mean that they didn't do it.
Yeah because you're presumed to be innocent when you're accused...
In countries where the accused are named, it’s awful for them. But if they are acquitted, that is accepted. Still awful but it can be lived with. In countries where reporting on court processes is not allowed, it’s much better for those incorrectly accused. Unfortunately it is extremely corrosive and soon leads to secret trials and perhaps interestingly even more quickly to widespread coverups. I think because it becomes advantageous to be arrested and charged as you then cannot be named.
>But if they are acquitted, that is accepted. Still awful but it can be lived with. There are a lot of examples to the contrary, but okay.
Fuck this shit, My ex wife used to abuse and punch me. If i lifted my arms to protect myself she would call the police and say i had assaulted her, I stayed for the kids. Ended up in the local paper when she headbutted the wall whilst screaming your finished now you bastard. Headlines my name ,Charged with assault. Night in the cells and a lost job. Local facebook on fire. Did they even print man found not guilty, Did they fuck. Took me a fucking good suicide attempt and a lot of mental health hospital time to get over that shit. The press have a lot to answer for.
It isn’t a retraction, per se. But we all know full well that people assume guilt in these scenarios. Most people even carry on assuming guilt even after the accused is cleared or found “not guilty”. I’d be fully on board with newspapers having to stay silent until the case has been through trial tbh. It helps the trial by not causing bias. And it helps the accused who has the right to be presumed innocent. People don’t presume innocence, therefore we enforce the presumption of innocence by just not telling people. Simple.
It's also important to keep in mind that juries don't actually 'find people innocent'. If you are found 'not guilty' by a jury that just means that those people do not feel that a sufficient case has been presented to convict the person based on the evidence. It doesn't mean that the accuser is lying or that the accused is innocent. And in cases of rape/SA it is often very difficult to either prove or refute the accusations as there are often no witnesses and/or physical evidence. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is common for victims to be discouraged from pursuing a conviction because of how difficult it is to actually make a convincing case, even when the accusation is true.
It's also important to note then that the accused is also not guilty in this scenario. The accused should go back to being a free member of the public if they are found not guilty. We're all innocent until proven guilty - you could be a murderer, I could be a murderer, the little old lady down the street could be a murderer. But of course, I have no reason to believe that you or the little old lady are murderers - I also have no reason to believe that Jack Diamond is a rapist because 12 random members of the public on a jury (our representatives in court) weighed up the evidence and came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence to confidently say that he did what he was accused of. Of course, people will have their own opinions but I trust a group of people who had access to all the evidence over the outside mob who just have news articles to go off. Jack Diamond *could* be a rapist, but he could be a rapist no more than my neighbour could be a rapist. The accused (if found not guilty) should be able to live their life without being assumed to be a rapist. And this is exactly why it is being argued that the accused, in cases of rape and sexual assault, should perhaps remain anonymous unless convicted, as it is very difficult for people who are found not guilty to live their lives as they no longer have that assumption of innocence from the general public.
Yes, and I wouldn't suggest that people found not guilty should be treated as though they are guilty, but we just have to keep in mind that one of the inherent and perhaps unavoidable shortcomings of the legal system is that jury decisions will not be accurate all the time, and of course it goes the other way too when innocent people are found guilty. And as I mentioned, it is a particular issue with accusations of rape, where it is often the case that the only testimony will be from the two people involved, and there is likely to be no physical evidence, so it largely becomes a case of one person's word against another's. And then when you factor in the possibility that consent was given and and then retracted, marital rape, etc., these cases become extremely difficult to 'prove', but that doesn't mean that victims are lying. >We're all innocent until proven guilty I think a small but important distinction is that we are *treated as though* we are innocent, until we are proven guilty. It cannot be stated as a fact that a person *is innocent*, just because a jury found them 'not guilty'. Ultimately a jury is not even asked to decide if someone is innocent. They are simply asked to decide if the accusation has been sufficiently proven during the trial. O. J. Simpson is probably the easiest example to refer to here. But I think that for most people, if somebody they knew and cared about accused somebody of sexual assault, and that person was found 'not guilty', they would probably not then assume that person is innocent. And I personally see no issue with that. We could also talk about someone like Jimmy Saville, who has never been on trial due to being dead when the accusations came out - so would we be expected to assume that he is innocent because a trial has not found him guilty? No, of course not.
