I'll echo bongo's response It's the 'guilty until proven innocent society' we unfortunately live in by which time, as in your example, it's too late. The parasites in the media lap it up and some people are so ****ing gullible, they believe everything they're spoonfed either by TV, Papers or online.
I understand the point, but what is the alternative? If you hang the threat of imprisonment over victims if the case isn't proved then none come forward to make complaints, let alone give evidence. Remember, the case failed because the prosecution could not prove to the very high criminal standard (ie by making the jury sure) he had committed these acts. That was because the alleged victims all had an attack of the jitters and refused to testify. In the eyes of the law that makes him innocent, but in the eyes of a lot of the public, not so, unfortunately. He's not alone. There are plenty of people out there who reckon Amanda Knox was guilty despite the fact she was acquitted on appeal. That's just human nature I'm afraid, and such beliefs are usually based on public ignorance regarding smoke and fire (as I recall the title of Jones's book), or that the defendant 'has shifty eyes'! I even saw one blogger say that Knox looked like an evil, devious witch and that she should donate all the money she'll earn from books and films to the family of Meredith Kercher. Despite the fact that this woman, in the eyes of the law at least, had been unjustly imprisoned for some time. What's being mooted at the moment is anonymity for defendants in rape cases until the matter is proved and I agree with this. There are many well documented cases of rape that have been unproved yet the defendant is tarnished for the rest of his days even though he was acquitted. But how far should you take it? Imagine an accountant who is accused of fraud by his employers. He's acquitted by a jury. It's unlikely he'd find employment in his local area ever again despite the acquittal. An interesting debate imo.
HTR This might be naive but if imprisonment is on the table it would stop (or at least it should) accusations such as in Swamps example where a teaching career was basically ruined just because some kids didn't like him and your accountants bosses would need to be 100% certain before involving the law. If an alleged victim is genuine then no amount of the jitters should prevent them from testifying. But as you rightly say, convincing a jury is an entirely different matter. I agree with the anonymity for defendants in rape or child abuse cases until proven guilty. Unfortunately the 'angry mob' mentality would then probably snowball onto the families of the convicted who themselves would be innocent of the crime. Like I said though, probably naive and too simplistic on my part.
The real problem is the media types trying to get a scoop and an award for story of the year. I am not sure the media has ever reported news but focused on their version of the news. This goes a long way to influencing public opinion on any high profile case. A point in case is OJ Simpson. How many people thought him guilty and were amazed at the not guilty verdict? Why did so many think justice was not served? The case against DJ was poor and should never have got to court, this based on what the judge saw as insufficient evidence and an extremely weak case. How often does that happen?
H: Couple of things. 1: "your accountants bosses would need to be 100% certain before involving the law." Well, one assumes they were certain before involving the police. You're forgetting, the criminal standard of proof is very very high. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" means convincing jurors so that they are sure. That's what the law says. No mean feat sometimes - notice there was a split decision in the Tabak verdict today. Punishing the accountant's bosses in those circumstances would be quite wrong. Don't confuse what is with what can be proved. 2: "If an alleged victim is genuine then no amount of the jitters should prevent them from testifying" You'd be surprised. Really. Not everyone is equally robust. I'm aware of cases (particularly domestic violence) where the victim can't be dragged to court due to fear and / or nervousness. It happens.
HTR 2 good points... well made too. I said I was probably being naive. Thankfully I don't know anybody who has been involved in anything anywhere near these scenarios
Well the press has a lot to answer for, something very recent was Jo Yeates landlord, who was humiliated in the press, there was a mass witch hunt for the poor guy and has been vindicated completely. And thankfully there has been a conviction today of her murder. Dave Jones had his reputation sullied by this, and its disgusting that the victims of these lies must suffer with it even when found innocent, and the people who do the accusing are left scott free, they should be locked up!
There is a law against wasting police time so I guess there is that option to prosecute. I guess it's not such as big a story for the media to even bother. Not sure if the punishment would reflect the crime but the law is there.
Like rape victims, the accused in cases like this should be granted anonymity until the verdict is in, if found not guilty name the accuser, if found guilty name the perpertrator..........trials could be held in camera, if anyone leaked the details to the media, and the media publish details..........hit the leaker and the media outlet with a contempt of court charge, never mind a fine, jail the reporter, the editor and the owners, and not in a "soft" open prison either ...........that would stop the newspapers with deep pockets paying the fine, and making a profit from increased circulation figures. Innocent victims deserve the protection of the law...............whether they are the accuser or the accused............the government can slap gagging orders on the media when it suits them, so why not in cases like this? I know that one of the cornerstones of the British Justice system is transparency and openness..........no reason why the details shouldn't be made public, but AFTER the verdict.
