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.

I don't know. I think that there are so few false rape allegations, most rape victims don't report the rape, and those that do, the police advise many they 've no strong case, and then if it gets to court, the accused is as likely to get off as to be sentenced, so I'm inclined to think that the only real 'threat' to a rapist is that his name would be dragged through the mud. You have to balance the number of false rape allegations against the number of rapists who never get to court/ are acquitted.

What FloraFox said - the conviction rate is so incredibly low that anyone who thinks the hurt feefees of someone accused is more important than the victims or actually obtaining justice has been reading too many Daily Mail articles. False accusations are few and far between, anonymity would make the conviction rate even lower, please someone do some maths before deciding we the public need to be put even more at risk by ask the rapists walking free AGAIN.

YANBU. People's lives can and are ruined as a result of this, and even though false allegations only account for a tiny fraction of cases that's still too many for me.

I know that in other cases accused are named - but in other cases, so are the prosecutors.

Excellent post Flora. Notice people are never jumping up and down to demand anonymity for those accused of murder? Or ABH? or mugging, burglary, de-frauding old ladies out of their life savings? All these are named, as Flora says because we have an open justice system.

I would be fine with this except for the fact that other victims might and often do come forward when they perceive there being a chance that they might be believed. For that reason alone I couldn't agree with your OP.

False accusations are ridiculously rare and often have extenuating factors attributing to the accusation. That bears relevance I feel.

Thanks for the other points of view, really interesting.

Sorry Sabrina but can you please point out where I was "jumping up and down"?

Oh OP - I didn't necessarily mean you were jumping up and down - sorry.

It's such a hot topic amongst the MRA types - it's them that jump up and down about it. And they frequently come over to MN and jump up and down about it.

Sorry for being snippy, long day!

S'all right I know you're an established MNer.

:)

SmiteYouWithThunderbolts

"Le Vell is a classic example. I've seen so many posts on facebook calling for the accuser to be thrown to the wolves because people assume she fabricated the whole thing."

And I have seen posters saying that Le Vell is still guilty, and the feelings of the innocent that are accused must stand for something.

Like a poster upthread I have a close friend who killed themselves even though the court said that they where not guilty because they where named and people didn't accept it.

My ex had been accused. He was the first of then many that were a accused by one woman (in fairness to her she did have many isues and problems).

He was proven innocent as a drug he was on at the time wouldn't have allowed that to happen, and then as others were blamed by this woman... well you know..

Anyway, his innocence didn't matter. He now is housebound. Too many social anxieties to leave. What a state that left him in because of course at the time people thought he might be guilty.

sir I know that in other cases accused are named - but in other cases, so are the prosecutors.

What is the relevance of this?

There are many, many more rapists who walk free, or who are never even accused, than people falsely accused of rape though - according to the cps/crime statistics which are accepted by the government.

Over 80,000 rapes in the UK each year
400,000 sexual assaults
Only 1 in 10 rapes reported
Only 6% convicted.
3-8% of reported rapes are malicious false allegations.

I think the logic here is quite simple. Anonymity for the victim is designed to overcome some of the inherent prejudice in the justice system against rape cases - 6% conviction rate is absolutely appalling and really where we should be focusing our efforts. The accused should be named because all accused are named except in exceptional circumstances, but even more importantly because all the evidence/stats/research etc shows that rapists and sexual criminals are serial offenders. Naming them allows other victims to come forward and helps the police build a case. This as the DPP said last week on radio 4 is crucial.

No.

We are only at the very start of a process that ends with the vast majority of rape victims as a group achieving justice. Where most rapes are reported, investigated fairly and a trial takes place where the majority of the jury are not steeped in rape myths. When that happens, perhaps the notion of witness/defendant anonymity can be revisited.

Most rapists are serial rapists. And most rapists rape people they know. And most rapists don't think they are rapists. It is vital that they are stopped and a case built against them and visibility is one way in which to do so. Does Worboys need to be mentioned in every thread related to a rape trial?

False accusations are no more of a problem in rape cases than in any other crime. And it's a crying shame that despite the notion of rape being the "worst crime in the world, bar murder or paedophilic acts" to be accused of, it doesn't stop those that rape 1 in 200 women in the UK every year.

sabrina

Yes, the stats are not pleasant reading.

But a person should not be persecuted for something that they did not do. OR that the law says they have not done.

Of course the accused should be named.
The percentage of women who falsely accuse with the number of woman who don't report or do and lose their case is shocking.
I'm very sad and sorry for the men that have to go through a trial with a false allegation, but they are a tiny minority.

And rape victims should be entitled to justice in an open justice system, without the fear of shame or victim blaming that goes on. But they don't get that even with anonymity.

DebrisSlide, I agree completely with what you have said.

It's a bit strange that people are really concerned with accuseds being named. It is statistically very likely that they're guilty given that most rape victims can't face going to the police never mind going to court, and a pp said that 40% of accuseds are acquitted, I actually think that the only punishment for most rapists is being dragged through the court system, and their victim is dragged through it too. Possibly it would deter a rapist from raping again though, if their victim is brave enough to go to court.

Even a tiny minority is too many imo.

omg, Sabrina, those statistics are so shocking. How can people focus on the fact that an accused is named in the face of those horrifying statistics.

A rapist could and should be tried on one allegation. On that individual case. Once found guilty, name published and if others want to come forward they will. And the accused will be tried again for a new offence.

Quite, Zoe. 94% of victims never see their rapists convicted. Yet people argue to change a system in a way that would further detriment the victim.

Keeping the accuseds name under wraps is not detrimental to the victim. IF they are innocent (accused), it prevents them becoming a victim themselves.