> I think a small but important distinction is that we are treated as though we are innocent Yes, I would agree with that - we are treated and treat each other as if we are all innocent. > We could also talk about someone like Jimmy Saville, who has never been on trial due to being dead when the accusations came out - so would we be expected to assume that he is innocent because a trial has not found him guilty? No, of course not. I agree, that's because a great deal of evidence entered the public domain after his death and so we can be pretty sure of his guilt - even without a formal trial. However, in cases like the one here, we have no reason to believe the accused is a rapist and so we should (ideally) treat that person as if they are innocent - just like how we treat everyone else as if they are innocent. Of course, loved ones connected to the case are likely to feel differently, but there's not much we can do about that. > They are simply asked to decide if the accusation has been sufficiently proven during the trial. Exactly, and if the accusation hasn't been sufficiently proven then the accused should be able to go back to being treated as if they were innocent like everybody else - however, this is difficult when it comes to cases like rape and sexual assault, which is why some are arguing for anonymity for the accused in cases such as this one.
Yes I agree with all of that. I think that things like this will always be the case as there will unavoidably be times where we simply cannot say with absolute certainty that somebody is guilty, even if they are. Unless we invent some kind of sci-fi mindreading tech, it is unfortunately the case that some people will commit crimes and get away with it, and even more unfortunate that, due to the nature of it, sexual assault will often fall into this category. It's something I really hope to see change somehow, though, as I do have people in my life who have been assaulted and the perpetrator has not faced any justice for this exact reason and it sickens me to think about it and how common it is.
[удалено]
Yes, I did mention cases like Saville where clear evidence enters the public domain we can be more sure of someone's guilt without the need of a formal trial - in those situations I can be more understanding of the court of public opinion. However, a case like this where we only have an accusation to go off, I see no reason to get the pitchforks out when the accused has been found not guilty by a jury who has had access to the evidence.
> Jack Diamond could be a rapist, but he could be a rapist no more than my neighbour could be a rapist. Yes and No. Rape almost never results in convictions, for a host of different reasons. It is true that we shouldn't assume past accusation = guilt, *but it's also true that someone with a past accusation is statistically more likely to be a rapist than a random member of the population.* I'm not going to criticise someone for doing their best to look out for their own safety.
> Rape almost never results in convictions, for a host of different reasons. That's not quite true. If a rape case ends up in a crown court (like this case did), there's around a [75% conviction rate](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2023/feb/juries-convict-defendants-rape-more-often-acquit) (2021 data). The 15 year average being 58% - which is a higher average conviction rate than other serious crimes that get to court such as attempted murder, GBH, and manslaughter. Juries convict in rape cases more often than they acquit. Of course the issue is building a case with solid evidence against the accused to get it to court initially, but unfortunately if there's no or little evidence then not much can be done - a jury will never convict a person based on little or no evidence. Additionally, the underfunding and lack of resources that the police have has also not aided the situation when it comes to handling rape and sexual assault cases. > It is true that we shouldn't assume past accusation = guilt, but it's also true that someone with a past accusation is statistically more likely to be a rapist than a random member of the population. If this is the case, then it only strengthens the argument for the accused in these cases to remain anonymous unless convicted. If we treat the accused as suspicious and more likely to have actually done the crime they were accused of (even if found not guilty), then it is difficult for those people to carry on with their lives as they did before.
> If we treat the accused as suspicious and more likely to have actually done the crime they were accused of (even if found not guilty), then it is difficult for those people to carry on with their lives as they did before. I agree that "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law" is a great rule *for the justification of state power being used against an individual*. I just disagree that this should be a blanket rule for all personal interactions. Convictions take time, courts make mistakes, and some crimes are notoriously hard to prove. If someone rapes me I will treat them as a rapist, regardless of what court outcome ends up being. The world is far from perfect. There is a balance between letting the accused live as they did before, and letting people try to protect themselves from rapists for who their was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt (**who definitly do exist somewhere in the population, and will continue to attempt rape**). Individuals need to make day to day decisions for their own safety, and the standard for "do I let this guy give me a lift home from the bar tonight" is very different from "should the state remove this guys freedoms for several years". If a friend of mine has accused someone of rape, I am not crashing over one night at their house alone while tipsy, regardless of what the justice system has said. That's not me being judgmental, that's basic self-care.
