To think that people accused of rape should be given anonymity until proven guilty?

[DaleyBump]

Controversial.

I don't mean to start a bunfight, honest! Am I the only one that thinks that people accused of rape should be given the same anonymity as the rape victims until they've been proven guilty? By all means, once they've been found guilty, feed them to the dogs but being accused of rape publicly and then being found not guilty still has a major effect on someone's life.

I'm not saying rape victims should be outed at any point, by the way.

Do I think that you maybe a judge jury and executioner type person? Yes. Do I think you maybe do not take notice of court verdicts when it suits you? Yes.
Am I going to go into words and posts etc etc blah blah with you? No.

Ha!Now feel like I am doing to you, not allowing you a proper voice and discussion, like you maybe do to people that are accused of something and go through the court system, and, in their case, found not guilty! The irony!!

Am I now going to hide the thread? Yes.

You couldn't make this up.

No one has answered my question about where they stand on hung verdicts.

If anyone thinks I am going to let my stepson within a 50 mile radius of my children because a jury had no stomach for a guilty verdict nor not guilty they would be insane.

He has confessed to his own father, who is making a living will so he never has to see him again.

As I said earlier we need a system that actually is fair to everyone where not guilty actually means that.

I've seen too much to take any chances with the safety of my babies.

And I am glad there are so many people with high vaulting innocent until proven guilty principles. Go and risk the safety of your own children with them and let those of us who prefer to air on the side of caution prefer a system that gives our children a fighting chance of staying safe.

A tiny tiny proportion of cases ever make the press. As said earlier "straight forward rape" isnt newsworthy enough.

"Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that one has to believe everyone found not guilty is innocent. It's a statement about the legal status of that person.

It means that after someone is found not guilty, they cannot be discriminated against for having gone to court etc.

Similarly, I might hold a personal opinion about Islam, I can do that, what I cannot do is discriminate in my treatment of Muslims for jobs, services etc.

Basil is not being judge, jury and executioner. Juries and judges have to determine if guilt has been proven. They can and do do that regardless of their personal opinion.

And to the poster who said "you know who a murderer or a terrorist is just by looking at them, not so for rapists or child abusers, that's why it's different" - WTF?

Its "presumed innocent until proven guilty"

Whether they are found guilty or not doesnt change whether they did or didnt do the crime.

If you find out that someone has been charged with murder, torture, terrorism and child abuse, you can quite likely tell from looking at them, that it could be the case

I'm astonished you think that and I strongly disagree. You can't tell just by looking at people that they are guilty of the crime with which they have been accused. Or even probably guilty.

You might be able to tell they are poor, or rough, or unpleasant, or black, or Muslim, or unsavoury, or odd. None of which is remotely the same as guilty of murder, torture, terrorism and child abuse or anything else.

Oh, reading back, I got FT's post wrong. Apparently you can tell a child abuser by looking at them, but not someone who uses child pornography.

Since users of child pornography are viewing images of child abuse, that's even more illogical than I originally thought.

Oh dear, I looked at that bit of the post but didn't even know where to start with it tbh.

It's good how FT can tell a murderer by looking at them but you are judge jury a d executioner, Basil...,

If you find out that someone has been charged with murder, torture, terrorism and child abuse, you can quite likely tell from looking at them, that it could be the case. And they generally happen in large towns or cities where no one knows anyone much. And quite frankly, if most people were accused of those crimes, most people would just laugh. They are not crimes that really happen much in large parts of rolling countryside of rural Britain for example. If most people were accused of torture or terrorism in the rural villages of Britain, where people often know each other better, they would be laughed at.

But, the crimes of rape and even child pornography. could be done by your next door neighbour. It isnt a matter of being worse, it is a matter that it is much more plausible and can happen anywhere.

WTAF??

Speechless.

OP, YABU for all the reasons everyone has stated.

Yup. Speechless at that, Plenty

I think that might be the thickest thing I've ever read on Mumsnet, actually.

you are more likely to fake your own death than make a false rape allegation

Beyond parody

just spent ages reading all the evidence, stats etc provided by Favourite
oh, wait...

FavoriteThings, put the drugs down and back away slowly...