Welcome to another week.
The nation’s child abuse inquiry has opened its public hearings with harrowing stories from child migrants who were sent abroad, with many finding themselves being emotionally and sexually abused both before leaving Britain and once reaching their final destinations.
In the wake of these terrible experiences, former child migrants, lawyers and charities have called for the names of alleged abusers to be made public. Currently, the Inquiry is at liberty to redact names in files and documents where it feels this is necessary. The arguments to name alleged abusers are that many are no longer alive, and that simple searches on the internet would likely reveal their names in any event. David Hill, a former child migrant, suggested making the names publicly available once the Inquiry was satisfied that enough proof existed to show alleged abusers’ guilt.
Henrietta Hill QC, a lawyer working for the inquiry, said it had to balance principles of open justice and the wishes of individual survivors with fairness to those who were accused. She went on to explain that the Inquiry’s role does not include determining liability or guilt, but instead must focus on how institutions responded to abuse and allegations of abuse.
Our question this week then, is just this: do you think alleged abusers should be named and shamed?
Personally I think ALLEGED abusers as you state should NOT be named.I understand it makes it easier for the police if it is someone who is famous as those impacted by abuse will have been silenced.
Barristers are very good at claiming unfair trial if the name emerges
However , I DO think anyone making FALSE ALEGATIONS should be named as they are a menace to society. In Germany and other countries the accuser in such cases receives the same penalty as if the accused had been abusing !
LikeLike
I agree with you Marilyn.In all cases of abuse including rape both accuser and accused should be anonymous until the verdict is reached and then the “loser” should be named and shamed ! In cases of child abuse the parent would stand in for the child.
I can never understand why feminists calling continually for equality between the sexes demand special treatment for women in rape cases . Both the alleged rapist and the alleged victim should remain anonymous or both should be named . That would be what is called “a level playing field”
LikeLike
I think that in each case the identity of accused perpetrators should be withheld until there remains no doubt about the validity of that person’s involvement and their guilt proved beyond doubt.
The victims have had to live with their shame and degradation for a lifetime; and will continue living with it for as long as they live. It is just therefore, that those guilty of inflicting that shame and degradation should, in turn, be victimised to the extent of naming and shaming.
Imprisonment is a futile option; being locked away and losing one’s freedom is a punishment for violent criminals, but of far more severity for these historical child abusers is that they have to face the stigma and ordeal of meeting with their peers and accusers in public everyday for the rest of their lives after running the gauntlet of public disclosure.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
YES they should be exposed..
LikeLike
Abusers should be exposed but alleged abusers, no. We have an understanding that people are innocent until proved guilty. If someone is alleged to have committed abuse and is named, then subsequently found not guilty, that person is still marked for life. That is simply not right. Anyone can make an allegation about someone else, and people often do.
I’m no fan of Cliff Richard, but I think his treatment by the Police and the BBC was a travesty and a crime in itself. I do think we should not go down this road.
LikeLike
I think we should tell with abusers even authority has abusers
LikeLike