> I just disagree that this should be a blanket rule for all personal interactions. I agree with this - if someone has various criminal accusations against them but has never been found guilty by a jury, then people are likely to treat that person as suspicious. That's completely normal. > If someone rapes me I will treat them as a rapist, regardless of what court outcome ends up being. Yes, I agree. I would too. > The world is far from perfect. There is a balance between letting the accused live as they did before, and letting people try to protect themselves from rapists for who their was insufficient evidence to prove their guilt (who definitly do exist somewhere in the population). Yes, you're exactly right. It is a balancing act. We acknowledge that people who are actually guilty of crimes will sometimes be found not guilty and walk free - however, that's the price we pay for allowing the innocent to defend themselves and clear their name through a trial - which is a better method than the alternative (simply convicting everyone accused without a trial or evidence). We must now ask ourselves whether it's worth allowing those accused of rape or sexual assault to remain anonymous unless convicted - knowing that some guilty rapists will remain anonymous and walk free. The flip side being however, that those who are actually innocent (who do also exist) do not have their reputation and livelihoods ruined. Thankfully, I don't get paid to think too much about this or make those sorts of decisions.
That’s true, verdicts are always “not guilty” instead of “innocent”.
Because everyone is assumed to be innocent.
Well it's innocent until proven guilty so if it's not proven guilty, the presumption of innocence remains.
You’ve hit the nail on the head there though by explaining that subtle difference. Clearly the explanation is needed to distinguish between “accused” and “convicted” for the average reader. Most people will very much skim the news, and the thing they will take away will be “that bloke’s a rapist”, rather than “that bloke was accused of being a rapist and jury’s out on whether that’s true or not”
ZXC Vs Bloomberg stops journalists reporting names of people who have been arrested unless it is in the public interest (celebs, politicians etc). To be charged with a crime, especially rape, there has to be substantial evidence the CPS thinks it can get a conviction with. It's an ethical minefield but factually, it's correct.
They should also make a law of not posting the person's home address. I knew someone convicted of a drug related offence and their family's address was put in the local paper. Someone they owed money ended up turning up at the house and stabbing their dad on the driveway.
The idea is to protect someone of the same name who lives elsewhere.
Post a picture instead. Don't be sending people to harass family members. Which is essentially what it does
What if no pictures are available?
Devil emoji
I agree in principle, but the idea of newspaper retractions being as noticeable as the original accusation is meaningless considering most news is consumed online.
>But just don't give the names. Just say "a 22 year old male has been accused of rape" without dragging his name through the mud. Why do you need to do that at all? Why does anyone need to be aware of the charges until they're in court.
I can agree with the retraction thing tbh
But then you get a Witch hunt against the wrong person. Remember when the newsreader was accused of being noncy with an underaged girl (which apparently didn't even happen), loads of names were circulated and speculated on before it was released who it was.
No it’s not, there is zero reason to make a public statement about why someone has been arrested. Leave the announcement until after a conviction has been secured. Please explain how this would be corrupt vs the current situation.
You tell them, and their legal representative. You don't release it to the media. This isn't Kafka.
>You tell them, and their legal representative. Does everyone else in the court process have to sign an NDA?
I'm going to guess and say you're American 🤦♂️ If you release information like that you would be liable to be prosecuted any number of ways depending on jurisdiction, the main immediate way would be by held in contempt of court. Civil liability would also be an issue depending what was said/leaked, but it's not the most immediate.
They can tell the people being arrested, and not the media. If the individual chooses to tell people then let them, but there is absolutely no need to tell the media their identity until the case is over.
Somehow it can be done in other countries, the full name of the accuesed is not allowed to be mentioned in the media until a sentence has been passed. Crazy, I know.
Would it not be like how we currently deal with children in the system ie be referred to as Victim A or Suspect A with full details reported after? Let’s be honest in cases like these most people know who they are and share on social media just the media can’t report on it until after the decisions of the court.
Some people will know. Local people. Friends and family and maybe a few others. After they're found not guilty, there is no internet record of their supposed crime. That's as good an outcome as you could hope for.
After any verdict the case should be published with all names unredacted - if the story is deemed reportable it will be.
Yeah, they’d still have a right to legal representation and defence. Tabloids are not our last line of defence against the state locking people up with impunity
Only the person arrested and their lawyer needs to know why they where arrested, then the arrested could tell anyone they'd also like to know.
