I cannot understand how the name of someone who is accused of a serious crime like rape can be released when an accusation is made. I have no idea if Strauss Kahn is innocent or guilty of what he has been accused of - although in law he is innocent until proved guilty - but he has now lost his job and his reputation(there will always be those who say no smoke without fire) on a single person's accusation. They would not even grant him bail - like someone in his position would be able to get on a jet and leave the country surrepticiously.
Blimey - can it be that this is so uncontroversial - thought it would bring a range of opinions from hang him to he's as bad as Marlon to women against rape to sympathy for him - apparently not
Perhaps, like me, others are simply inured by the constant headlines regarding the indiscretions of 'those in high places'. Or perhaps he is guilty and everyone involved knows it - and his not guilty plea has been made in the hope that some slick-talking lawyer will get him off on a technicality. Who knows - it is in America!
In America,anything can happen and does! and to be honest apart from americans who care! Was like the bombardment in the press of the tiger woods scandal!,who actually gave a flying ****! about a bloke caught wick dipping away from home?
I was thinking in rather wider terms than those though - it is not the first time and will not be the last that someone is accused of a serious crime by one allegation - they then have their name plastered over the press - and it can be a high profile figure like now or you or me - and the person alleging the crime is given anonimity. Is this fair?
Unfortunately newspapers have very little morals so don't care who's lives they ruin as long as they get a good story. No doubt if the guy is not guilty, there'll be a small story on page 18 saying he was innocent! The problem we have is ther are so many papers out there that they have to 'create' these exclusives to try and stand out above the others! Just look at papers like the NotW chasing stories, trapping people... rather than reporting the news, they create it! Of course all of this are wrong, so is the super-injuctions where the rich are protected and the naive are named! Personally I'd rather we have one broadsheet and one 'red-top' and just let them report the news, but this will never happen so unfortunately we will always have to put up with accusations, sleaze etc...
In general the law that the defendant gets named straight away in a rape case thus tarnishing his character forever even if he's innocent whilst women accusing men of rape aren't named even when it's found to be a load of bollocks is a ridiculous one. In the stereotypical case of 'footballer shags slapper, slapper cries rape' the woman should be prosecuted with perverting the course of justice or something similar, IMHO.
Blimey, I cannot believe some of the comments on here. Ignoring the detail in this particular case for a minute, why should rape be treated differently to any other offence? Anyone charged and taken to court for any offence has their name published, it's part of our legal system. Or are you saying that because he is a big rich fat cat and has more to lose he should be treated differently? Reason that he was not initially granted bail is because France does not extradit people to the US and they are no lover of the yanks - very unlikely I know as it would mean he would give up his job and probably his $4M home in Washington, but on first appearences that is what the judge would have considered, he was a serious flight risk. So a man violenty rapes a women, gets 50% knocked off for admitting it, then another 66% off for good behaviour and is out in a couple of years - but the victim & her family have to live with for the rest of there lives - Ken Clarke will get a few votes on here tonight.
I don't dispute any of that but I think IF found not guilty and the case is clearly a ridiculous one which doesn't appear to be the situation with the IMF guy but is very much the case in high-profile celebrity cases the woman should at the least have her name dragged through the mud like the man does whether guilty or not and at most be charged with something herself. Obviously the frivolity of it would be at the judge's discretion. I disagree with Clarke's proposals but the media bandwagon that has appeared is crazy.
Your assumption is he is guilty though. What if he isn't!! Surely it's unfair to tarnish anybody as a rapist until they are found guilty? No-one will care in 6 months if he is found guilty or not, the damage has been done and he will always be labelled as such. If he is guilty of it, then he will get his punishment but why should someone be able to cry rape and ruin a person's life. All the details should be kept private until the person is found guilty. I don't see how can people can just accuse others of such heinous crimes on a whim then get off scott-free when it is proved they are lying....
Sorry but these things are not as simple as a few throw away comments on a football MB. To begin with, no prosecution would be sought without considerable evidence to support it, so if that is conclusive then it's left with one parties word against the other i.e. he says she consented and she says rape. Seems that the view on here would be that the victim must be "crying rape" then... In the cases where a women has been shown to be lying in court she has then been exposed by the press for that and some have been prosecuted for perjury...but these cases are in the minority. So if a man violently rapes a women using a knife and leaves DNA evidence all over her, but denies the charges, he should be allowed to remain anonymous? - well she was probably asking for it anyway wasn't she?...
I can only find numbers for 2006. We had 8 rape crimes in that year and all the guilty people were men.
This is a very poor discussion guys. Of course criminal trails have to be in open court with the accused identified and evidence publicly presented. You cannot have secret trails, for rape of for anything else. Or should we say--if you have secret trails for rape to protect the innocent accused, why not secret trails for every offence , to protect the identity and reputation of those who get acquitted? The offer of anonymity for the alleged victim in a rape case was brought in to encourage women to report rape rather than conceal it, and to lesson somewhat the ordeal of testifying in court. Before it existed ,many rape victims were afraid to report or testify for fear of publicity retribution and public "shame". The rule goes a little way to redress the balance towards the victim, and was widely welcomed when it was introduced. It is rarely abused. There is no evidence that women systematically hide behind this rule in order to make up false charges of rape to discredit or blackmail men they have a grudge against. This has been well researched by criminologists. DSK can use his fortune to defend himself in open court; the maid gains some protection from the American legal system, but can expect every aspect of her life and character to be examined in an effort to discredit her. However, if the picture of DSK's own character and past conduct that comes out is not flattering to him (guilty or innocent) then too bad, Dominic. Actions have consequences , even if rich and powerful people are used to escaping some of those consequences (most of the time).
People are accused of all sorts of crimes and this is a particularly unpleasant one. I would guess there is evidence against him since someone holding high international office would not be arrested and denied bail lightly. The matter of anonynimity is a difficult one. You could argue that anyone accused of any serious crime might turn out to be innocent and their reputation suffer as a result. It would seriously limit reporting of crime if everyone accused could not be named and I suspect that the same argument would then be applied by witnesses who felt their reputations might suffer by association. It seems to me more important that the right outcome is reached at the end of the trial. As for the press, I can't help feeling newspapers take far too much delight in reporting sexual crimes, regardless of the added hurt this causes the victims.
Therefore you need to gag or restrict the press....... which opens up another can of worms debating wise! In the US so called free speech is sacrosanct!
