Rape or.......

[HundredthIdiot]

zygalski said:

I can't ever remember anyone agreeing that it's right that the accused should be named. What is the logic for this, because it escapes me too?

AFAIK the default legal position is free speech/no anonymity.

I vaguely recall from some Newsnight discussion years ago that the justification for NOT providing anonymity for the accused is that other victims may be encouraged to come forward when they read/hear about the case. This is based on the (uncontested as far as I know) idea that many rapes go unreported because women think that they won't be believed or that the process will be too traumatic.

Maybe the incidence of false allegations is high enough that the unjust trauma caused to the falsely accused outweighs this.

The basic problem is that the law has a strong principle of "innocent until proven guilty" but the general public acts on the basis of "no smoke without fire".

People are morons.

[Rude-boy]

HundredthIdiot said:

The basic problem is that the law has a strong principle of "innocent until proven guilty" but the general public acts on the basis of "no smoke without fire".

People are morons.

I have to congratulate you on summing the position up so astutely and succinctly right there!

[Halb]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Hugo a Gogo]

I'm not sure what you're saying there, presumption means taking it to be true

[Snowboy]

It’s semantics.
Either legal or amusing or pedantic – I’m not sure.

I would guess that one could be “Presumed Innocent’ but still be held in jail pending the trial.
But of one was ‘Innocent’ then there would be no reason to hold them in jail.

If one is innocent then there is not way one could be guilty as the two are opposed positions.
But if one is presumed innocent is allows that one could be found guilty later.

It’s all a bit Schrödinger’s cat sort of thing.

[Halb]

Hugo a Gogo said:

I'm not sure what you're saying there, presumption means taking it to be true

It's a legal term.

Snowboy said:

It’s semantics.
Either legal or amusing or pedantic – I’m not sure.
I would guess that one could be “Presumed Innocent’ but still be held in jail pending the trial.
But of one was ‘Innocent’ then there would be no reason to hold them in jail.
If one is innocent then there is not way one could be guilty as the two are opposed positions.
But if one is presumed innocent is allows that one could be found guilty later.
It’s all a bit Schrödinger’s cat sort of thing.

I meant it as in the legal term, though the pedantic bit fits as it is often misquoted. I like the Schrödinger’s cat analogy. I always thought of it as 'no-mans land', but I think I like the cat one better.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innoce...