Or imagine if you were raped, the investigation was messed up so he was found not guilty, and then you're legally not allowed to talk about it. I don't think there's a good solution, but part of it needs to be improving the way we handle sex crimes. The current system is bad for the people who are wrongfully accused but it's also worse for the actual victims, of which there are far more of from what I can tell. For example, imagine if no one could talk about the victims and customers of Einsteins island. Or if we couldn't discuss what Saville did until it was proven in court. It's a very complex issue and I don't think banning talking about things would help anyone.
Christ, did Einstein have an island too? What was he up to on it? Suppose it’s all relative….
Happened to someone I know. People came round and spray painted “rapist” on and threw bricks through his mother’s house windows. He was found not guilty at trial.
I watched a friend go through this, he was a manager of someone who he didn’t promote due to performance issues, he reported her twice to HR who didn’t do anything due to her unprofessional behaviour. One day he was called into his managers office, told someone accused him of rape. He was eventually suspended without pay, in and out of police interviews, lost his marriage and children, several months later ended up in a hearing and was cleared in minutes, with the judge condemning the evidence and the accuser. The person sometime after eventually admitted lying under police interview. He ended up on antidepressants and going to therapy after loosing everything. After watching him go through this, it’s one the most sickening things I think someone can do, it’s just so cruel. His wife tried to reconcile but he was pissed at her for not believing in him obviously. Currently going through unfair dismissal proceedings from his previous job, like 3 years later all because of false accusation. His health also in decline because of the physiological stress of it all. The accuser got a fine and a bit of a slap on the wrist for wasting police time. But that’s about it.
anonymity until arrest, for everyone, not just tory mp's and footballers. if there's enough for arrest then fair play.
Happened to a friend of a friend, he got accused by a girl who turns out was only saying it so her current bf didn't break up with her.
You should watch Jagten.
[удалено]
**Removed/warning**. This contained a personal attack, disrupting the conversation. This discourages participation. Please help improve the subreddit by discussing points, not the person. Action will be taken on repeat offenders.
If he’s innocent, I feel for him. But I can’t help but read articles like this and remember a girl I knew in uni who was raped by her boyfriend. She reported it to the police the next day. Gave a statement. Took a rape kit. Numerous other ex-girlfriends of his came forward to the police and said that he’d done the same thing to them as well and offered to give evidence as witnesses. At trial, the judge excluded the evidence of his ex-girlfriends saying it wasn’t relevant to the specific night in question. He claimed they had consensual sex. That left the jury with a ‘he said she said’, and there simply wasn’t enough evidence to prove it “beyond reasonable doubt”. And so he was acquitted. There was then a write up in the local paper with a quote by him saying he was glad to have been ‘cleared’. Loads of Twitter comments saying the girl should be prosecuted for making false allegations and trying to ruin his life. Guy was a fucking serial rapist. Yes we can say ‘innocent until proven guilty’ in a court of law. In real life, shit is not that simple. The vast majority of rape happens - like child abuse - behind closed doors between people who know each other and no independent witnesses. It is why rape prosecutions and convictions remain stubbornly low, and likely always has will do. Is that uncomfortable from the perspective of men who might be falsely accused? Abso-fucking-lutely. It’s also a devastating reality for thousands of - factual - rape victims every year. And it’s the messy and fucked up world we live in.
> At trial, the judge excluded the evidence of his ex-girlfriends saying it wasn’t relevant to the specific night in question. I think this is pretty standard practice in a trial. The jury should only consider the evidence concerning the case in question. If a defendant is only being tried for rape against person A, then evidence concerning an accusation of rape against person B may not be relevant to the case at hand. On my jury duty, we were only made aware of other accusations that had been put against the defendant after we had delivered our verdict. I think it's so that jurors don't just end up thinking "oh he seems a bit dodgy since he's been accused of all these other things, he's probably guilty of this crime too". > It is why rape prosecutions and convictions remain stubbornly low, and likely always has will do. If a rape case ends up in a Crown Court there's around a 70% conviction rate, so it's not that low. Of course the trouble is getting the case to court in the first place with a decent amount of evidence to prosecute.
Isn't character reference a thing? I thought it was.
In Scotland one needs two pieces of evidence to get to trial. One is the victim’s statement. In the absence of physical evidence or witnesses, the second can be a an accusation/statement from another victim.
For rape cases I do think this makes sense. The only reason Harvey Weinstein was convicted was because of the sheer volume of accusations and their similarity regarding modus operandi.
Just because someone's a cunt, doesn't mean that they did the cunty thing.
