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.

The persecution is not due to the legal process around non-anonymity. It's because of the truly messed up thinking about rape in society. And because many people know that rapists get away with it, whether they end up in court or not. If the system was more robust in terms of evidence gathering, if defendants had to explain how they arrived at the thought that they had consent and if juries had the notion that enthusiastic participation was the baseline, then a not guilty verdict would mean something. As it stands, it doesn't. And that is not because the witness or the accused has or doesn't have anonymity.

All of those who are concerned about the lack of anonymity for those accused of rape and the supposed crisis of false accusations should be 100% behind campaigns such as We Believe You. Because they are about busting the rape myths which makes juries less unpredictable and convictions happen and those that do happen all the safer.

Agree with you OP.

The principle of innocent until proven guilty is too important to just forget about on the off chance that someone else might see the report and come forward. Not everyone accused is a soap celebrity.

There are better ways of encouraging victims to come forward. Naming alleged abusers publicly is not one of them.

Following on from below (flora) I think, I'm updating my position to say I believe that in any crime where the victim has anonymity that should be extended to the accused too until found guilty. I don't think this should be limited to rape at all.

Once accused is found guilty then they can be named and hopefully encourage any other victims to come forward.

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.

So you're sorry but not sorry enough to not ruin a few peoples lives because you think it might encourage more people to report rape?

Sacrifice a few to convict the many? Will parents or family members accept a suspected rapist working with children or vulnerable adults even if that person is proven innocent? Or will there always be that niggling doubt that the person is guilty but there wasn't enough evidence....

What are the better ways to encourage victims to come forward

If Jimmy Savile had been charged withone offence he would have been in prison for much of his later life as many other victims would have come forward

Unlike other crimes rape/sexual assault/abuse the victim often feels shame, may blame themselves plus the very low conviction rate this is why it has to be treated differently

If you're cool with the fact that it will mean far fewer rapists getting convicted so more serial rapists walking around raping more women then fine, yanbu.
Quite a lot of rape victims commit suicide too, you know.

The better ways to encourage victims are to look at how the police treat the initial report, how the victim is treated once they have made the allegation, how the courts deal with them, how they are able to give evidence, what level of protection they are given, make sure that there are sufficient resources at all stages, to make sure that specially trained POs and lawyers deal with the cases where children are involved....the list in endless.

Naming the accused will only encourage others to come forward in certain cases - the above will encourage far more.

We have to have open justice. Do those accused of other crimes get anonymity?

Rape victims are witnesses. They are not accusers, so it is not a both or none scenario. It is the Crown that brings the case. Their identity is not hidden from the defendant, nor the jury. Their identity is just not reported.

Tackle the rape myths, then perhaps there may be an argument for withdrawing anonymity for witnesses. Until reasonable belief in consent does not mean what the victim was wearing, whether she had drunk more than is acceptable for a woman, had glanced over at a guy whilst blowing his mate, a lack of conviction means that those accused of rape and found not guilty will be looked at askance by some.

D ways to encourage victims to come forward

Allow victims to report a crime at the same time as giving them a choice over what happens next. If victims didn't believe that they were likely to end up going through a horrible trial when there is a high chance it won't work, then they might be more likely to report. If the police can then collate information and build a case against someone, then they can reassure the victims that it's worth taking to court because they aren't alone.

Have a government information campaign to inform victims of what they should do and the process of making a complaint. I think I'm generally a sufficiently clued up about society person, but I have no idea about what I'd be letting myself in for if I turned up at a police station with a sexual abuse complaint. The reality must be much less scary than the unknown, so let women know what will happen if they come forward.

Publicly inform women of the level of anonymity they are likely to get if they report.

I hate this, I really do. There is no anonymity in other areas, and I can understand how naming the accused in order to encourage other victims to come forward is a valid point. I would fall totally on the side of YABU if it weren't for how many people I ave heard say, 'he wasn't found innocent, just not guilty beyond reasonable doubt, doesn't mean he didn't do it'.

This really upsets me as just because someone is not found guilty doesn't mean they are innocent, we are all aware of that, but he was not found guilty and is therefore innocent until proven otherwise

I guess what I'm saying is YABU, but I will have sympathy for the issue until people start accepting a not guilty verdict and making no further judgements and letting the accused get on with their lives.

I find the idea that being accused of rape means you need special protection not afforded to people accused of other crimes pretty horrific.

The logic seems to be that being accused of rape by a woman is a type of victimhood and we should be just as sorry for the men it happens to as the women who have been raped.

It suggests that accusations of rape are mostly false and that men charged with rape (a rare enough event in itself) are probably just the victims of lying women and need to be protected accordingly.

Presumably we'd have the same rules for people accused of child sexual abuse?

Agree with join when we provide anonymity to all those accused of any crime then we can do the same for those accused of rape

Absolutely not. Because most rapes are never reported, the conviction rate ( of reported tapes is aprox 6.5%)
As as example of why people should not have anonymity, a few years ago there was a black cab driver in London whose MO was to pick up young women, claim he'd won the lottery, offer the women a glass of drug laced champagne and rape/ sexually assault them. Initially the police didn't believe the reports ( until a worker at a sexual assault referral centre picked up on the links ). And then, when he was charged and reported in the press, how many women also came forward? 75!!! Rapists are pathological, they get away with doing it to one, they'll keep on doing it and often increase the violence. Rapes tend to be committed in private, no witnesses, it's really hard to prove in court but if there are multiple witnesses, it's much easier to get a conviction. I don't know if Michael Le Vell is innocent or not but just because it's a NG verdict doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means a jury isn't 100% sure.

