the use of the word 'alleged'

This use of alleged really irritates me. It seems really obviously designed to undermine the victims credibility. Shouldn't it be 'alleged rapist'? As in..."a girl was raped...the alleged rapist"
It's the suspect that has yet to be proven guilty, so alleged fits better.

Not fraud or embezzlement or just theft?

A definition of robbery

um... that would still be a robbery

Nope, what if one of the employees had set it up to look like a robbery to cover an inside job?

I don't think many bank robberies would be that, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility. It sets a dangerous precedent to have some crimes that are definitely crimes, and some are subjective crimes. Who decides which is which and on what basis?

well i think it would be fairly clear if a bank had been robbed... don't you?

What like when people pretend they have been burgled in order to claim on their insurance?

I can't think of any crime where you can see at the outset it has definitely happened.

an "alleged" rape is different from a burglary. With a burglary it is usually clear that the illegal act has happened - its just they don't know who did it. With an "alleged" rape the rape itself has not yet been proven. The assumption should NOT be that the victim WAS raped - that turns the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing on it's head. In some cases though it is pretty clear cut that a rape has taken place - and then the news stories will say "a girl was raped..."

I think you'd have to assume the case had already gone to trial and the assailant found guilty.

But yes, you're right - a house is burgled, the suspect is alleged to have burgled it (prior to conviction). And it should be the same for any sexual assault or rape - the assumption should be the victim was raped, the suspect is the alleged rapist. I can see that legally it's far more complicated than that though.

i think they do use it for all crimes don't they?

the "alledged robbers" etc etc

the thing is you KNOW if a bank has been robbed. it isn't alledged. it has happened. but you can have alledged robbers.

if someone has been raped, until it is proven in court then it HAS to be alledged.

I don't imagine that they can judge the evidence at this stage - surely that's up to the CPS/judge/jury isn't it?

Would be interested to know more about this - so often seems to be some poor girl left crying in torn up clothes and she was "allegedly" assaulted. No, she was assaulted. Just like people are burgled. And killed. And mugged. Not allegedly mugged.

Is it because there was evidence of the assult?

I can imagine there being a distinction made between case where there is evidence of sexual assult and a case where there is an allegation without conclusive evidence. For both males and females.

In either situation if a person was accused they would still have to say allegedly committed the crime wouldn't they? Until proven guilty?

It would be interesting to know if the evidence is the same when we hear 'female was allegedly sexually assulted' or 'male was sexually assulted' or not.