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.

To be honest, after reading all of your replies, I have no idea whether I think it should be given or not. As someone said up thread, it's a lose-lose situation.

Please remember that I did mention that I was sexually assaulted in the past. I am not, in any way, belittling those who have suffered.

namechange I am so, so sorry to hear that.

and tell me - if you were on a jury and you were hearing allegations of a violent nature about someone made by his victim with no "backing evidence", the victim being painted as a fabricating liar, how would you feel if afterwards, you found out that that persons school records, showing him being suspended on an almost weekly basis, had been suppressed under third party evidential rules.

would knowing that the picture perfect young man, painted as squeaky clean by his barrister, had a well documented history of violence and suspensions in school, have made a difference to you

it is naive in the extreme to think all the evidence gets put before a jury on indeed to believe the police have the resources to properly get it all

He was justice minister at the time he was also calling for reduced sentances for rapists pleading guilty

Op - ask yourself if there's a pressing case for anonymity in cases of murder. If yes - then you are campaigning for a different legal system than we currently have - ie open and subject to the public's knowledge. If not - and you believe it should be purely for sex offences - then likely you have been listening to too many MRA type arguments - whose agenda on sex offences is sadly all too clear.

On one hand I think anonymity should be given for all crimes until proven guilty. On the other hand, when someone is guilty but has not been found it, the public should know what they were accused of. Rock and a hard place.

Sabrina

What do I mean by that? Exactly what I've said. There's no hidden meaning as I disagree with your view that people don't generally care.

I bloody well care and I can guarantee that everyone posting in this thread does too, as well as those reading it.

I think most people are aware that rapists aren't all crazed men with fangs and Bo. The TV ad shows that quite clearly as do the instances we see on TV shows, Waterloo Road springs to mind.

Pan I've asked twice already on this thread why the issue of victim anonymity is relevant to anonymity for the accuser. No-one has answered so far. Since you are the latest to raise this point, would you care to answer?

Pan that is nonsense. where a person is a serial offender, as many instances as possible will be tried, the more instances the more chance of conviction. If you need more info look at cases like Stuart hall. Crimes are NOT tried one at a time if there's are serial offences / multiple victims. If you don't understand that then maybe some research would be in order before you comment on threads like these.

There is no evidence on the number of victims who raise their own cases on the 'public' identifying of an alleged abuser. Yes, most child abusers are repeat offenders but within their own family set up, or extended family set up/or friends thereof.

And tbh throwing in the 'you must support MRAs' angle is an attempt to shut discussion down and curse everyone who disagrees with a particular POV. And is frankly ill-informed and fairly stupid.

Namechange

I'm genuinely sorry you've had to go through what you have and wish you all the best.

In the case of people who offend in their late teens, it is - according the therapist - more likely that they will reoffend in their late 30s early 40s, so the victims will be from a different demographic to them the second time around.

NiceTabard is of course correct. It's long established in many jurisdictions that a pattern of similar crimes provides corroboration of individual allegations and are therefore tried together.

Techno - if society genuinely cares about rape victims then why do 94% of rapists walk free? Why are victims still treated so badly? Wy are you so in favour of anonymity for the accused -even though the facts show that naming the accused is more likely to gain corroborating accounts leading to convictions? Your assertions here are not backed up by your arguments.

No NT, public indentity of alleged abusers isn't required to cue other claims in the vast majority of cases, as they are generally known about in the family/close social circle, and victims speak up.
fwiw I'd suggest you look beyond celeb headline-making cases before posting your specious posts on threads like this?

Nobody is trying to day the victims dont matter ofcourse they do!what happened to namechange's family is terrible and not at all right.
People say theres only a small amount of people who are wrongly accused, but that doesnt make that right either.they matter to other people.
People who are wrongly accused are also victims.
They also matter.
I agree it is a no win situation.

FloraFox

Some people see blanket victim anonymity in rape cases as relevant because it immediately puts a legal imbalance in place - the law (rightly) protects the victim from having their life ripped to pieces in the press and their ordeal made public (ought to be a ban on accused verbally identifying the accuser before and after the trial as well imo), yet leaves the accused wide open.

I don't think victim anonymity is relevant though, I just don't think it's right that a person who is innocent (until proven otherwise) or has been acquitted is left vulnerable to the types of abusive behaviour which often follow a rape/sex crime allegation (and worse, their family is also vulnerable).

^accuser is an inaccurate word there, should have been victim.

I am not speaking for people to feel sorry for me - I just want people to know what it is really like for victims and families in our situation.

Relying on the evidence before the jury is like trying to catch all the seeds in a dandelion head.

I was and still am genuinely and completely shocked. I have always been a fine upstanding citizen, I do not have even a pirated CD in my house, I believed, I believed in the government, in SS, in the police, I believed if something bad happened to us, that there would be people to help us, there would be justice.

We are facing losing our home, if my husband loses his job, I do no know what we will do - 25 years of loyal service.

Instead of help and justince there has been a tsunami of bad things, that just keeps rolling.

And I wish I could say - its just us, we have had it worse, but we haven't my story is typical, absolutely typical of what really happens.

People need to know how bad things are - or they will never change.

but thats the point Andro - they aren't its an urban myth.

Namechange - my best friend is going through what you've been thriugh now . I know exactly what you're saying is true - and not just some anomaly of the justice system. It sucks. Hugs to you.

Pan it's a bit rich for you to call NiceTabard's posts specious after demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge about how multiple crimes are tried.

Would you like to answer my question about anonymity?

Andro there is no legal imbalance. The trial takes place in the courtroom. The accused knows the identity of the victim witness. It is only the press (and now users of social media) who are prevented from publishing it.

See namechange's posts regarding victims' lives being torn to shreds.

Sabrina

And neither are yours. If the public didn't care then there wouldn't have been huge public outcry following Jimmy Saville and the continued investigations.

I'm in favour of anonymity for the same reason I don't want the death penalty. It's likely that there aren't many wrongly accused criminals, relative to successfully charged ones but IMHO the risk is too great.

Again though, we simply have different POVs and from the post on here it would seem that there are roughly equal differences of opinion. No one is right or wrong here so let's just leave it at that as its nearly 1:00am and I'm going to bed anyway .

if society genuinely cares about rape victims then why do 94% of rapists walk free? Lack of forensic evidence, one person's word against another, few rapists are dumb enough to rape in front of witnesses, many rapes are not violent to the point of leaving obvious injuries, lack of understanding about consent/ability to consent/at what point a person loses the capacity to consent.

Why are victims still treated so badly? Lack of understanding, an adversarial system, poor training in the psychological/behavioural impact of rape.

Wy are you so in favour of anonymity for the accused -even though the facts show that naming the accused is more likely to gain corroborating accounts leading to convictions? I'm uneasy about the impact on those who are innocent or not guilty, more than that I'm uneasy about the impact on their families.

FloraFox - I don't believe it to be an imbalance as such, my reasons for supporting anonymity are not related to that. I was only saying what I have heard others say to me on the matter. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Flora - I know how the 'system' works, and how multiple cases are tried thank you, and am fully aware of the nature of corroboration. The 'speciousness' statement is accurate, as is the MRA rubbish being thrown as a blanket to muffle dissenting options.