0% Villa-Titus Bramble arrested

[Ads]

Which is part of the problem we have with regards to rape in this country.

[Chris Jameson]

Personally I'm with Craig Charles on this one, the identity of the accused should be protected until it's been established that he's done something wrong.

Craig Charles should be incarcerated for his dreadful cheesy 'banter' he engages in on his show on 6Music.

[johnny from donny]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country?  I think not.  I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.

[Chris Jameson]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.

Johnny, I like the MUSIC he plays, I don't like him. Is that okay?

[johnny from donny]

Johnny, I like the MUSIC he plays, I don't like him. Is that okay?
[/quote]

Fine Chris, to clarify, I meant more in a don't pay attention/filter it out sort of way rather than switch it off.  Just out of interest, isn't 6music closing soon? Or did they call that off?

[Michel Sibble]

Called it off.

[Hopadop]

The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.

 It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make. 

The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.

They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.

All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.

[peter w]

We have a thread about rape in the football bit? And a thread about gays in football in off-topic...where's BE when you need him?

[lovejoy]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country?  I think not.  I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.

I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.

[taylorsworkrate]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country?  I think not.  I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.

I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.

Thats great in theory, but this world is full of mindless idiots.  People are often in situations where their innocence has been proved, yet still have to put up with abuse from said idiots.  Just ask Dave Jones the Cardiff manager.  He was proved innocent, yet still has to put up with vile comments at a lot of football grounds.

There are a lot of people with the viewpoint: "no smoke without fire".  Reputations can be shattered, familys can be hurt and so on.  In my opinion, under no circumstance should the accused or victims name be released until guilt is proven.  There is too much at stake.

[damon loves JT]

there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.

Usually when a footballer has sex it is in a room full of people. You'd think there would be plenty of witnesses

[johnny from donny]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country?  I think not.  I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.

I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.

Not saying that at all, I just didn't see the relevance of bringing in cases from other countries. I would have no problem with the media reporting on court cases if they would do it in a less sensationalistic way but the sunday tabloids are probably falling over themselves trying to find people willing to dish the dirt on Bramble in the same way as they did with Craig Charles.  I would definitely say that anonimity should be protected in cases such as rape, regardless of who the accused is.

[Ads]

The problem isn’t about protecting the identity; it should be about increasing the conviction rate. Only 6% of men who are brought to trial are convicted, yet it is thought that 1 in 20 women have been raped.

 It’s something of a disgrace, but it’s quite possibly the most challenging area of criminal law. You read cases like R v Bree and you can see just how difficult a decision it is for anybody to make. 

The 6% figure has been misunderstood by some and deliberately misapplied by others. The trial conviction rate is actually 58%, which is actually a bit higher than for most other offences and, given the nature of most rape cases ('stranger' rapes are quite rare, the allegation is normally in the context of an existing or former relationship) could be seen as surprisingly high.

They've changed the law on rape itself, introduced dedicated and specialist police officers, use ABE interviews and special measures in court and have limited the extent to which you can cross examine the complainants, all in an attempt to increase conviction rates.

All fine, but there is certainly no problem in getting rapists convicted, other than the difficulty a juror would have when it's often one person's word against the other.

Edit: I've miss read my quote. Its 6% of all rape cases result in conviction, which still emphasises my point, that from the point of complaint, 94% of men will not be prosecuted, despite BCS figures suggesting 23% of women have been raped (and also 3% of men sexually assaulted). Government statistics indicate that 75-85% of rapes are never reported (you'd assume these being spouse rapes). That is a disgrace.

SOA 2003 has clarified the law somewhat with regards to rape, but given how most cases invariably involve intoxication and how most women know the male involved, then you’re still dealing in a minefield with regards to the reasonable belief in consent.

[lovejoy]

Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
Was OJ arrested or tried in this country?  I think not.  I'm sure I was quite clear that I was referring to this country.

I'm struggling with your logic. Are you saying people deserve anonimity until proved guilty in uk but not in rest of the world. Personally I have no issue with facts being reported (ie X is accused/on trial for Y). As far as I can see nobody is claiming he's guilty. If people can't tell the difference the they are too stupid for their views to matter. By media reporting trials such as OJ and Gerrard one can view the evidence presented and form your on views regardless what the jury decides. All part of an open society.

Not saying that at all, I just didn't see the relevance of bringing in cases from other countries. I would have no problem with the media reporting on court cases if they would do it in a less sensationalistic way but the sunday tabloids are probably falling over themselves trying to find people willing to dish the dirt on Bramble in the same way as they did with Craig Charles.  I would definitely say that anonimity should be protected in cases such as rape, regardless of who the accused is.

I don't read the tabloids so thats probably the answer. Going back to the earlier point if we weren't allowed to see the evidence in a case before conviction we wouldn't have seen the cctv footage of Gerrard. Would you say that would be a good thing?

[johnny from donny]

Lovejoy; no, I don't think that would have been a good thing.  I'm more concerned about the accused in rape/sexual abuse cases where there is a huge stigma attatched rather than somebody getting into a fight in a bar.  I just think there is a huge difference between these two types of case.  As for the tabloids, a lot of people do read them so the muck gets widely spread; as I'm sure you know, many people have a "they wouldn't print it if it wasn't true" attitude and so gossip gets taken as fact.