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.

eretrew because most of the time she is not lying. Those in the justice system know this. The standard of proof in criminal cases is very high - beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the only evidence is the victim's testimony, this is very hard to achieve.

Eretrew- because in a system stacked against victims, even fewer wd come forward.

Which wd be fabulous news for rapists.

Sabrina

So are you disagreeing with the claim that rapists and sex offenders aren't treated badly in prison?

Or how about in society if someone is suspected to be a sex offender?

Maybe google vigilante and rapist and see what comes up.

eretrew If that were to happen, there would be very little else in our press...

And as FloraFox pointed out, the accusers don't stop being victims just because they couldn't prove they were raped.

I can see, Join, that once something comes to court, that it is good that it is seen and public.
But if it went unpublished till then, it may, only may, help in the process of stopping some people from assuming that a person must be guilty, even if they have been acquitted.

Flora- Its a public justice system so where a person is acquitted then all facts should be released including the names of the accuser. In the case of a not guilty verdict then releasing the facts of the case is a necessary feature of liberal democracy.

Can you really techno

do you not remember when the film Accused came out how many thought well it was awful but the way she acted she was sort of asking for it

if people were so outraged by rape women would not have to explain their actions only those of the person that raped them would be questioned

I am not really sure what your post is getting at I am well aware that most rapes are not committed by a stranger but we have a politicians that want to seperate rape one they see as serious and one that is not so serious because the rape by the husband, friend, by someone who had been told no at the time of penetration does not outrage many people

I disagree, would you want to leave your children in the sole company of someone who had been accused of child abuse, what about hung conviction - not guilty or innocent?

Until the conviction rates improve and not guilty actually means not guilty, then I disagree.

And anonymity in the local community doesn't work anyway, victims are often tortured by their rapist/abuser, its only a crime if its done in print (including internet)

techno

"After all, every criminal has a mother and possibly a wife and daughters or a sister."
You are aware, I assume, that boys and men are raped as well?

hevea I would say the other way around. At arrest / charge that is the prime opportunity for other victims to be encouraged to come forward.

I see no value whatsoever in the salacious nature of the reporting around sex offence trials - the recent case being an example.

A name "out there" so other victims can come forward is one thing.
"News" papers reporting in full detail and a salacious manner what witnesses in sex offence cases say, doesn't do any good for anyone.

It's the detail in the papers that makes people remember. Just "so and so has been arrested / charged" is much less memorable but that is the stage at which other victims may come forward.

Havea0 "it may, only may, help in the process of stopping some people from assuming that a person must be guilty.." Is that more important to you than the very low rape conviction rates? Because naming the accused is one of the few measures open to help the police strengthen a case, and catch rapists.

and victims, and their families get shunned, much more than rapists and abusers, this vigilantism, is a figment in most cases of the press - people don't want to admit someone close to them may be a monster so they turn away from the victim instead

The accuser is the Crown.

That is already public knowledge.

Techno, The treatment of sex offenders in prison will be unaffected by giving sex offenders anonymity until convicted. However, it would have a massive effect on the chance of a serial rapist being convicted, or even going to trial.

Look at the treatment of ched Evans victim for an insight into how victims are treated in society.

eretrew are you suggesting that anyone who reports a sex offence, and does not end up with someone being found guilty of that offence, should have their name publicised?

The reason that anonimity for victims of certain types of crime was introduced, was in an attempt to improve the (still terribly low) reporting levels.

"Its a public justice system so where a person is acquitted then all facts should be released including the names of the accuser. In the case of a not guilty verdict then releasing the facts of the case is a necessary feature of liberal democracy."

Answer the question yourself eretrew, why don't they release the names of the accusers? And what would you do with a list of hundreds of women's names a month?

You mean naming the accused before they have been found guilty of absolutely anything?

Mr Pombear is a rapist. See how easy that is to post.
Now I go to the police with a full story.

Lots of children attempted to report jimmy saville and others for their sex crimes, and were turned away. What purpose would publicising their names cause?

Lots of women tried to report john worboys (to the SAPPHIRE unit no less) and were turned away. Should their names have been publicised? The releasing of his MO / name caused scores of women to come forward, thus securing a conviction. That was a good thing.

Telling the names of people who report sex offences and don't secure a conviction will basically mean that no-one will ever report a sex offence again. That's one way of improving the stats surrounding sex crimes in the UK I guess - stats show they aren't happening any more

"But if it went unpublished till then, it may, only may, help in the process of stopping some people from assuming that a person must be guilty, even if they have been acquitted."

There are already restrictions on what can be published about someone charged with a crime to deal with this problem.

Do people accused of murder get anonymity?

If they are found guilty, then my gosh yes, publisize as much as possible. But not before.

ok, join, didnt know that.

Sabrina

I think you've missed my point. There are often assertions that society does not care about the victims of rape but I disagree. The conviction rates are terrible but this is not indicative of how society views rape.

My point was that rapists are despised by virtually all of society.

Yanbu. Think there should be anonymity on both sides for all crimes. Mud sticks. The famiies of the accused lives are also affected.