People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

[GallicGarlic]

I am positively astonished that, as they face sex crime allegations, MPs say sex crime suspects deserve anonymity.

This will mean no e-fit pictures of suspects, no CCTV releases, no calls for other victims to come forward. AIBU to think this is jolly convenient for serial perpetrators? And to ask you to sign a petition?

Ptolemy No, I can't quite work out what you find "wishy-washy". Hence the question. I have, however, pointed out that whatever you find wishy-washy is not specific to crimes of sexual violence. Crimes where it only has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that you did it are the exception, not the rule.

I suspect it's a lot more typical than the stranger in a dark alley with threats to kill.

Lweji what does your post about innocent people being sent to prison have to do with any of this?

Obviously most people would be pretty fucked off if they were falsely accused of assault and sent to prison but what has that to do with any of this?

Do you think most people found guilty of rape are innocent?

It refers specifically to the sentence I highlighted.

Happy to hear that, Edge :)

The understanding that I could go out tomorrow, naked and blind drunk and that still does not give a man a right to sleep with me.

You're right, Allby, it doesn't. And we do need to change our society so it understands this.

But there seems to be a widespread belief that women & children routinely 'tempt' men, who are helplessly forced into illegal sexual activity, then come over all Edwardian and cry rape afterwards. Replies on this thread show this is the main reason for wanting men accused of rape to be protected.

While our society is still anti-women in this regard (or, more accurately, favours men accused of sex crimes) it really doesn't help police or victims if we ratify this false belief by affording the protection.

Won't sign. Just imagine it is your son or DH who is wrong place, wrong time, mistaken ID, victim of a stalker etc, (and it does happen). That;s it life over. Mud sticks, job prospects over, problems with relationships - horrible. (It happened to someone I know at a place I worked).

Innocent until proved guilty. Not every woman is a saint/victim. Not every man is a rapist.

Imagine if it is my son who is raped. That's far worse. Far far worse.

I've signed the petition and am hiding this thread.

But mud sticks to people falsely accused of theft, drug dealing, corruption, etc.
It should be that all accused are protected, or none at all.

No, of course I wouldn't be happy about that Lweji. I would be the victim of a crime. I would, naturally, pursue my grievance.

Nobody should be the victim of a crime. But the fact that some people commit crimes which are not rape doesn't have any bearing on whether those accused of rape should be protected.

engeika - And what if it was your DS or DP accused correctly of raping a woman? Most rapists get away with it.

Just imagine your son is mistakenly accused of beating an elderly man for a couple of quid....

No concerns there?

Imagine if it is my son who is raped. That's far worse. Far far worse.

This :(

Replies on this thread also seem to favour making rape a strict or absolute liability offence, too.

Just imagine it is your son or DH who is wrong place, wrong time, mistaken ID, victim of a stalker etc, (and it does happen). That;s it life over. Mud sticks, job prospects over, problems with relationships - horrible. (It happened to someone I know at a place I worked).

All of that can happen to victims of rape too. It can affect their mental health, their relationships and their work/job prospects. Statistically your dh or son are more likely to be the victim of rape than falsely accused of it. So why play into the real abusers hands by giving them anonymity.

"False allegations are very rare" - Keir Starmer.

Let's not get hung up on them and give the real abusers another card to their deck - anonymity.

PilchardPrincess Sun 22-Mar-15 16:06:58

What Pilchard said. Nothing more and nothing less. The only reeason why in the case of sex crime only you would want to protect the potentially sex abuser is if you think that in most cases, they are NOT guilty.
Which means that the people who are pressing charges are actually NOT victims.
These people are in most cases women.
And it's very very hard to actually get a conviction.
The only result that we will get is even less rape conviction :(

And tbh, been at the wrong place, wrong time can happen for everything. A car crash, a burglery, someone been mugged or attacked in the street.
But no one screams that you really to protect the innocets in all these cases. So Why for sex crimes?? Who do people need more protection in that case?

Either, it's innocent until proven guilty fort all crimes or it's OK to give faces and names before hand. For all crimes. Not just SEX crimes. And not before a massive historical investigation for sex crimes commited by POLITICIANS.

Personal experience i wont sign guy gets accused by his own stepdaughter he gets arrested loses his job is on bail he has alibis for the times stated she was elsewhere he was elsewhere the police dont take ststements from anyone but him his wife and stepdaughter then the stepdaughter retracts her statement children's service accuse the mom of emotional abuse and claim she forced the retraction three kids on the child protection register she is fighting for the kids he fights to save his marriage he is living with his family because he cant return to the family home he has lost his wife kids and job everything he has to see his children under supervision and all this without being found guilty childrens services are disgraceful in there handling of this i saw the report they did on her she hadnt even spoken to the mum it was fabrication upon fabrication

While changes need to be made to our justice system throwing out names is not the way this guy lost it all and the mum still might

I'm disgusted. I truly hope no one on here's family member gets accused of sexual assault of any kind, only for the pitch fork mob turning up because their name is realised to the public. People don't forget, whatever the result of the court case. Your life will never be the same again. Communities have long memories. Innocent until proven guilty, don't petition to potential ruin innocent people's lives.

