Become A Member | Forum | Profiles | Personals | Classifieds | See Who's Online ...
 
View Topic
  Message Boards : General Discussion : View Topic : 213 Posts, Page 2 of 15
  HomeNewNoticesHot TopicsPollsStatsBlogs Login / Register
 
Should Those Accused Of Rape Be Named & Shamed?
 
# 16 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:12
 
 
Someone said :
Yeah but should someone innocent be hit with it?

How do ye know who's innocent?
I don't really agree with naming people in public either way as their families end up getting a hard time and the chances if some eejit taking justice into their own hands and ruining another family is higher
Reply
 
 Recent Message Board Topics
Mental Health Stigmas
Presidential Election 2018
Brexit
President Trump / Oompa Loompa News
Funny Pictures To Brighten Your Day - Funny Edition
Trans Bars Question
Can We Cope With Weather?
President Hopeful Cured At Knock
 
Hey! If you enjoy shooting the breeze with like-minded people, check out
our Message Boards
• Advice • Coming Out
• Computers • Current Affairs
• Discussion • Food & Drink
• Going Out • Humour
• Health • Music
• Newbies • Sexual Issues
# 17 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:12
 
 
Someone said :
who's to say someone whom is not convicted is actually innocent.

The basic foundation of our law. That's what.
Reply
 
# 18 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:13
 
 
Oh I see. He means a radio frequency ankle monitor.
Reply
 
# 19 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:13
 
 
Someone said :
How do ye know who's innocent?

I know what you mean but not all rape accusations are legit? Do we just throw stones at anyone accused where its backed up or not?
Reply
 
# 20 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:19
 
 
Someone said :

The basic foundation of our law. That's what.

That's exactly my point! Only something 7% of rape cases actually get a conviction. Does that mean that 93% of the defendants are actually innocent? I'm doubtful of that. So where do we draw the line? Name the 7%? what does that achieve? It's the actual innocent people I feel sorry for, but the only difference between the guilty convicted and not convicted is evidence. So to name the convicted seems a bit redundant and to name the accused seems unfair as there are actual false cases
Reply
 
# 21 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:22
 
 
Someone said :
I know what you mean but not all rape accusations are legit? Do we just throw stones at anyone accused where its backed up or not?

No I don't think accused should be named. I explained it better in previous post. Sorry, haven't slept in a few days. Brain no workies
Reply
 
# 22 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 01:23
 
 
Someone said :
That's exactly my point! Only something 7% of rape cases actually get a conviction. Does that mean that 93% of the defendants are actually innocent? I'm doubtful of that. So where do we draw the line? Name the 7%? what does that achieve? It's the actual innocent people I feel sorry for, but the only difference between the guilty convicted and not convicted is evidence. So to name the convicted seems a bit redundant and to name the accused seems unfair as there are actual false cases

I know. That's the horrible reality of rape.

There's only usually 2 witnesses and, I assume, usually alcohol and other chems involved, blurring, or purporting to blur, consent.

But the Prime Directive of criminal law remains there for a very good reason.

Just because 1 innocent life was wrecked, doesnt mean another has to be, as a by product of the search for justice.
Reply
 
# 23 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 12:42
 
 
Someone said :
That's exactly my point! Only something 7% of rape cases actually get a conviction. Does that mean that 93% of the defendants are actually innocent? I'm doubtful of that. So where do we draw the line? Name the 7%? what does that achieve? It's the actual innocent people I feel sorry for, but the only difference between the guilty convicted and not convicted is evidence. So to name the convicted seems a bit redundant and to name the accused seems unfair as there are actual false cases

Well in the case of rape conviction may only be possible when there is some physical evidence pointing to the accused, otherwise it's just trying to work out what is truthful in two different stories.
Reply
 
# 24 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 14:17
 
 
Someone said :

But the Prime Directive of criminal law remains there for a very good reason.

Nerd



Its all well and good talking about prime directives and the need to protect innocent parties but the way things are it is almost like that one can basically commit rape and get away with it. We are failing the victims of a vicious crime every single day on an unimaginable scale.
Reply
 
# 25 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 14:50
 
 
Maybe the people that falsly cry rape should be named and shamed.
Reply
 
# 26 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 16:19
 
 
Someone said :
Maybe the people that falsly cry rape should be named and shamed.

That is an incredibly small number.
Reply
 
# 27 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 16:21
 
 
Neither should be named!
Reply
 
# 28 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 16:44
 
 
Someone said :

Nerd



Its all well and good talking about prime directives and the need to protect innocent parties but the way things are it is almost like that one can basically commit rape and get away with it. We are failing the victims of a vicious crime every single day on an unimaginable scale.

Awaiting a conviction before naming the accused won't hinder prosecution rates though. It's the inherent evidential difficulties in prosecuting sexual offences beyond reasonable doubt which is the problem AFAIK. Even where DNA evidence is involved its one persons word against another's as to intent.
Reply
 
# 29 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 16:57
 
 
Someone said :

Awaiting a conviction before naming the accused won't hinder prosecution rates though. It's the inherent evidential difficulties in prosecuting sexual offences beyond reasonable doubt which is the problem AFAIK. Even where DNA evidence is involved its one persons word against another's as to intent.

Oh yes I know and I actually think I agree with the OP, just going on a tangent. Their are so many problems with rape... it is hard to know where to begin.
Reply
 
# 30 : Monday 9-1-2012 @ 17:57
 
 
Someone said :
I remember the X Case many years ago. A young lad was rumoured to have raped the girl in that case. He was innocent but he was treated very badly by people in the neighbourhood. He had to move away from the area for his safety.

If I remember correctly in the X case it was supposed to have been a close friend of the victim's father - a man in his 40s - that allegedly raped the girl and I believe he was eventually convicted of the rape.

On the subject of the thread...no, accused should not be named publicly until they have been convicted.
Reply
 
Prev 123456789101112131415Next