Anonymous Until Proven Guilty
A man falsely accused of rape explains to the Independent's Mark Hughes why rape suspects should be given anonymity until convicted:
In his cell at HMP Addiewell, Jason Duncan knew it was only a matter of time before the story he had concocted for his own safety would fall apart.Falsely accused of rape, the 22-year-old steel worker had decided it was better to tell fellow inmates that he was in prison for a shooting. But then one morning, a week into his time on remand, the Airdrie & Coatbridge Advertiser landed on the wings, complete with his name and charge details on the front page.
"In prison, if you are in for anything relating to a sex offence you are the lowest of the low," he explained. "My lawyers and even the prison staff told me that I would be in serious danger if other prisoners found out what I was charged with. So I concocted this story about being a career criminal who was in over a shooting. People seemed to believe it, but when my name was in the paper they realised why I was really there. I didn't leave my cell again."
The jury took less than an hour to acquit him and a friend who were charged with rape of a woman at knifepoint:
In reality, the woman - whom Jason knew - had invited them into her home following a night out.
Jason said:
"I fully agree that rapists should be named and shamed. They are the scum of the earth and their names and photographs should be in every newspaper. But in my opinion that should only happen when they are convicted...."People have to realise that cases like mine do occur. But because I was not entitled to anonymity my name was plastered across the newspapers with the word rape next to it. I will forever be linked with a rape accusation, even though I have been acquitted."
via ifeminists
Note well that the talking heads will gleefully trumpet your name when you are accused, but there is no interest whatsoever in mentioning an ordinary person's acquittal.
And personal bias is so important that some people think OJ killed Nicole. They think that they saw the evidence, and that their opinion is more important than that of the jury, which, by definition, is the body which did see the evidence. That is so important that you can't even get people past that to note that the police could not jail someone for that crime.
Meanwhile, sex is more important than murder. Check your TV schedule and see which you can watch.
Radwaste at July 13, 2010 2:05 AM
Radwaste, OJ was found guilty for Nicole's death - in civil court.
Lauren at July 13, 2010 3:50 AM
We're really mixing justice systems here. This story is not about a case in the the US.
People are not found innocent, but rather not convicted because they have not been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, in the opinion of the jury, based on the facts presented to them.
A civil case does not result in a criminal conviction, it can merely award damages based on the opinion of a majority of the jury.
The system is designed to err on the side of not wrongly convicting. Since half of us are below average at everything, there is no doubt some juries get it wrong.
The search for cosmic justice continues. In a perfect world, I think we'd do it my way. Should we name people arrested and charged with a crime? Sure, but we need to acknowledge, as with the Duke Lacrosse case, that being charged is not the same as being guilty.
In my world, there would be no plea bargains. Does anyone doubt that innocent people have plead guilty to avoid extremely harsh punishment where the evidence was inconclusive? That is just wrong.
MarkD at July 13, 2010 6:27 AM
Radwaste, as far as the OJ trial is concerned it is silly to believe that juries are infallible and their judgments should always be deferred to. At the end of the day, a jury is a random selection of 12 laypeople who often have personal biases that cloud their findings.
As far as an accused being innocent until proved guilty beyond-reasonable-doubt, in reality this only applies to legal procedure not general opinion. That is, in some cases where the accused is acquitted but there is still strong evidence against them or there appears to be some miscarriage of justice, it is inevitable that a certain stigma of guilt will, and should, follow the accused.
What I mean is that innocent until proved guilty only really applies to whether or not a person should face sanctions by the state. It is unrealistic, and unreasonable, to expect innocent until proved guilty to extend to the entire population giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Suppose if you knew there was a good probability that the man down the road was a pedophile. Now, unless a case against him is proven beyond reasonable doubt, he is still entitled to his freedom. But you would probably watch your children a little more closely. That is, legally he is still not guilty. But there is no burden on the entire population to judge him as innocent or give him a clean bill of health.
