People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

[GallicGarlic]

I am positively astonished that, as they face sex crime allegations, MPs say sex crime suspects deserve anonymity.

This will mean no e-fit pictures of suspects, no CCTV releases, no calls for other victims to come forward. AIBU to think this is jolly convenient for serial perpetrators? And to ask you to sign a petition?

YANBU.
signing

The problem with that is that accused doesn't necessarily mean guilty. Mud sticks.

I understand why you'd want more transparency though.

Shockers, mud sticks if you're accused of mugging or fraud, as well. But you don't get anonymity for that.

I won't sign.

I think its fair enough to protect the premise of "innocent until proven guilty" and that people only accused of any crime should remain anonymous. Once convicted all bets are off.

CCTV releases and e-fits could be issued for "wanted for questioning" purposes, but not an outright "this is who dunnit". Once convicted, if other victims come forward, then the system should allow their case to be heard. I am not sure if that is a common thing in the current system.

Conveniently timed too, just as inquisitions are due into historic sex offenses...

I agree that is shouldn't just be sexual offences though. It should apply to any crime.

I can see why you want more transparency but accused doesn't mean guilty.
Some people's lives are never the same again after they've been acquitted.

Oddly enough, I read this article JUST before this thread. Her rapist had already been convicted, but it's the same kind of point. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/serial-rapist-shaun-hopkins-handed-life-sentence-after-victim-spotted-him-on-facebook-10124737.html

Mud doesn't stick.

You can be a convicted rapist out on license and STILL get your well paid job back AND get 1000s of people insisting you are innocent and slandering the victim. There are plenty of famous convicted and admitted rapists and child a users who still get work, win awards and are feted by their peers.

I do not buy that being accused of sex crimes ruins lives and reputations when not even being charged and convicted does.

Mud does stick in all crimes. But its particularly bad when involves sex crimes.

If people accused of any crime were protected, Slice, that would just be part of how our justice system works. But what's the rationale for singling out just one class of crime?

Imagine all those TV shows about rip-off builders, for instance. With no information about the rogue builders at all. That'd help catch them, wouldn't it

Also this whole law is predicated on the premise that unsubstantiated accusations are common when they are not.

It is also really important to have accused names in the public domain as other victims come forward.

You make a good point, Tondelayo. It doesn't stick that hard - whatever the crime, actually.

I won't sign. I don't think the names of people arrested for any crime should be released. Once they are charged, perhaps, but not merely arrested.

Or Watchdog talking about "a miscellaneous energy company" or "producer of electrical items"...

This was the case for a small number of years. It was changed after pressure from the police. It simply stopped them being able to investigate rapes properly. Very very short sighted proposal.

Of course mud sticks. Perhaps if you're high profile and famous you might come out of it OK but for most people there'll be mutterings in the community and for many there'll be difficulties getting work again.

I'd be interested in hearing stories about those falsely accused of sex crimes whose lives have been ruined. Genuine question.

Oh, actually read the bloody thing!

Retaining anonymity until a person is charged or the police have a need to name the individual is what is being discussed.

Ton yes it does, for most people. Maybe not for the super rich and famous. But for the everyday person it does. A rumour went round our village that a 19 year had been found sexually assaulting his 15 year old brother and thrown out if the house. In actual fact he punched him in the face, not great but not sexual assault. The 19 year has been admitted to hospital 4 times since as he has been attacked in the street and has 'peado' shouted at him. This rule wouldn't help as its local gossips. But I have seen the effect it can have.

I didn't think of it before but yes the timing is a bit opportune to protect the identities of those high up people that might be arrested for historic sex crimes.

It simply stopped the police being able to investigate rapes properly.

Exactly! And this is why suspects of all crimes aren't protected.

I don't think anonymity is the answer. But I do think the press and public should respect the 'innocent until proved guilty' premise - at least in print and online.

I won't sign. Everyone should be anonymous until charged. Mud DOES stick no matter how much a person is innocent. Once said, it can never be taken back.

Oooh! Pressed post too soon.

The idea is to prevent leaks to the press, think John Jefferies, not preventing rape victims from getting justice. If the police need to name a person they would be able to... but it would be done above board, newspapers could be censured for naming people to make a good headline - keep thinking about John Jefferies...