Sex Crimes | Rights of the Accused

[Trey of Diamonds]

Should those who are accused of a sex crime have any right to privacy? One way to destroy a persons private and professional life is to falsely accuse them of a sex crime. How do you deal with this potential for abuse?

 

[kadzbiz]

It is difficult indeed. We had a good neighbour friend who was falsely accused by a relative in another state. The case was thrown out by the judge, but our neighbour already felt the pressure and had to move. Nobody that I know of, except the cops who arrested him, believed in his guilt, but still he felt pressure to move away.

It's a difficult issue indeed. The identity of an accused is not supposed to be disclosed until charges have been laid. Charges aren't laid, generally, until sufficient evidence exists to take a person before court. But of course, sometimes the evidence isn't all that it could or should be. In my neighbour's case, fabricated by a crazy aunt.

Like all matters that go before the courts, the media always find a way to divulge info to the public. It's wrong in most cases because how does anyone get a fair hearing? Perhaps all matters should be in private until case closed?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I personally believe that until you are proven guilty, you should not be associated with the crime you are alleged to have committed. I think any other system is in reality a violation of the concept of presumption of innocence. More so in sexual offenses cases which carry a huge amount of stigma, and the fear of violent repercussions.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I personally believe that until you are proven guilty, you should not be associated with the crime you are alleged to have committed. I think any other system is in reality a violation of the concept of presumption of innocence. More so in sexual offenses cases which carry a huge amount of stigma, and the fear of violent repercussions.

How do you reconcile with the media's Freedom of Speech rights?

 

[misanthropic_clown]

How do you reconcile with the media's Freedom of Speech rights?

I think the individuals right to privacy should prevent the media from associating an individual with a crime until that individual has been found guilty. The media of course do not imply guilt by telling the world what someone stands accused of, but it can lead to irreparable consequences for the suspect for which the media could be considered largely responsible. I do not think an individual should face any repercussions beyond the inconveniences of a trial until they are proven guilty, otherwise they are being punished for simply being suspect, which as kadzbiz has pointed out can be the result of a malicious accusation.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I think the individuals right to privacy should prevent the media from associating an individual with a crime until that individual has been found guilty. The media of course do not imply guilt by telling the world what someone stands accused of, but it can lead to irreparable consequences for the suspect for which the media could be considered largely responsible. I do not think an individual should face any repercussions beyond the inconveniences of a trial until they are proven guilty, otherwise they are being punished for simply being suspect, which as kadzbiz has pointed out can be the result of a malicious accusation.

This would require repealing the Absence of Malice law. The media can be responsible for the most horrendous consequences to their actions and not be held responsible because they did not mean for those consequences to happen. This gives them free license to say anything they want. They have total power with no responsibilities at all.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

This would require repealing the Absence of Malice law. The media can be responsible for the most horrendous consequences to their actions and not be held responsible because they did not mean for those consequences to happen. This gives them free license to say anything they want. They have total power with no responsibilities at all.

I'm not sure. I think if it can be seen as reasonable to expect a consequence to occur, they could still be held responsible although it would be horrifically difficult to nail it on them.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I'm not sure. I think if it can be seen as reasonable to expect a consequence to occur, they could still be held responsible although it would be horrifically difficult to nail it on them.

From United States defamation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1964, however, the court issued an opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, dramatically changing the nature of libel law in the United States. In that case, the court determined that public officials could win a suit for libel only if they could demonstrate "actual malice" on the part of reporters or publishers. In that case, "actual malice" was defined as "knowledge that the information was false" or that it was published "with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." This decision was later extended to cover "public figures", although the standard is still considerably lower in the case of private individuals.

 

[DallasApple]

Well they would have to change it for everyone..Anyone who is arrested its public information.Its public information if your house catches on fire and the fire dept is dispatched.

If you are arrested for ANTYHING its in the newspaper.

The media scans these public reports/records and zooms in on the most sensational ones and blows them up to mammoth size..

I see how its unfair to the ones that are "innocent"..but I also see how its got its advantages to the public to protect themsleves from those that are "presumed" innocent just havent been convicted yet and are in fact "guilty".

Anyway..all arrest are in the paper..

Love

Dallas

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Anyway..all arrest are in the paper..

