to ask you if you feel that people accused of sex crimes should have their identities protected?

[SoleSource]

This debate was featured on the This Morning programme.

55% of the phone in poll voted yes.
45% voted no.

I would have voted yes because false allegations can destroy lives.

My initial though was yes they should have anonymity until brought to court but having read the thread I say no they should not.

I know someone who was almost dragged through court, it was a totally horrifc time for him and his family, and most definatly would of cost him his job, relationship, reputation & home. (he works in minor media and rumours would of spread)

It was 6 months of total hell, before court dates started getting mentioned. She then changed her story, and was then left with a story that wouldn't stick, so the police threw out her claims. Then it came to light, that The 'lady' in question had done it before. He told a small circle of his friends, he couldn't tell his family. we all believed him but so many wouldn't of.

It may be a minority of people who falsely accuse, but until you have worn those shoes, you will never know the heartache it causes. Both cases should remain anonymous until proven in court.

It reminds me of ulrika jonsson and her famous autobiography, which made her lots of money, and was the downfall of John Leslie.

I don't think they should be protected, as others may come forward.

Really kim, over half of allegations against teachers are made up? Why should teachers be the only ones protected from false allegations, surely the pupils lying about them are also at risk of lying about every other adult unfortunate enough to come into contact with them? How do we know they won't continue to lie into adulthood?

This is precisely why the accused should have anonymity, you couldn't bring someone up to court for distributing heroin, arms dealing or bomb without any evidence, just the word of someone who claims to have seen them do it, but with sex allegations a word is all that is needed to permanently destroy an innocent persons life (and that of their family).

Thanks for the link, must be awful for them.

thezebra quite often school pupils will say something about a teacher as a way of 'getting back at them' or punishing them for something they are angry with them for, imagining that the teacher will get hauled into the HT's office and receive a telling off.

They have no idea that, due to the nature of the allegations, these sort of lies set balls rolling that the pupils didn't even know existed. Later they worry that owning up will get them into trouble and they imagine that eventually the whole thing will just die down. These lies take on a life of their own and destroy teachers' lives.

The relationship pupils have with their teachers are unique and mean that the children are unlikely to make similar allegations about other adults with whom they come into contact.

It would of course be possible to grant all defendants anonymity. When I grew up in Sweden there was a gentleman's agreement among journalists that no names would be published until after the verdict in any criminal case, so defendants were always referred to as "the 46yo" or "the 52yo".

I think this keeps coming up now as the savile investigations are getting higher and higher in the chain of government and judiciary quite a few people want their tracks hidden. They are putting this out to gauge public opinion and laying the ground work to try and change the ground swell of opinion.

If the accused are anonymous then a serial rapist has a better chance of denying the one charge. especially an upstanding middle class one The witness gets called a fantasist and a liar, vindictive and doing it for publicity oh and the money. The accused has a better chance against one but if there is shown to be a pattern of behaviour it's harder to prove.

That they are liars and rapists.

Tut awful iPod

No, because I have seen countless times, people up on charges totally denying the charges, putting the victim through further unnecessary stress, total additional abuse, situations where as with most child abuse, it is their word against the attacker, it takes a huge amount of courage to come forward and help form a case, that will be taken forward,

and then when the name goes out, suddenly others come forward, and the victim is believed, and if enough come forward, the defendant changes their plea and the victims are spared being put through the hell of court, and having to relive their nightmare,

Sexual abuse steals your whole life, once someone has inflicted that on you, you live it forever, it affect everything.

There is a huge rate of abuse going on, and a tiny amount being successfully prosecuted.

It often takes one person to come forward, for others to find the courage to also step up,

Sexual abusers rely on isolating their victims, to grant anonymity will help them conceal their behaviour.

We need to break the cycle of abuse, we are not a civilised society until we do, it is shameful we seem unable to have a safe community.

how would it work anyway? The defendant would be granted anonymity, and then as soon as they spot their name being banned about on the internet, declare that the anonymity had been breached, so the case would be dropped, it can't work , unless we stop even bothering to try to bring some justice to these situations.

When people reach the moment when they report abuse, they find they open a flood gate in themselves, to not allow them to speak freely about their experience, would be very cruel, downright dangerous and be a further abuse on them.