YABU.

Serial rapists have been convicted because further victims came forward when their name was made public. If a case collapses because a lack of evidence and a serial rapist walks free, with his anonymity intact, he has a free pass to make more victims - I'm definitely not okay with that.

Lancashire police came out and stated that by releasing Stuart Hall's name, more victims came forward to report that they had been abused by.

www.examiner.co.uk/lifestyle/andrew-jackson-naming-stuart-hall-4926269

People focus on anonymity for those accused of rape because they buy into the myth that the majority of rape accusations/sexual abuse accusations are fake, when they are actually LOWER than most other crimes. As others have said, there are plenty of other crimes that a carry stigma around with them.

This is an excellent article about the issue and the Le Vell trial, here and even better one here.

A comprehensive review about why defendants in rape cases shouldn't be granted anonymity.
www.endviolenceagainstwomen.org.uk/data/files/Rape_Defendant_Anonymity_and_Human_Rights.pdf

Excuse my shitty grammar, I hope those links are useful.

yanbu but I think there should be room to name the suspect where there is genuine public interest; if they were looking for a suspected rapist and showed cctv footage of his face, if they had reason to believe that he was a repeat offender (videos/images on his computer/phone), a fleeing suspect etc...

I would agree with all suspects who have physical evidence against them or a history of violent offences being named. The problem lies with people who are being accused and the only evidence is the accusers word. I think it is very dangerous to allow cases go to trial where it is one persons word against another with not even circumstantial evidence to suggest guilt. I've known a few compulsive liars and disturbed attention seekers, they're as common as violent thugs, the law needs to protect all innocent people from all types of abusers.

What concerned me about the Le Vell case was the mention of recovered memories, authorities should be investigating the therapists of anyone who comes to them with that. So called recovered memories were all the rage in the 80's/90's America, people would go to self help groups feeling lost and come out with memories of family members raping them, in one case a man was even wrongly convicted of a murder based on the false 'recovered' memories of his daughter. False memories are very easy to implant into vulnerable people

sorry here's the link

The problem lies with people who are being accused and the only evidence is the accusers word

well unless the rape/abuse/assault was filmed or there is a witness it is about the accusers word against the accused

lots of people do tell lies, live in a little world of their own but not many go out to deliberately hurt others or accuse others of committing terrible crimes

I think the main difference between rape and abh, burglary etc. is that people see rape differently. Burgle someone's house or steal a car and you won't get vigilantes looking for your blood in the same way.

Sometimes I think some people forget that rapists are targeted by vigilantes and criminals alike because rape is seen as one of the most heinous crimes around. Contrary to the belief that we live in some rape culture, rape is despised by virtually the entire population, except for those doing the raping of course (which are a relatively small percentage of the population).

Personally you could just as easily report the crime to the public, naming no names, and in a way that could encourage other victims to come forward.

There should be no shame in reporting rape

If a person walked passed you on a train or while you were waiting in a queue ect would you be able to accurately describe that person and what they were doing 30mins, a day, a year, 30 years later? Our lecturer did an experiment on our class similar to that. Almost a quarter of the class didn't even realise that a person had walked by, 6 months later no one could even remember what she was wearing, at the end of the degree we couldn't even agree on if she had been a man or woman. So a person who may have witnessed something vital to a successful prosecution may not remember that seemingly insignificant detail if the crime isn't reported quickly. That person putting a bag in a bin, could have been clothes or something that was used to subdue their victim. You don't need to name the victim or the accused unless absolutely necessary before guilt is decided

Techno - there was a arson attack in Leicester reported this weekend - with fatalities -possibly connected to revenge for a murder that took place the previous day. Rape is not a special case when it comes to revenge attacks.

Yet nobody argues for anonymity for those accused of murder.

"Contrary to the belief that we live in some rape culture, rape is despised by virtually the entire population, except for those doing the raping of course (which are a relatively small percentage of the population)."

That is horseshit.

Dangerous horseshit.

Loads of men who rapists don't think the are rapists because they don't think that it counts as rape if she's drunk and went to your room willingly.

I doubt the man who raped me thinks he is a rapist. But he is.

I didn't even realise it it fully myself for years after it happened.

We live in a rape culture because rape is practically legal.

If you are a man and you want to have sex with a woman, you basically don't really need her consent.

The chances of you ever being convicted of anything if you force her are tiny.

THAT'S a rape culture and the fact that so many people on this thread think men accused of rape need special protection is part of it.

The fact that there is this supposed revulsion about rape is the other side of the same coin - it's still about ownership of women's bodies and making a big show of how we're all against rape.

Then the same men out being vigilantes will go home an pull themselves off to degrading rape porn and force their partners to give them blow jobs when they aren't in the mood,

Contrary to the belief that we live in some rape culture, rape is despised by virtually the entire population, except for those doing the raping of course (which are a relatively small percentage of the population).

I actually laughed out loud at this.

Clearly you don't understand what rape culture is, the fact that people agree that rape is a despicable act, does not mean that we don't live in a rape culture.

if so many people are outraged by rape why is it nearly always questioned what the woman was wearing, how much she had drunk, how was she acting and only when she was acting in what many see as a respectable way maybe she will be believed

I do not understand why being accused of rape is worse than being accused of torturing a child or intimidating elderly people into handing over all their money or being part of a gang that traffics people into various forms of slavery. Or murder, for that matter. Or a number of other things.

I think that the people who call for anonimity for the accused for this one specific crime, do so because they believe that women and girls routinely lie about rape.

If they were genuinely interested in protecting the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" they would be asking for anonimity for people accused of all serious crime. The fact that they don't is telling.