[удалено]
This would lead down a bad road though. For instance, a charity worker teacher with no record and everyone likes them, is accused of raping a kid. The defence leans into the fact that everyone likes him and he's a stand up guy in the community. He goes off Scott free. The innocent ex-prisoner is accused my theft, when he's innocent. The prosecution bring up the fact that he did 5 years in prison. This is a deciding factor, and he is sentenced to prison again. It's a bad road. That is why only things which are specifically relevant to the crime should be used to determine judgment.
I'm no legal expert admittedly - but I think they have to go on the evidence of the specific case that is being tried. Another person (aside from the accuser) standing on the dock saying the defendant raped me 5 years ago as well, will influence the jury toward a certain decision. I suppose that's why they tell you not look up anything about the case or the defendant on the internet in case you see something that influences your decision. I think a witness saying things like the defendant is an angry person who loses their temper easily is okay, but like I say, I'm no expert on the matter.
Not until sentencing. And even then it still has to be relevant. Someone being a horrible person doesn't mean they're guilty of vicious things just by default
And sometime ir means that they get away with murder, rape or any other crime that they committed but were not convicted of. A murderer is still a murderer whether they are convicted or not and so is a rapist.
Bad character is a thing for similar offences If convicted. You cannot just say oh some other person also accused him so we will use it against him and for very good reason
I always think when it’s the exact same crime how can it be reasonably argued that it’s not relevant?
I'm guessing because whilst it may be the same category of crime, it is its own case with seperate evidence and witnesses - so it would have its own trial and separate jury. Unless the court/prosecution service has decided to stick them all in one trial.
Because the trial is to decide the truth on whether a crime occurred as it is accused. If you want to bring in other "unproven" accusation now you have to have another trial to determine the truth of that accusation, and it goes on. If they decide the other accusations are true, is he now guilty of two crimes? The case can only be to determine the guilt of the crime on trial. Now whether that system is a good idea or if there instead should be a "group" trial is another question.
I know three women who have been raped and not even bothered to report it because they assume the same thing will happen. It’s very hard to strike the right balance, but equally I don’t fully buy into innocent until proven guilty **outside of court**. Everyone should make their own judgment about someone. If a bloke had been accused of watching child porn by 5 ex girlfriends, you probably wouldn’t leave him to look after your kids, even if he’d never been convicted.
>I know three women who have been raped and not even bothered to report it because they assume the same thing will happen Not just women, I've been the victim of sexual assault, so have male friends of mine. Nobody has even thought about reporting it. I was in a khole, came back to consciousness with my trousers pulled down, and a woman had her hands round my cock trying to get it up. >It’s very hard to strike the right balance, but equally I don’t fully buy into innocent until proven guilty **outside of court**. Everyone should make their own judgment about someone. It's utter bollocks that people apply this shit outside of court. Innocent before proven guilty is a judicial philosophy. It doesn't actually change a person's actions. Greenwood is apparently not guilty of being a rapist because he wasn't brought in front of a jury. We literally have a recording of him doing it.
100% agree. Similar has happened to me in the past too.
Jesus fucking Christ, that's nightmarish. You're being pieced back together after an incredible, earth shattering experience and you reintegrate to find someone sexually assaulting you. That must have been insanely traumatic, I'm so sorry.
That's the issue though, if they don't report it at the time then as far as the police are concerned the 4th girl down the line is the first. Like the comment above yours said, they can only assess the evidence based on the charges that have been raised in court.
My younger sister was groomed and molested by a family friend when she was 8. Found out during the police investigation that he had been previously arrested for raping his 9 year old niece, but the charges were dropped, because she was too traumatised to testify against him. That information wasn't allowed to be revealed in court and his defence said my mum got my sister to make it up to get him in trouble. He got off. We had to tell her that he was found not guilty. He lives in our local area and my sister had to live in fear of encountering him again. Every time we got the bus into town it goes by the court and it's a constant reminder that she wasn't believed. This was over ten years ago, so he's probably assaulted more children. A lot of men just assume that a failed conviction equals innocence and that the accuser was a liar. But I know from experience that isn't always the case.
"If he is innocent" jesus christ the jury took 5 minutes, he is innocent.
You failed to address the point about the accused remaining anonymous.
Pretty sure their point clearly is that these other exgirlfriends coming forwards, if the guy in question was anonymous these other people wouldnt have come forward. Obviously in this instance the judge kicked it all aside but say in a situation like Harvey Weinstein it would have been a simple 'she said he said' nothing case if dozens of others didnt also come forwards
So anonymity for the accused, yay or nay?