Nick S at July 13, 2010 6:30 AM
What is so disturbing about rape cases like this is that even if the accused is ultimately acquitted, they are invariably arrested and incarcerated prior to trial, even in "he said, she said" cases where there is really no other independent evidence that the accused is a threat to the community other than the allegation of one woman who may be motivated by revenge or malice.
Essentially, it means a man loses his freedom just because a woman says so. In what other situation do we allow one group of people based on race, gender, religion etc. to determine the freedom of another group?
The same is true of things like mandatory arrest laws in domestic violence cases. Basically, a man's freedom is entirely dependent on the goodwill of his partner.
Nick S at July 13, 2010 6:41 AM
Another example of how "innocent until proven guilty" is just a myth.
Doug Stephens at July 13, 2010 7:33 AM
No, he was found "responsible". Civil court cannot establish guilt or innocence in a criminal matter.
And the standard of evidence is considerably different. Whereas criminal court requires "beyond a reasonable doubt", civil only requires "a preponderance of evidence".
brian at July 13, 2010 7:40 AM
Interesting turnabout in that one though - once the mandatory arrest stuff started being abused (i.e. calls went up with no actual increase in violence) rather than try to figure out who to arrest, or just arresting the man, they just arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out.
The feminists are not amused, but the cops don't want to deal with the drama.
brian at July 13, 2010 7:43 AM
"Some people think OJ killed Nicole."
SOME people?? I didn't know there was a person alive who still believed he didn't kill here. He practically admitted it! And don't be so naive as to think the jury heard all the evidence. People who really do know all the evidence are convinced of his guilt (Gavin De Becker comes to mind).
KarenW at July 13, 2010 8:02 AM
On the plus side, one busted-
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/833986-jail-for-student-who-cried-rape-for-homework-time
Juliana at July 13, 2010 8:08 AM
And for falsely accusing him of rape her sentence was....?
The feminists have trained the courts for years on anything to do with "abuse" and sex "crimes."
Because feminists have "trained" the courts for so long, any man is guilty until proven innocent.
Any woman who falsely accuses is simply let off scott free.
David M. at July 13, 2010 8:22 AM
The issue here is libel, and the accused is arguing for anonymity. Not anonymity forever, just until a verdict is reached. Makes sense. Guy got a tough break. Moral of the story: unless you're rich and famous your not going to catch any breaks in the system, so don't go home with the unstable gal with no grip on reality. Nobody cares about a steel worker named Jason, even if he is sitting in a cell somewhere feeling suicidal-- it's easier to care about Lindsey or Paris. Oh how we love our reformed celebrities! I can't wait for my hipster Free Lindsey T-shirt!
Gspotted at July 13, 2010 9:47 AM
I quit as a high school teacher about 15 years ago. False accusations of sexual harassment, molestation, and even assault, were mushrooming (teenage copycats). Names were published. Careers and lives were ruined. I decided it would never happen to me; I changed career.
Alan at July 13, 2010 10:12 AM
``Let's say I committed this crime. Even if I did do this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?''
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/oj-simpsons-inlaws-angered-by-confession-to-killings-456669.html
Ronniew at July 13, 2010 10:19 AM
Anyone remember the Tim Meadows SNL skit where he was playing OJ?
He'd gotten a job as an NFL commentator and in the course of breaking down the last play he wound up writtong " I did it" on the moniter
lujlp at July 13, 2010 10:32 AM
"They think that they saw the evidence, and that their opinion is more important than that of the jury, which, by definition, is the body which did see the evidence."
This trial was televised so in fact the entire world was the jury for the OJ case. The public got to see crucial evidence that was withheld from the jury because of legal maneuvering.
What made the OJ trial so maddening is that we could all see the train wreck as it unfolded. OJ was acquitted because of the incompetence of the LA police dept, the incompetence of the LA DA's office, the bias of the jury, and the grandstanding of the fame seeking judge Ito.
It broke all of our hearts to see that the American justice system has little to do with justice.
