Also I believe anonymity for both parties until proven guilty and then the guilty party, accuser or alleged culprit, should be humiliated in the press.
That works until a miscarriage of justice type thing happens.
But that could and does happen with the current system.
The accusers don't get public humiliation in te press if they lose the case.
But they should do if they falsely accuse someone of child molestation.
Define false pls.
Not black and white.
I.e proven in a court of law that it is not true. How much clearer would you like it?
Sorry if I sound brusque btw, not intentional, just type quick on phone
What I mean is can you prove intent? Can you prove there was malice? Showing that an event didn't happen (or wasn't proved beyond reasonable doubt to make out an offence) is NOT the same as saying the complainant did something morally culpable or wrong.
You're making (IMO) a stretch too far and want to remove anonymity which is so huge for bringing actual abusers to justice too easily.
Note that where malice or intent or a 'morally culpable' act is commited by complainant they can ALREADY lose anon status and be prosecuted but that needs to be examined on its own merit and not as a direct consequence of a related but not causative innocent verdict.
Also remember it is possible that courts make a mistake and dont convict when abuse actually occurred (eg technicality) but double jeopardy protects re-prosecution/re-trial. So would you ever want a genuine abuse victim to be called a liar and a money grabber etc?
I know, I know, I'm very soapboxy about this issue. I'm not normally this much of a prick, honest
No probs mate, didn't take it any other way other than being objective. I do like to look at things simply but I do appreciate this is not as clear cut as I make out. Raw subject for me as I know someone who was accused of some disgusting things which turned out not to be true. Luckily the police realised this was the case and didn't pursue it beyond an initial interview.
Author