Yes but the media doesn't have to wait for an arrest. They can use terms like suspect, person of interest, questioned in relation to. Any of these can lead to consequences that they don't have to take responsiblity for. And lets face it, their motivation is NOT public safety, it's ratings.

 

[DallasApple]

Yes but the media doesn't have to wait for an arrest. They can use terms like suspect, person of interest, questioned in relation to. Any of these can lead to consequences that they don't have to take responsiblity for. And lets face it, their motivation is NOT public safety, it's ratings.

I agree..its "sensational"..Get a bag of popcorn..lock your doors and turn on the news..Its like that board game.."who done it"....Was it the butler??Was it the wife??Was it the rich uncle???

You can blame the media..but trust me..a lot of people are "entertained by it" or the media wouldnt be making a buck.

People get off on scary monsters lurking around every corner..I dont ..I dont watch the news anymore..(untill recently but politics)..and I admit Im curious about the little girl that is missing now..But mainly because I want her to be found.

What I want to know is if there has been a tornado spotted anywhere near my house...or if an escaped convict is in on the loose in the neighborhood committing crimes..

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Should those who are accused of a sex crime have any right to privacy?

My knee-jerk reaction is "no." Far too many actual rapists escape conviction, becoming a pariah is at least some compenstaion for that. However...

One way to destroy a persons private and professional life is to falsely accuse them of a sex crime. How do you deal with this potential for abuse?

Too true. I personally have as much revulsion for people who do this as I do rapists. I believe that false allegations should be criminalized, though it would be difficult to prove.

As many of you know, this topic hits pretty close to home for me. I don't believe sex offenders are punished harshly enough under our current system. However, I believe that false allegations are just as bad, and they're not punished at all. Rape is a devastating crime, and the women who abuse that are one of the reasons so many rapists escape conviction. They too should be punished.

 

[DallasApple]

As many of you know, this topic hits pretty close to home for me. I don't believe sex offenders are punished harshly enough under our current system. However, I believe that false allegations are just as bad, and they're not punished at all. Rape is a devastating crime, and the women who abuse that are one of the reasons so many rapists escape conviction. They too should be punished.

I completely agree..Women who run around(falsley) crying rape to be vindictive..or to win custody of children..put other women at risk..

Not to mention what it does to the falsley accused..But I "dislike" women who accuse men of rape..or child molestation ..when they know its a point blank lie..It feeds to the burden of women(and children) who have been violated to prove it.I think a lot of women dont even try..and this is part of the problem..women are looked at with a "skeptacle" eye from the get go..

Love

Dallas

 

[Apex]

I personally believe that until you are proven guilty, you should not be associated with the crime you are alleged to have committed. I think any other system is in reality a violation of the concept of presumption of innocence. More so in sexual offenses cases which carry a huge amount of stigma, and the fear of violent repercussions.

There is no presumption of innocence in the US. You are guilty until proven innocent. Unless you are a minor, then you are guilty and not proven innocent.

 

[Storm]

There is no presumption of innocence in the US. You are guilty until proven innocent. Unless you are a minor, then you are guilty and not proven innocent.

Then why does the prosecution bear the burden of proof?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Then why does the prosecution bear the burden of proof?

I believe he was being facetious.

 

[Apex]

I believe he was being facetious.

I was only being half facetious. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a romantic fantasy that has no basis in reality. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a better representation even though it is not fully true either. And those who I have known that have gone through court as a minor were never even given a trial, they were simply guilty.

 

[DallasApple]

YEP...all the innocent people are behind bars ..along with the guilty..

Love

Dallas

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I was only being half facetious. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a romantic fantasy that has no basis in reality. "Guilty until proven innocent" is a better representation even though it is not fully true either. And those who I have known that have gone through court as a minor were never even given a trial, they were simply guilty.

While I agree that it's a romantic fantasy, I don't think there is no basis for it. It is an ideal that should be strived for and hopefully one day more people will do so.

 

[kadzbiz]

Yes but the media doesn't have to wait for an arrest. They can use terms like suspect, person of interest, questioned in relation to. Any of these can lead to consequences that they don't have to take responsiblity for. And lets face it, their motivation is NOT public safety, it's ratings.

But they aren't meant to disclose indentity by showing a face etc.