Posted by Lawrence Money in theage.com.au
It has happened twice now in a month. Two blokes have been dragged through court, had their reputation torn to shreds, made to look like absolute scumbags by evidence from someone who hid behind the skirts of the law.
First came 60-year-old Gavan Disney (above), who had to trudge in to court day after day, suffer daily photo shoots by TV and press, see lewd sex claims aired in the media, endure the smirks and snickering out there in audience land, all on the say-so of a bloke who no one could publicly name. And whose claims dated back 20 years or more.
In the end, Disney was cleared. He was innocent in the eyes of the law but muddied, perhaps beyond repair, by the unsubstantiated claims.
Then came Theo Theophanous. Same deal. Into court every day, devoted wife by his side, accused all sorts of grubby behaviour by a woman who could not be named. From behind the screen of law-enforced anonymity this ghostly malefactor chucked all sorts of dirt.
If you had printed it in a paper outside a court case, Theophanous (above) would have picked up enough defamation money to start his own poltiical party. And again: he was cleared. Innocent in the eyes of the law but fatally soiled by allegations which, in many cases, were laughably far-fetched.
You wonder how this can be called justice, don't you? It's the reverse of the legal process that prevents prior convictions being aired before a jury makes its decision. That's to avoid juries being swayed in their decision by something other than the evidence in a particular case.
It's to avoid sullying the character of the accused in the eyes of the jurors. You wonder, then, how a bloke's public reputation can be destroyed by someone whose reputation is protected, whether the claims are proved true or not. Yes, sex victims have enough damage done and their identity should be shielded -- but what about the reputation of ''offenders'' who are wrongfully accused? Don't they have a right to protection too?
Suppress the identity of both. Name the accused only if found guilty. Sound fair?
Link: http://blogs.theage.com.au/moderntimes/archives/2009/07/attacked_by_a_ghost.html
It has happened twice now in a month. Two blokes have been dragged through court, had their reputation torn to shreds, made to look like absolute scumbags by evidence from someone who hid behind the skirts of the law.
First came 60-year-old Gavan Disney (above), who had to trudge in to court day after day, suffer daily photo shoots by TV and press, see lewd sex claims aired in the media, endure the smirks and snickering out there in audience land, all on the say-so of a bloke who no one could publicly name. And whose claims dated back 20 years or more.
In the end, Disney was cleared. He was innocent in the eyes of the law but muddied, perhaps beyond repair, by the unsubstantiated claims.
Then came Theo Theophanous. Same deal. Into court every day, devoted wife by his side, accused all sorts of grubby behaviour by a woman who could not be named. From behind the screen of law-enforced anonymity this ghostly malefactor chucked all sorts of dirt.
If you had printed it in a paper outside a court case, Theophanous (above) would have picked up enough defamation money to start his own poltiical party. And again: he was cleared. Innocent in the eyes of the law but fatally soiled by allegations which, in many cases, were laughably far-fetched.
You wonder how this can be called justice, don't you? It's the reverse of the legal process that prevents prior convictions being aired before a jury makes its decision. That's to avoid juries being swayed in their decision by something other than the evidence in a particular case.
It's to avoid sullying the character of the accused in the eyes of the jurors. You wonder, then, how a bloke's public reputation can be destroyed by someone whose reputation is protected, whether the claims are proved true or not. Yes, sex victims have enough damage done and their identity should be shielded -- but what about the reputation of ''offenders'' who are wrongfully accused? Don't they have a right to protection too?
Suppress the identity of both. Name the accused only if found guilty. Sound fair?
Link: http://blogs.theage.com.au/moderntimes/archives/2009/07/attacked_by_a_ghost.html
Posts
8 comments:
why should sex victims' identities be shielded from the public? Is this done for other crimes?
Where feminism goes, lies and injustice follow. Our legal systems are a complete joke.
Yes they are
One thing to consider when saying the identity of the accused should be anonymous until conviction, is the possibility that the accused may be wrongfully convicted. This may be a stratch but mistakes can be made during the testing process of DNA evidence. If I remember correctly,in the past the suspects blood type could be determined from a semen sample. The suspect's blood was checked to see if it matched the blood type that was held as evidence. How many people have the same blood type? As far as DNA evidence is concerned, I still don't see it as the magic bullet that scientists have made it out to be. With a little creativity, DNA collected from a suspect's home can be extracted and transposed onto a crime scene. Also, who really knows what is being done to any samples of blood or semen while in the lab?
If I wanted a suspect to be found guilty bad enough, I could hire a hooker to pleasure him but make sure he didn't flush the condom down the toilet. I could, if I arrived at a rape.murder scene, clean up the semen on the victim's body and replace it with the suspect's semen in the condom. It is too easy to have my face disguised and not give my real name to the hooker. I know this may sound ridiculous or wierd but, it can be done.
The suspect would be convicted, their identity has been revealed to the world. Now if the hooker told the authorities what I did ,or anyone who may have witnessed me tampering with the victim's body wouldn't be able to idnetify me but, they could testify what I had done. The wrongfully convicted suspect might be exonerated but, his name would be smudged for the rest of his life.
Almost anything is possible
If there is one thing which is clear evidence that feminism is about hurting men, rather than protecting women, its this idea of naming the accused and not the accuser. After all, what good does it do decent women? None, whether the alleged perpetrator is named or not the woman still gets her day in court. As for bull about the women not coming forward if everyone knows their names, if that was it they would call for both names to be suppressed - this is all about giving female bastards the power to hurt innocent men.
IMHO, that's what VAWA is all about.
Post a Comment