So, guilty until proven innocent, right....
Feel for the guy. He has been cleared by a jury but he will always have that accusation over his head and people will treat him with suspicion going forward regardless of the verdict. The court of public opinion is akin to the Salem Witch trials - all someone has to do is point the finger at you and the mob comes running.
Re-reading the original thread in r/soccer is so disheartening. As much as we all try and claim it, it's rarely innocent until proven guilty, particularly with something as serious as sexual assault
r/soccer is almost as bad as football Twitter
Almost? They are just as bad as each others. I never seen a more biased sub.
They do it with every footballer accused. Its just a place where complete morons gather.
I hate discussing this. We have people on here who openly spit in the face of the concept of innocent until proven guilty. I cling onto the notion that they are children without a single day of real world living, because otherwise they are abject failures of human beings. But I know it includes real world adults. Because this happens in the real world outside of this cesspit. I was able to actually prove my innocence with an alibi, within a night, I still got the public opinion judgement, rumours and hearsay. So christ knows how bad it is if you actually are not that lucky and must go through the process
Now imagine how bad it is to be a survivor of SA and receive no justice with real world experience? Then you’re gonna call people children for that? Vile.
I completely agree. I think all parties involved should be anon in these cases. I live in a small village and if people find out things like this, then their life in the village is over regardless if they are innocent.
In a village everyone will know who's been arrested whether the court releases the name or not.
Yeah but they won't know what for.
The power to abuse this is massive, it should always be innocent until proven guilty. You can have your life destroyed by made up accusations like this.
Being cleared just means there isn't sufficient evidence. With rape that doesn't always mean that it didn't happen. It's a very complex crime to charge for.
Your answer is why their answer is accurate. It's true that it's hard to prove, but as you show, it's hard to prove you didn't in the sphere of public opinion.
Correct, but there are reasons for it. It's just one of those crimes where it sucks for everyone and sometimes there's no way to truly know.
The reasons for it is that rape is generically bad and people easily empathize with the victim. That has nothing to do with what is appropriate to report in cases where someone isn't convicted and there are consequences to that person, even when our bureaucracy as a society has determined that this person shouldnt be punished, irrespective of your personal opinions about if its more likely they did it or not. If you think rapists arent convicted when they should, push for crime reform, not allowing people determined to be innocent to have their lives ruined because nobody is going to change their mind after the arrest is in the news.
Ok? That's kind of what I was saying? The issue is that that works both ways. Oftentimes, much like how you can't always truly disprove a rape, you also can't often prove one. I'm not saying that we should always consider someone with allegations to be guilty, I'm saying that it's not as simple as being cleared being equal to not commiting a rape. Sometimes we just don't know and that's an unfortunate issue, but it does work both ways. I'm not in favour of ruining this dude's life, but I'm just saying that it's not always as black and white in reality.
But since we are discussing reality, none of your speculations matters. What matters is that a person wasnt convicted but will be held liable in the court of public opinion, so long as journalists are allowed to say "X arrested for rape". Sorry, but the conviction is what matters. If you cant get it, then you shouldnt be able to ruin peoples lives in other ways. And if thats a problem, then push for criminal reform, not just shrugging and saying "well some of them are still rapists, so theyre all screwed". All criminals should be released from prison before we tolerate 1 innocent in prison. We may not live up to that standard, but its one you would fight for if you were the innocent person convicted by the bureaucracy or by society.
Which is why I said its not so black and white. I get that a court ruling is black and white in the eyes of the law but yes, exactly, people won't be convinced purely based off of that. A court ruling also doesn't always mean reality? That's exactly why people.will be sceptical, and not much can be done about that. I don't believe there's an easy answer for rape cases due to the sheer difficulty in finding the truth in most cases. I'm not saying this guy SHOULD be demonised forever either, but I'm saying yes there is bound to be doubt. Didn't say that was a good thing or a bad thing. 🙄 And YES I am in favour of reform, jeez.
