-
Posts
-
One case of abuse is enough.
But no, it seems that if you are important, nothing is taken further until you are proved to be a serial abuser.
Do we require that someone is a mass murderer before the Police and CPS go after them? So why should it be that way in abuse cases?
I’m not decided on the issue of keeping the names of those accused of sexual crimes out of the papers until after the trial. The one thing I do know however is that trial by media is only needed because of the failure to investigate accusations properly, and take victims seriously.
We clearly have a long way to go when we are relying on the press instead of the justice system for our justice.
God help us all.
:(
@jen_jen wrote:
But what is better, for some people to be wrongly accused then get an apology, or for the real abusers to slip through the net because every victim thinks that they are the only one and that no one will listen and/or believe them?
That statement or opinion isn’t as straight forward as it appears though is it? I don’t imagine for one second you are being flippent Jen and meaning “sorry you were accused no big deal but u got an apology, deal with it” Peoples lives have been ruined because of false accusations, usually we hear it in cases of rape.
The system isn’t perfect, and whilst I would sympathise with a victim every single time, it’s not right that a percentage of accused are innocent, become victims themselves and see no justice.
I don’t know what the solution is. Reading that story in particular does make any accusation worth while if someone has finally got justice, his life has been ruined and I know from personal experience that will probably still not make him feel any better. There comes a time, a turning point when somthing has to be done to stop the abuser ruining somene elses life.I take on board what you have said, ML, but it’s not a case of either or: yes, the police have a public duty to stringently investigate claims, although the usual restrictions of time, resources etc apply, but that doesn’t negate the potential benefits of being able to identify the accused. This is not the same as trail by media where sub judice issues are discussed in the public domain or the accused is overtly deemed guilty by the media and general public.
Yes, human nature often results in people believing the adage that there is usually no smoke without fire. But that doesn’t mean that naming the accused doesn’t have the general benefits previously mentioned.
We can’t deny that identifying the accused can facilitate the evidential process. Some people will feel braver about coming forward. Others may simply recall relevant things. I think it is far too important a principle of jurisprudence to discount.
You’re absolutely right about innocent until proven guilty being a guiding tenet of our judicial system, but despite human nature to think negatively of those that are bought before the courts, being accused is not the same as being guilty, and all the usual tools of redress, such as the laws of defamation, still apply.
Incidentally, my initial guess about Max Clifford was wrong, it seems he has been arrested with suspicion of sexual offences.
I sort of agree with both arguments here, maybe the way forward is to only name the accused when they are actually charged with an offence not when they are merely arrested?
Many people are arrested but never charged because the police decide there is no charge to answer. The situation now is just being arrested hits the headlines and the damage to reputation is done whether or not you are charged with any offence…. maybe that should change?
I am not clearly on one side of this debate or the other, however I do have misgivings about some of the potential uses of publicity (and indeed the clarity of the public interest against the rights of individuals in some cases where people are identified).
The definition you use of trial by media is a narrow one and only applies where the court has forbidden public disclosure. The Jimmy Savile case is not sub judice but we could hardly call it anything other than trial by media.
I am of course aware of the principle of publicity and its value in the evidential process, however in the case Jen mentioned and the Savile case, what I said in my previous posts holds true. These were cases where the circumstances of the individual crimes were well known to the Police and the CPS. These were cases where the weight of further accusations was needed to convince people, who should have acted already, to act. (I don’t believe in public floggings but I hope that someone in a senior position is reviewing these cases in the hope of learning things.) Such a failure to act is a very poor excuse for requiring publicity as part of the evidential process or excusing media extravagance. Since when did we require evidence of other crimes to prosecute a crime?
In cases where there is insufficient evidence to proceed further with an investigation because there are gaps in the evidence, that is a different justification altogether for identification data being made public as part of the evidential process. If that is as part of a targeted attempt to marshal the media and elicit responses, that is entirely justified in the public interest.
Those specific benefits are not the ones I have challenged however. It would be difficult to pretend that in all cases where the Police or media identify someone that that is the case. Certainly Jen’s case and Savile do not conform to those lofty ideals. In both cases the evidence existed, but the victims were not believed until more people came forward. Identifying the accused publicly was therefore not the critical issue, but how the abuse itself was dealt with.
That need for multiple accusations before things are taken seriously is what I have an issue with, not the Police using Crimewatch and other methods to jog memories in the hope of solving serious crimes.
@momentaryloss wrote:
That need for multiple accusations before things are taken seriously is what I have an issue with, not the Police using Crimewatch and other methods to jog memories in the hope of solving serious crimes.