I think everyone for any crime should have anonymity, being accused of any crime falsely, when made public ruins lives not just sex crimes

I think there should be some sort of protection for anyone accused of a crime. No matter what that crime is. How many times has someone's picture been spread across newspapers with untrue stories made up about them?

I agree Sole.

I would say that they should have their identities protected up to when they are formally charged with a criminal offence.

I think this is a happy medium, early enough that other victims can come forward before trial to help build cases against serials. Late enough to avoid the 'no smoke without fire' morons and tabloid idiocy that befall people who are foolish enough to get themselves arrested and then released without charge.

I do think that should apply to all crimes though, and that journalists and idiot members of the public who go out of their way to publish names of people arrested and not charges should face charges of their own.

Yes, definitely.

It makes no difference if there are no more people falsely accused of sexually violent crimes than there are of other crimes. A false accusation of rape does a lot more harm to a person emotionally, professionally and personally than a false accusation of burglary.

Even if there is only a tiny number of people whose lives have been destroyed through false accusations of rape, that still means some people have had their lives destroyed by it, and those people deserve to be protected by law as much as anyone else.

I don't give any weight at all to the argument that more victims might come forward if an allegation is made public. A victim has a responsibility to report a crime at the time it happens, and if they choose not to, as is their right, then that is down to them. If victims were encouraged to come forward at the time of the crime and were able to be reassured that as victims they would be treated well, then that would do much more to secure conviction rates than allowing accusations to become public would do.

The problem with identifying the accused is that then it is often impossible for the media to describe their relationship to the victim, because the victim would then also be identified.

This means than the media will name Mr Smith, and say that the victim was an 8 year old girl, but not explain that the girl was his niece.

If the accused was not identified, the media could report that a man han had molested his niece. This is how it is done in my country.

The problem with the british system as it is today is that people who read newspapers don't realise how many of these crimes are committee by friends/ family members.

I believe this is one of the reasons why there is such a strong fear of attacks by strangers in the UK, people think this is the norm.

I guess this is mostly is cases involving children, though. How is it done if Mr Smith is accused of raping his ex-girlfriend and identified in the papers, wont everybody then find out who the victim is as well?

Imo both parties should remain anonoymous until a guilty verdict has been reached, though I think this should be the case for all crimes. I dont feel that theres anything to achieve by naming someone when it has not been proved that they've comitted any crime.

I assume the people saying the defendant should be named would be quite happy to have their name banded round the media accused of such crimes if they were innocent? Because I certainly wouldn't.

Accused - no. Convicted should have full page photo in all newspapers.

Incconet until porven guilty and espically when it comes to crimes involving children even if your cleared people never really belive you didnt do it

So until found guilty i think you should not be exposed also vigilantes and mistaken id

When the lady who got killed in those falts they id the landlord and as usuall you got all the loavals saying "og we always knew he was strange" it wasnt him And it ruined his life he had to sell the flats ect

I think when its decided that there is enough evidence to charge or go to court then you should be treated like any other person in that suituation so no.

The problem is that if you are arguing for defendant anonymity in rape cases you are basically arguing for more rapes.

The very small number of serial rapists who are successfully prosecuted will drop even further and they will be free to carry on.
I wonder what number Worboys would have got up to by now.

I know someone who was falsely accused of rape his life was totally ruined so I voted yes and belive until our society can trust of justice system 100% there identies should be hidden as there are to many idiots out there that belive no smoke without fire rubbish.

and yes the damage to innocencant mens lives is a issue my DB who was accused of rape by a vandictive work partner (so she could assume control of the whole company) destoryed his reputation, even after she was convicted of preverting the cause of justice (got a bloody suspended sentace ffs such crap but thats a argument for another thread) was still honded by morons thinking he just got away with it crap and tried to take his own life because of the abuse. Basically with sex crimes the mud sticks and its nearly impossable to remove and god help you if you cant afford to leave the area as everyone will know and your life is ruined.

I belive if there is no protection for the accused intil found guilty I belive that if the algiations are found false the accuser should have their anomity removed and then they should get the same sentance as if they themsevles commited the crime of rape because a suspended setnace for ruining someones life just isnt a deterant is it?

Agree with you worridmum, so sorry to hear about your brother.