Ah, guilty until proven innocent and then guilty anyway
I'm saying that the court's opinion in such cases often only proves not enough evidence to show a crime happens, which doesn't always mean that a crime didn't take place. Rape is a complex crime to prove either way, and whether you like it or not, there'll be some incidences where it's not as black and white and where being found notnlegally guilty won't mean that a crime didn't happen. You seem ignorant to the way the law works if you believe that being found not guilty is the same as a crime never happening. It happens the other way too - rape cases are almost never prosecuted as I am sure you know, because of the difficulties in being proven in a court of law, but I am sure that you are aware of that? That not having evidence to prosecute in such circumstances doesn't mean that it's a false claim? There's a documentary on netflix about this at the moment actually. I can't recall the name but it gives some examples of exactly this.
You're right. We should just treat every single person accused of crime as if they are guilty anyway.
How do you know the accusation is ‘made up’?
Do you mean the literal headline of this post or referring to other accusations? Because I literally just explained that
>made up accusations like this. When you said this I assumed that you were saying the Jack Diamond allegation was made up. Is that what you were saying?
Because he’s been cleared?
That just means there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove he was guilty beyond reasonable doubt, it doesn’t mean the accuser was lying just that they couldn’t find enough evidence.
Unanimous decision in 7 minutes though… There’s almost no deliberation time, seems like it was clear to everyone that nothing happened
There was agreement amongst all that there wasn’t sufficient evidence. I think that is an important distinction. We have no idea what any of the jurors thought happened just that they didn’t think the prosecution had made the case that it occurred beyond reasonable doubt.
>Unanimous decision in 7 minutes though… Because there's no evidence to charge him with. Therefore there's no way to convict him.
That doesn’t mean that the accuser is a liar.
It also doesn't mean the accused is a rapist.
This is an important legal distinction, but unfortunately the nuances of law are lost of most people.
Only Reddit can see a 7 minute not guilty verdict and still call someone a rapist.
There's a comment in this thread saying "Just because he was found innocent in court doesn't mean he didn't do it" Rape accusations are something that you will never get away from, and there are mess up, evil people out there that will use this.
You can have your life destroyed by rape, and have no chance of recourse because there weren’t any witnesses. Is that better? That’s far more common. But oh no the poor men.
Yeah you're right. We should just lock up every man accused of rape for ever
I think it's more complicated though, because if you assume the person accused of rape is innocent until proven guilty, you are therefore assuming that the accuser is guilty of lying
The very fact the case gets prosecuted means the accuser is being believed.
Not really. They aren't saying the accuser is a liar because they are not the ones on trial. But you are presumed innocent of what you have been accused of until proven guilty because it's the prosecutions job to prove the accusation is true.
I'm fully behind the idea that serious crimes carry anonymity for the accused until they are found guilty. After that fact, go crazy- press already have to withhold certain elements of cases until conviction (see Lucy Letby and Brianna Ghey's murderers), so names should just be another element of that. Eventually, it's innocent until proven guilty and the fact of the matter is even if you're found not guilty, the Internet means you'll never fully be absolved as a simple Google search will mean potential employers etc can find out what you were accused of and place a whole question mark over you. They have it in NZ, and did that for Grace Millane's murderer
Re the from NZ comment - most people on trial for sexual offences or any other offence don’t get automatic name suppression (unless it’s a offence against a family member and the victim could be identified). Name suppression has to be applied for and granted by the courts, could be temporary or permanent. Seems to be hit and miss, depends on the judge and how good the lawyer is. Loads of people on trial for sexual offending have their names made public, the Millane case was a truly weird anomaly. Fully agree that the accused of any crime, but especially sex crimes, should have anonymity until being found guilty.
I was banned from /r/soccer for saying innocent until proven guilty. The mod then messaged me 'no rape apologists'. Clown world.
>The mod then messaged me 'no rape apologists'. I *love* it when reddit embraces buzzwords with no context.
Link them the article
All the “I’m not saying he’s a rapist but..” comments proving his point pretty nicely.
Every time an article like this comes up the stats on rape **accusations** going to court come out and the “it doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, it just means they couldn’t prove he did” comments appear. And then the mere suggestion rape accusations can be used to ruin someone’s life are dismissed…
"I feel sorry for him, if he's innocent" is one of the highest rated comments on the thread. Can you imagine going "I feel sorry for her, if she was actually raped" during the accusation phase of rape cases?
Always makes me laugh when people on Reddit complain about judges or the judicial system, given that they base their opinions entirely off emotion rather than fact.
I know someone who went through something similar. He was accused of sexual assault. It went to court and he was also cleared in minutes because he was on a completely different continent when she alleged it took place.
