Exactly WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials?

[LJ_Reloaded]

Perhaps soon, at least in England, given the polls?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...men-pre-conviction-anonymity-rape-trials.html

Michael Le Vell: Innocent, but named and shamed. Exactly WHEN will men get pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials?

After two years of allegations and a gruesome eight-day trial, Coronation Street actor Michael Le Vell was finally exonerated from some of the worst crimes imaginable yesterday.

The jury at Manchester Crown Court took just five hours to clear the 48-year-old of twelve sex offences against a young girl, including five of rape.

The father-of-two had been left ‘fighting for his life’ in both a legal circus and a media scrum.

In his willingness to co-operate, he revealed his private self for public scrutiny: a ‘troubled man’ who chain-smoked, drank up to 12 pints a night, had a string of one-night stands and an affair with a younger woman while his wife had cancer treatment.

Now, he is free.

But, like thousands of men all over the world, Le Vell’s life has already been destroyed by a system which considers men’s innocence a bonus - not a baseline. And it has to end.

The case not only proved that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterated a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a guilty verdict?

It is - quite frankly - inhumane and has no place in a civilised society.

Naturally, the Crown Prosecution Service defended the case being brought to trial, saying: ‘It is for the jury to determine whether a defendant is guilty or not and we of course respect the verdicts they have reached today.’

But the CPS is not middle England.

Regardless of yesterday’s ruling, millions of onlookers will favour their own agenda-driven conclusion to that of an informed jury.

Haters across the world will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male. Or working class. Or an alcoholic. Perhaps even all three. They will gather around the water cooler and say: ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ or ‘he looks the type’.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why a court of law, not a casual observer who is not armed with all the evidence, should convict a defendant.

Haters across the world, including some of the most sexist women in journalism, will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male
Haters across the world, including some of the most sexist women in journalism, will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male

Let’s be clear: Le Vell is not a man I would like to befriend, nor do I condone much of his behaviour.

But my heart went out to him yesterday.

For all his faults, for all his demons, he is a victim of our politically correct (yet morally incorrect) legal system. A creaking, dilapidated machine which has scant regard for men’s rights and the immortality of a rape allegation.

Earlier this year, one of the legal profession’s most prominent women - deputy High Court judge Maura McGowan - agreed. She recommended that men be granted pre-conviction anonymity in rape trials as standard.

Tellingly, her opinion is held by the majority of Britain. In 2010, a poll conducted by MailOnline showed that 67 per cent of readers want pre-conviction anonymity for rape defendants, as opposed to 33 per cent who don’t.

 

[_Roobarb]

Hopefully, never.

This isn't a problem with the Law. It's a problem with the media and it's desire to try high-profile cases on their front pages to sell newspapers.

Papers like the Daily Mail who wring their hands over the injustices done to this man whilst being complicit in the character assassination of him in advance of any verdict.

 

[chillywilly2]

Front page for acusations, back page for exonerations

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Front page for acusations, back page for exonerations

Note, I support anonymity for women who are accused as well.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/...raping-a-man-at-gunpoint-stealing-his-iphone/

 

[_Roobarb]

An article highlighting another recent high-profile UK "celebrity" rape case.

Having strenuously protested his innocence just three months ago, veteran BBC broadcaster Stuart Hall last week admitted he sexually abused girls – one of whom was as young as nine.

The Hall case shows more than ever just how vital it is that we continue to name men accused of rape and sexual assault. Because it is this naming that can give survivors and victims the confidence to come forward.

In Hall’s case, the police and CPS have been vocal in their argument for naming defendants. They have explained how naming Hall helped lead to his guilty admission. As survivors recognised that they were not alone, that he had attacked others, the police were able to gather the evidence they needed to charge and eventually prosecute.

We see the same pattern over and over again. Serial rapist John Worboys is a key example in how naming a defendant helped lead to his conviction. After he was named, it became impossible for the police to ignore the weight, the sheer amount, of women coming forward to name him as their rapist. Naming leads to evidence which helps lead to convictions.

Some argue that if we name the accused we should name the alleged victim. But why? Naming the victim isn’t going to help lead to convictions, it’s not going to help secure justice for rape survivors.

People cry ‘false accusations’ but if a woman is charged with that specific crime, then of course she will be named as she will be a defendant herself. The case of Ched Evans shows what can happen when you name the survivor. His victim was victimised all over again when she was subjected to horrific abuse to the point that she had to change her name and flee her home. How can we have ended up in a situation where some treat rapists with more sympathy and respect than their victims?

When criticising the policy of naming defendants, I think people confuse two different issues. The first is the legal issue and the indisputable, mounting, continuing evidence that naming helps convict rapists. The second is media behaviour.

The fact that the media convict people in their pages and often seem to tread a very narrow line between reporting and contempt of court is not a reason to end the policy of naming defendants. It is too important a policy, too important in bringing justice to victims and survivors, to be dropped because the press behave intrusively.

Press behaviour is an issue for the press. If they harass and taunt and wrongly convict men in their pages then that is not the fault of a sensible law that helps bring justice to rape victims. Bad behaviour in some sections of the media is not a reason to deny women and girls up and down the UK justice.