the use of the word 'alleged'

[foreverastudent]

I was driving in my care and heard on the radio a quick news report of an '11 year old boy who was sexually assaulted'. I'm sorry I don't have a link (can't remember the station/time) but I noted the absence of the word 'alleged'. AFAICR whenever I've heard similar news reports (female victims) they always use the word 'alleged'.

Was this case different because male rape/sexual assault victims are to be believed whereas female ones aren't?

It really bugs me when they use that word. They should either use it for all crime victims or none.

because I googled "alleged victim" and I also searched the BBC site for "alleged victim" and 95%+ of the results were about cases of rape, sexual assault or sexual abuse.

I did say earlier why I thought it was a pattern - mistakenly assumed that you'd read the thread obviously.

I don't actually want to think this bias exists, I'd rather it didn't.

If you google alleged burglary you should find lots of examples of it being reported as such.

Perhaps in the Gerrard case the journo thought it OK to describe the incident as a burglary because there was sufficient information to establish that a burglary had taken place (which I think is wrong btw). However once charged the person involved could only ever be described as an alleged burglar.

Hello joni?

Um, joni ... this is the last page of a thread, we've had this discussion already.

A bit rude to dismiss my comment, tell me I'm wrong, ask me where on earth I got such a radical idea (I have already said where) and then not even bother to acknowledge my replies.

this chap is using the "accident" defence in a murder trial btw.

I'm not saying that dittany. I think everything should be alleged until a conviction is secured. My own very personal view of the way things work is that on the whole that happens but I can see that in some instances that doesn't and as I've said before, I think that's wrong.

The conviction rate for sexual offences is disgracefully low. However I don't think that's substantially down to whether the use of the word alleged is or isn't used in the press prior to trial. The way that victims are encouraged to report offences and how they are dealt with subsequently is more material in my opinion. I also think that juries are too timid when it comes to deciding whether a person is guilty of this type of offence. I often think they'd rather protect the reputation of the perpetrator rather than believe the woman

In the Belfast murder they say 'accused of' which is tantamount to alleged.

I'm not dissing you Evil, I'm really not, but I just didn't see the pattern in the way you do.

Dittany you are wrong.

There are statutory guideline for the way journalists report court cases. The penlaty for prejudicing a trial can be prison.

It may be the burglary stories yiu have read have not actually gone to court, or the defendant has pleaded guilty ( far morelikely for these sort of crimes, than for rape) or the case is sentencing.

I agree with Joni

Joni - i tried searching for a phrase, and that pattern came up (nearly every case that talked about an "alleged victim" was a sexual assault case). I wouldn't think that was a matter for agreeing or not agreeing - you can check for yourself and if you find some other result I'd like to see it.

google 'alleged burglary' or 'alleged theft' or whatever and you will see this is used every day.

Really I am not denying there are problemd with the reporting of rape and sexual assaults - I have handled alot of court copy and I have seen it myself.

But on this one - I think you are wrong.

I am sure you don't need to read this but here it is

I also think you may be seeing something in the syntax of how court copy is written.

I suppose a journalist may write "at the time of the alleged rape.." because the case may hinge on whether sex was consensual or rape - there isn't a question mark over whether intercourse took place.

But writing " at the time of the burglary the defendant was at evensong at his local church," shows that the there is no question as to whether the burglary took place - it is again a question of who dunnit.

Have never thought about this before so may be talking out of my arse. Feel free to tell me that I am

That was my point when the Gerrard burglary was raised Commander. I agree with your logic.

But as has already been pointed out, with other assaults and with burglary etc there can be doubt, in exactly the same way.

Many burglaries / muggings are for the insurance, no crime has been committed. But they are not usually described as "alleged burglary" or "alleged mugging". It's just reported "x was mugged in such a spot blah" ie the victim is believed. With rapes it seems to be different that they are reported as "alleged".

Aaagh!

Again tonight on the radio, they were reporting the footballer who has been arrested (charged?) with rape. They said "alleged" incident. He has been arrested therefore there has been some kind of 'incident'- why do they have to say alleged incident? Surely 'incident' alone would have sufficed?

I don't think I see in the papers very often things like "an 89 year old woman was allegedly mugged near the park" or "the 15yo boy alleged that he was mugged and his mobile phone taken". I think things are usually reported "89 year old woman mugged near park" "15yo boy robbed on high st" etc. While a rape report would read "18yo was allegedly raped while walking home" etc

I don't believe every rape victim lies dittany. Far from it.

It's normally used in a certain manner with reference to the person accused than the victim.

i.e alleged of a crime rather than alleged to be a victim of a crime.

Its normally because being a victim of a crime is generally easier to prove. A person beaten up shows pretty evident signs so there isn't anything alleged about it, just have to prove that x person was the one to do it.

Rape is more difficult to prove it occurred unless there are some other factors. You can say that yes this person has had intercourse but you cannot prove that it was rape. The law is about whether you can prove what you say has occurred I know it sounds cold, but what system could be better?

To add to the last part I was referring to when a case first comes to the police not rape cases in their entirety.