Allen at July 13, 2010 2:01 PM
I have mixed feeling about this. I found out that a 20 year old young man had been leaving suggestive notes in my home when he accompanied his mother as she cleaned our home. It took about a year before I discovered the identity of the person. I brought it to the attention of his mother and asked her not to bring him any more. The problem was solved.
Later I found out that this young man had been charged with rape - twice. If I had known this. I would have told the woman not to bring her son and if I had found notes, I would have had my suspect long before a year had passed. I wouldn't have turned over the note to his mother. I would have turned it over to the police.
Innocent until proven guilty, but I suspect he may be guilty of a little more than his mother ever expected.
Unfortunately, I stressed over the wrong person for about a year before I discovered the true culprit. So, in theory, it makes sense, but a pattern sure can be telling.
Jen at July 13, 2010 2:02 PM
Interesting turnabout in that one though - once the mandatory arrest stuff started being abused (i.e. calls went up with no actual increase in violence) rather than try to figure out who to arrest, or just arresting the man, they just arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out -- Brian
I have not heard of that happening, that seems like a good solution -- especially for the police officers. I hope that is taking hold.
The Former Banker at July 13, 2010 2:19 PM
"once the mandatory arrest stuff started being abused (i.e. calls went up with no actual increase in violence) rather than try to figure out who to arrest, or just arresting the man, they just arrest everyone and let the judge sort it out "
Yes, this was happening and violent women were being arrested. In shocked response, feminists then pressed for "predominant aggressor" arrest policies. Now, when there is any doubt, the "dominant aggressor" is arrested, i.e., the person with the "greater capacity for violence". So, guess who that is nearly 100% of the time? A man almost has to have a knife sticking out of his chest before a violent woman will be arrested.
Apparently, a man who calls 911 to seek help is several times more likely to be arrested than the vicious bitch who attacked him.
Oh, and btw, when do women most frequently get hurt in DV situations? When THEY initiate the violent confrontation with the man. Poor widdle victims?
Jay R at July 13, 2010 3:40 PM
OJ, not guilty? That makes me wanna take whoever said that out as well as that moron judge who allowed that circus trial
ron at July 13, 2010 4:28 PM
See how important that personal opinion is now?
None of you were in court, but some of you just know better.
And - to return to the topic - not one of you would forgo legal representation, the jury trial, the presumption of innocence or anything else you have decided someone else shouldn't have.
Oh, go ahead and claim you'd say you deserve to be smeared for being arrested. You'll justify every case of profiling ever committed, but hey, I wouldn't want anybody to be two-faced about the justice system that applies to them as surely as it does to the criminally insane.
Yes, the process is ugly. No, no one was imprisoned for Nicole's death. Yes, OJ acts foolishly, and based on police records, is an abusive ass.
But the fact remains that the verdict put him out of your reach. You can't stand it. I understand that better than some apparently do.
Radwaste at July 13, 2010 5:25 PM
Not in CT, Jay. That's why they arrest everyone. No more bias claims. No "you got the wrong guy". No more lawsuits against police for doing nothing.
Everyone goes to lockup to cool off for the night.
brian at July 13, 2010 6:37 PM
Law enforcement officials might as well just parade suspects in front of TV cameras like they do in other countries such as the Philippines before convicting them. The whole "innocent before proven guilty" is sadly no longer true in practice in these times.
Tony at July 13, 2010 7:33 PM
I'm tired of idiots using O.J. Simpson as an excuse for supporting prosecutors in every situation. Destroying innocent people is never acceptable.
Mike at July 14, 2010 12:56 PM
"Another example of how "innocent until proven guilty" is just a myth." This comment just about sums it all up!
Jason Duncan at August 15, 2010 2:49 PM
I wanted to see if I could get your quick help. I just started a petition on Change.org titled "Anonymity For the Accused", and I'd love your support. You can sign the petition in less than 30 seconds by clicking the link below.
Also, please pass this on to all your colleagues and friends. Let's make a difference before you become a victim.
www.change.org/petitions/view/anonyminity_for_the_accused?te=npf
Thanks so much for the help!
Chris Garrett at September 7, 2010 10:11 PM
Leave a comment