the use of the word 'alleged'

Yeah I did, and completely agree with there being a good argument for using alleged for all crimes.

Here's some examples from the BBC

There are a couple of "his alleged victim" references in cases that aren't sex attacks. But I presume that's because they are "his" alleged victims (i.e. it's alleged that "he" did it"), rather than just alleged to have been victims at all.

As you heard it yesterday, was it this case?
If so, they didn't use "alleged" because the defendant was found guilty on Tuesday and therefore the offence proved - nothing to do with the offender's gender.

It's a good point Evil. There may well be some systemic bias

On the other hand, there is a good case to be made for using the word 'alleged'. For example, in the case of fraud I'd expect to see many of these cases being reported upfront as being 'alleged'. You simply can't say that someone is the victim of fraud until their story has been completely checked out. Even in crimes that should be easier to prove (e.g. assault), showing that the specific crime has taken place just takes time to prove.

I'd also add that checking with google doesn't always bring up the most apposite cross-section of stories - sadly, I suspect rape stories will come higher up the search engine rankings than fraud stories. By way of example, if you google 'alleged fraud' you pull up an awful lot of recent cases. Ditto with say "alleged assault".

Well, perhaps I will :o

I think that's it - it's a telling inconsistency if a particularly "doubting" form of words is used to refer to victims of only one kind of crime. All or nothing.

I still think it is more reasonable to refer to people reporting crimes as "victims" rather than "alleged victims" - thereby implying that an incident took place - given that this doesn't in any way indicate who the perpetrator is.

(not "you" you btw)

yes, you could and perhaps you should...

but you could say the same for victims of burglary who are often on an insurance scam, or victims of assault who might have just fallen over...etc

but Evil, surely that's because in sexual assault and rape cases, often it has to be proved that an assault or rape took place?

Without implying that the victim is lying, in some cases, there must be some doubt until it is proved?

I just googled "alleged victim" and scanned the first two pages of results. Barring one (where a victim had not turned up to testify in court in an assault case), ALL of the other results referred to victims of sexual assault or rape.

Hmmm, yes, saw your post after I posted. Interesting. Does that vary by news outlet?

I can imagine blogs/ local papers being looser with their use of language than for example, national and regional publications (who have internal publishing guidelines)

indeed cestlavie - but the reporting of incidents varies wildly from this model. Just to re-reiterate.

Yes, just to re-iterate, the word 'alleged' would be used where something is not yet proven.

If someone claims that they are the victim of credit card fraud, it would be an 'alleged' fraud until it was satisfactorily proven that it was indeed fraud. Obviously, in many crimes, the fact of the crime is satisfactorily proven very easily. For example, in the event of a bank robbery, police wouldn't take long to 'prove' that the bank had been robbed. There may of course, be other aspects of the bank robbery (e.g. threats) which may take longer to prove.

In other cases, however, such as fraud, or rape the fact of the crime is harder to prove and therefore until such time as it is proven, it would be reported as 'alleged'. And correctly so. For example, if someone claims they are the victim of bank fraud, it would take several days to prove that a crime had taken place.

Obviously, any 'alleged' perpetrator is 'alleged' until they are proven to be guilty of the crime in question.

well we don't need to now, Pan, because you just did and reported back

yes lollipops and nancy, but if you google stuff you will find a whole heap of inconsitencies.

I don't think it does imply she is a liar. It, possibly unfairly, queries her ability to know what happened, given her age.

Have just done a quick google of alleged attacks and the reporting - fairly mixed bag - some use the a-word, some don't, and little consistency re gender/nature of incident/progress in enquiries. Would have thought it would have been clearer. But not so.

Reports tend to refer to an actual incident and and alleged perpetrator.

So reporters will refer to "a woman was raped in her home" or a "boy was sexually assaulted in a car" but once the investigation progresses and their is a suspect who is under the jurisdiction of the courts reports will then refer to the "alleged rapist". They don't and should not refer to the "alleged victim".

I think that the word "alleged" is used when either a crime has not been proven, or the perpetrators of that crime have not been found guilty yet.

The "alleged" gets removed once a guilty verdict has been found.

I remember that. That article implies that the girl is a liar.

sure. Just IME an incident is reported as such without an accent on the gender of the victim/nature of the incident. Happy to be corrected and look out for the 'alleged' bit. The criminal framework is the same, and I am doubting if media outlets sloppily ignore legal requirements from case to case. Is all.

here for instance

But we're talking about use of "the alleged rape" or "the indicent allegedly occurred". No-one's questioning whether the suspects should be called "alleged attackers", or whatever.

It's nothing to do with rapist victims not being believed. I think it isn't to do with the act but the assailant. The assault occurs. Thereafter it IS a matter of evidence. IME, attacks are reported as attacks, and then it's up to the defence to demonstrate that the alledged assailant didn't do it.

I think the media is pretty consistent in using 'alleged' for any situation in which there is a possibility that the victim consented at the time (I'm not saying that's right, just observing).

The difference in the case mentioned by the OP is that the victim was an 11 year old boy, beneath the age of consent. If there is any physical evidence for sexual interference then there's no 'alledged' possible.

or exactly what Thisisyesterday and Hassled said.