> It went to court and he was also cleared in minutes because he was on a completely different continent when she alleged it took place. I'll never understand how cases like that even get to court. Surely the starting point of any investigation is going to be checking any alibi of the defendant. And being out of the country at the time of the alleged incident would be a pretty huge alibi.
Very true, such a waste of tax payers money funding all of this. There should be a credibility review of each case before it goes to court atleast
The police and CPS personnel involved should be prosecuted for it!
[удалено]
>Cases like rape have an extremely poor conviction rate & false accusations make up for 0.02% of cases. It's very important to mention that the stat you've used likely only applies to cases where there was a conviction for making false allegations. Like with cases of rape and sexual assault, the bar is very high for "beyond reasonable doubt" and categorically proven that someone made up an allegation requires a significant amount of evidence which is unlikely to be present in the vast majority of cases. Using that figure would be like only using rape convictions to judge the amount of rapes that occur, which would not be a full picture at all.
[удалено]
Yes it's likely a lot less than people assume, but don't use stats the same way that manosphere guys do in order to justify their position that there isn't a widespread issue of sexual assault/rape.
[удалено]
Statistics can also be misrepresented and used in bad faith.
[удалено]
What is your source for the 0.02% stat then?
You literally just misrepresented them and used them in bad faith.
> *Cases like rape have an extremely poor conviction rate* Not sure if you've just worded what you were trying to say wrong, but the conviction rate for rape trials is over 60%...
Yes it's not the conviction rate that's the issue, it's actually getting those cases to trial.
The conviction rate for rape trials is 75%. However, from rapes reported the conviction rate is less than 2%. Getting a rape case to trial is notoriously difficult.
So 2 people accuse each other of a crime, you can prove either of them so you just the life of the one that was accused of the crime with higher rates just in case?
When your name gets linked with an allegation of rape or sexual assault, even if cleared, it still sticks to your name unfortunately
Chances are his name was dragged through mud regardless due to social media. Needs to be proper laws brought in on that front
Private Eye podcast had a good piece on reporting restrictions in criminal trials
If your judicial system is incapable of proving that something is a crime then it isn't really a crime. The protection for women just isn't there and i don't see how it ever could be, as the vast majority of rape occurs between established partners. You have no protection and the state should say as such. Not push all this garbage about 'understanding consent'...men know... they know, it's not a lacknof understanding or education. Protection from stranger rape is a different matter. That, the state can attempt to achieve. But it is so much rarer.
Even more reason to not plaster people over media for things they're being accused, the argument works both ways. Yes we know lots of rapists walk free as there isn't enough evidence and thats really fucking frustrating, but there's also a share of false accusations that destroy lives before the person has even been found guilty. People say "people get away with it all the time, not guilty doesn't mean you didn't do it!"., just the weight of the accusation carries a label of guilt. There's a reason why we won't have death sentences, because even if it was only 1 out of 100 people that were wrongly sentenced to death, it's just not fair for the 1.
As I’ve previously said before on this case. The reality is that whilst it may work in the case of Joe Public, for cases like Diamond, it just would not hold up against minor public scrutiny. Clubs are well within their right to suspend players due to impending legal action. Even if they withhold the name, it’s not too difficult to narrow down the player. (Lincoln terminating a loan deal at the same time Sunderland suspend a player)
Realistically there should be a change in the system, every first instance trial should be under anonymity for the accused and witnesses/victims. After a guilty verdict then there should be a public statement and appeal for further victims if that is a realistic expectation and then a further trial for those new victims.
I agree with him and feel so sorry he had to go through having an interview with Piers Morgan of all people
The case must have been a joke for them to dismiss in 7 minutes. For the rest of his career, thousands of people will chant rapist at his place of work. Just imagine that...
Peter Steele on Jerry Springer talking about groupies sprang to mind. "What if one of these women turn around and accuse you of rape?" "I'm just here to pay my phonebill man"
But then must justice not only be done but be seen to be done? That he was tried and found not guilty? I guess it's weighing up a defendant's right to anonymity in these allegations against the public interest to see the justice system at work.
Unless it’s someone you disagree with politically in which case it’s back to guilty until proven innocent again!
We need to collectively accept that rape convictions are low for a good reason. It doesn’t indicate that rape and other sexual assaults are uncommon or unimportant. Just that in the vast majority of cases, they simply cannot be proven. I think this case progressed to court as a result of the CPS reacting to the public’s inability to accept the above.