Either, it's innocent until proven guilty fort all crimes or it's OK to give faces and names before hand. For all crimes. Not just SEX crimes. And not before a massive historical investigation for sex crimes commited by POLITICIANS.

Yes. The timing is mighty suspicious. Almost unbelievably so, I'd say. I could scarce believe that a massive historical sex abuse scandal has been brewing and is about to hit the fan, and suddenly anonymity for the accused (for sex crime only - not murder, fraud, gbh, drunk/dangerous driving, or embezzlement, or terrorism) is top of the bill.

Knock me down with a feather.

I don't believe there is a widespread belief that women and children tempt men on this thread or in life in general. Perhaps because we come from different viewpoints on this we are reading it differently. The line you quoted from my post shows that. Being naked and drunk to most normal men would elict concern, a feeling of get this woman some help. It is only a very small minority who would think of and indeed chose to rape me.

I think most replies on this thread who oppose your views are actually more worried about false rape allegations and the effect they have on their victims than being "anti-women", if the attacker was found guilty then of course they should be named and punished. Rape is such a hideous crime, it's a crime against someones very soul whereas theft, corruption, assault whilst horrible don't have the same effect and often are much easier to prove. It is the very nature of a rape allegation that there is often little evidence. It is a difficult topic but if I showed up at the police station and named someone who assaulted me or stole from me with no evidence they will not be named in the media or arrested. If I show up after consensual sex and say I was raped that man has to be arrested, it has to be investigated and if that man is named in an effort to find other victims his life is ruined forever even if he did nothing wrong.

What Pilchard said. Nothing more and nothing less. The only reeason why in the case of sex crime only you would want to protect the potentially sex abuser is if you think that in most cases, they are NOT guilty.

That is a complete and utter load of bollocks.

I wont sign the petition for the same reason I am against the death penalty - the innocent must be protected.

I won't sign. I have spoken on MN before about someone I know who was falsely accused of rape. Thankfully they were able to prove categorically and beyond all reasonable doubt he didn't do it and the accuser was prosecuted but as far as most people were concerned he had to be guilty, no one would make something like that up etc. There are still morons who think there was no smoke without fire even after it was PROVED. But the damage was done. He was attacked. He lost his family. He turned to drink. He later killed himself.

Haverin, actually I agree with you. But I want EVERYONE to be protected not just people accused of sex crimes. Why only them??

If ONLY people accused of sex crime are to be protected, then it would infer that this is a special type of crime where people accused need more protection. Why is that?
Could it be because, as stats show, even when there is the start of an inquest, or even if it goes to tribunal, very few cases result in a conviction? So some people feel that it's necessary to protect these 'innocent' victims.
Well yes in a very very small percentage (that exist, I've actually met one man falsely accused), the men are actually innocent.
In the rest of the cases, there isn't enough evidence to convict them. Maybe because the system is already made in such a way that it protects them? Maybe because women are getting so little help and protection that they don't dare coming forward anyway? Maybe because cases like this aren't actually researched and dealt with appropraitely by the Police? Maybe because the assumption is that it's the woman's fault anyway.

Note that the victime isn't protected by that rule and that rape is as damaging if not more than being falsely accused. The fact a woman has been raped WILL stick like mud, sending amessage to all that she clearly had behave like a slut because who else is ever being raped?
The reality is that it's the way a lot of rape victime feel but somehow their reality doesn't have to be taken into account.

Reminder: In very recent study, 50% of girls between 13 and 18yo said they have been facing sexually inappropriate behaviour, including sexually touched when not wanted (that's a sexual assault) or raped.
That's a hell of a lot of women that aren't protected against how many 'potential' abusers taht need to be protected?

I want to know WHY some people are deemed to need a special treatment and not others.

SpinDoctor, I had to check what strict liability means, as I couldn't understand what you were boggling about. I still don't. Statutory rape's already strict liability, and for all other rapes there is the reasonable belief defence. I haven't seen anybody here arguing against that

(There are many lively discussions to be had on what constitutes reasonable belief, though, mainly with posters disputing what the CPS actually says on the matter.)

Was that what you meant, or have I misunderstood?

chicken fwiw, in principle, I think that NO NAMES should be given, for ANY crime.

But what i am even more against is a situation where for any crime BUT sex abuse, you can give a name.
That is EVEN worse both for the victims and for the convcited or potentially convicted.

And then, you have the attitude of SS. Something entirely different from giving names. Because I'm pretty sure that the ability of giving names to the public or not has no bearing with making the SS known that X is a potential abusers and other children need to be protectd (and I'm sure you will agree that these children NEED to be portected even if just in case).

Perhaps because we come from different viewpoints on this we are reading it differently. - Agreed. Thanks for taking the trouble to reply.

Being naked and drunk to most normal men would elict concern, a feeling of get this woman some help. It is only a very small minority who would think of and indeed chose to rape me. - Agreed again!

If I show up after consensual sex and say I was raped that man has to be arrested - Really??

I'm no expert, but I would have thought Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, the list goes on ... indicate nobody was arrested despite multiple allegations.

It can't be true

Just googled - my first result: "Up to a third of all rape allegations made to police in some parts of London were never recorded as crimes at all last year."

So, no. Your allegation isn't even taken seriously by the police in a high proportion of cases. Nobody's named. Nobody's even interviewed!