I’m defending the principle more than anything else. You’re absolutely right that things should be taken seriously prior to the intervention of the media or multiple accusations. I agree with you, but even when we may think naming the accused is merely because of shoddy, lazy police work or for small ‘p’ political purposes, I would still suggest it is difficult for us to know because we don’t have access to the evidence. I may be suspicious but I simply don’t know if the police are trying to garner further information with the naming of the latest suspects in the Saville scandal. But I do take on board your point.
I see where you are coming from Rusty.
It is certainly true that we can never be entirely sure what evidence the Police do and don’t have.
I agree in principle with the principle, but not always in practice, and not at all if it is simply to fish for further accusations (if that makes any sense).
:?
Having read some of the comments made as a result of my earlier post, I’d just like to clarify a few things.
When my friend’s son made the initial complaint, it was 13 years after the last incident of abuse against him had taken place. One of the difficulties I believe stops many historical child abuse complaints being progressed is a lack of physical evidence or witnesses, resulting in an accuser’s word against the accused’s word. He was one person making an accusation against a man who had worked with hundreds, maybe thousands, of young boys for over 30 years with a spotless record, no suspicions and no complaints against him. When the accused was presented with the accusation he denied it, pointing to the accuser’s “troubled teenage behaviour”, and yes his behaviour as a teen was bad but it was behaviour resulting in his feelings about realising he had been abused – as he said, when it first started he didn’t like it but he didn’t realise it was wrong until he was older; his feelings of helplessness at the situation and the anger; his feelings of being let down by the people who should have protected him – the abuser who was in a position of power and his parents who, being oblivious to the abuse, invited his abuser into the family home as a family friend.
The police, presented with an accusation dating back several years from a man who had been a troubled teen, a denial from a well respected pillar of the community, and no evidence or witnesses, had nothing of substance to proceed with so the complaint was closed but held on file. It’s easy to see why they felt there was little justification to dedicate manpower to an isolated complaint that looked so tenuous.
Somehow, we don’t know how, a local journalist became aware of the complaint and it was reported in the local town newspaper. No big article, just 2 small paragraphs in a local news column. This was then picked up and repeated in one of the bigger local newspapers, then picked up by a national paper. There was no big media splash, no witch hunt, just 2 or 3 pararaphs, but those paragraphs were enough to prompt other victims to come forward.
There would have been no investigation on his accusation alone, how could there be? The case would have been thrown out of court. One man says you did this to me, the other man says I didn’t…if that was enough to bring people to court then the courts would be full and we’d have miscarriages of justiice every day. I don’t think there’s any blame to be laid at the door of the police in such a situation.
Now the police were presented not with one previously troubled teenager possibly making a vindictive accusation against a respected man but with 15+ men making accusations of abuse that had taken place over a number of years and in different locations as he moved around the county. They now had sufficient cause to dedicate the manpower necessary to investigate further which enabled them, after several years of painstaking investigation, to bring a case to court and to a successful conviction.
If details of the abuser’s name and the purpose of him being questioned had not been published then the other victims would not have come forward. This man would not only have got away with the abuse he had already inflicted, he would still potentially be abusing children today as he still had the same involvement with and access to children at the time he was arrested.
That is why I don’t agree that the law should be changed so that the accused are not named until found guilty, which was the question Kenty asked in her original post. The police can gather evidence so much quicker with the help of the media and the general public than they could ever do working in secrecy. That’s why programmes like CrimeWatch are strongly supported by the police and why so much information is made public in missing children/vulnerable people cases and serious crime cases. If we restricted the police and the media in that way then there are a lot of cases that would never have come to court as the evidence needed wouldn’t have been uncovered and a lot of dangerous people would still be walking the streets.
Having said that, I do detest the media circus that is taking place at the moment and I sincerely hope that once all the dust has settled that those that have been exonerated by the police also have their names cleared by the media.
And finally, just one slightly pedantic point…it is not innocent until proven guilty, if you committed the crime you are guilty of it whether proven or not. However in the eyes of the law you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. A small point maybe but it is one that is important to me so I hope you’ll allow me to make it.
Wow didn’t realise how long that was going to end up :shock:
Well done if you read it to the end!
There are many different points raised in your postings Jen -some of which I agree with and some I have to doubt
The naming of people in most cases is a good thing though I do find trial by press can be a bad thing re the Bristol murder case and perhaps that area needs to be looked at
The fact that due to one brave person having the guts to tell their story allowed others to do so resulted in people realising things they never knew before to be exposed and to change their attitudes is also good but perhaps the victims will never escape the hurt that was done to them
In a way I have been fortunate to have met some kids who have had a really bad start to life and in some cases the vicious circle can not be broken but in other cases some of those kids can see a different way of life. Some of the kids came from really disturbed backgrounds and by today’s standards the way they were treated then would not be acceptable now at all but seeing how they progress with a little love and affection that they never normally received is wonderful
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!