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.
Chris, if you don't like it, don't listen.
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.
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.
Quote from: johnny from donny on September 22, 2010, 04:18:48 PMChris, 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.
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.
Quote from: Ads on September 22, 2010, 03:22:44 PMThe 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.
Quote from: lovejoy on September 22, 2010, 06:29:05 PMQuote from: johnny from donny on September 22, 2010, 04:18:48 PMChris, 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.