Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

People accused of sex crimes shouldn't be given anonymity

538 replies

GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 12:17

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?

OP posts:
SpinDoctorOfAethelred · 22/03/2015 18:13

gallic I've been having a very confusing dialogue with Ptolemy,ever since I pointed out that a woman could have been raped (with all the attendant trauma of that,although I didn't specify that), and convince a jury she had been, and the jury might still find the defendant not guilty, after deciding there was reasonable chance he hadn't realised he was raping her.

Nightowlagain · 22/03/2015 18:14

Signed.

I haven't read the whole thread but just wanted to throw in my tuppence worth that affording people accused of sexual crimes anonymity simply reinforces the idea that they are more likely to be falsely accused than of other types of crime. IE perpetuating the idea that women (and some men obviously) are very likely to be lying when they say they have been assaulted.

Considering the climate of disbelief surrounding race victims and the shockingly low conviction rate, I really don't think this is the right direction to be going. I realise that being falsely accused will be a very stressful and awful experience, but I'm more concerned with the experiences of the thousands of women who are raped and never get any kind of justice. The numbers of falsely accused men pale in comparison.

Original poster
GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 18:14

Aha, thanks Spin! Dialogue with Ptolemy can be confusing.

OP posts:
NellysKnickers · 22/03/2015 18:16

I won't sign. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

SpinDoctorOfAethelred · 22/03/2015 18:20

Especially as making rape a strict/absolute liability offence would not only see Evans convicted,but also McDonald.

If I or anyone on FWR suggested making rape a strict liabiity offence, people would shout themselves hoarse with cries of "man-hater". Grin

scallopsrgreat · 22/03/2015 18:24

Why would this petition (or maintaining what we have now) take away 'innocent until proven guilty' Confused. If that were the case then every crime would have the same problem and our justice system would fall down around our ears.

Strange how innocent until proven guilty never applis to the victim of rape either...

whoopsbunny · 22/03/2015 18:30

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

Recorded figures for male against female rape for 2013:

15,670 crimes recorded by the police.

Out of which:

3,850 'detections'.
2,910 got to court.
1,070 resulted in convictions.

Which means that only 6% of recorded rapes in 2013, got a conviction.

The actual number of rapes over the year (based on home office crime data) is estimated to be in the region 78,000. That is not many rapists banged up for their crimes, even taking rapists of multiple victims into account.

So, no, I'm afraid that if you think that you can say you were raped, the police rush round and arrest someone , and then prison is a forgone conclusion, you are very sadly mistaken.

Jessica2point0 · 22/03/2015 18:38

1070 convictions out of 78000 rapes. Less than 2% of rapes result in conviction.

I am far more worried about rapists wandering the streets than I am about false accusations.

Original poster
GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 18:44

Yep, whoops, and that's of recorded allegations. A third of reported rapes aren't even recorded.

Nelly, we are all innocent until proven guilty. And we can all be named if we're accused of a crime.

The petition is to keep things as they are.

OP posts:
maninawomansworld · 22/03/2015 18:50

Sorry YABVU! I know someone who was accused of rape and it destroyed him. It later came out that the woman (his ex from a long time back) was trying to get back at him for something and had made the accusation maliciously.
Charges were never brought but in our small rural community he was known by some (slightly tongue in cheek - but very unkindly) as 'the rapist' for several years!
Personally I think anyone accused of any crime whatsoever should be given anonymity until it goes to court.

maninawomansworld · 22/03/2015 18:51

oh .. and I know he didn't do it because I was his alibi. We were up a mountain shooting deer that day, miles from anywhere.

Jessica2point0 · 22/03/2015 18:53

"Innocent til proven guilty" is a load of bollocks too. Fine for legal purposes, crap for real life.

If we take it literally and apply it to one possible scenario:
A man is found "not guilty" of raping a woman who claims to have clearly and vehemently said 'no'. That means he didn't rape anyone.

His accuser is not even charged with making a malicious allegation. That means she was raped by the man.
Both can't be true.

Try another scenario:
A man pleads "not guilty" to rape. He is subsequently found "guilty". Does that mean that he didn't actually rape anyone right up until the point he was found guilty?

In real life, he committed rape, and was guilty from the moment he committed the crime.

whoopsbunny · 22/03/2015 19:11

'Innocent until proven guilty' is something that get's trotted out on here - it's only in the eyes of the law. You, me the postman, a jury can all make a judgement on what we think without jeopardising this concept.

A rapist either did or didn't rape his victim. He's still a rapist, even if he's never even arrested for it. He's just not a convicted rapist. But considering people also have trouble believing even convicted rapists are actually guilty, what hope is there? Hmm

Original poster
GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 19:14

I think anyone accused of any crime whatsoever should be given anonymity until it goes to court.

That's a whole different issue, though, as it isn't on the table.

OP posts:
TheFecklessFairy · 22/03/2015 19:14

His accuser is not even charged with making a malicious allegation. That means she was raped by the man.

NO it does not mean she was raped. It means there is not enough evidence to prove either way FFS.

Lilybensmum1 · 22/03/2015 19:16

Won't be signing. This can ruin people's lives when wrongly accused, if found guilty then fine share this information otherwise, should be police and CPS only. I know innocent people's lives that have been ruined like this.

It does not detract from the seriousness of the offence when people are guilty. Innocent until proven guilty but, not always the case in these situations.

Original poster
GallicGarlic · 22/03/2015 19:22

It's bloody amazing. Only 3% of rape allegations are false, and yet they all have friends on Mumsnet!

OP posts:
slugseatlettuce · 22/03/2015 19:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

PilchardPrincess · 22/03/2015 19:24

Yet another person advocating for total anonymity up until conviction, for sex crimes predominantly committed against women and children, only.

Under this rule some of the recent sex offenders jailed would still be walking free. But I guess some people think that is a reasonable price to pay.

It all comes back to judgements people make on the value of different types of people and their lives, really.

PilchardPrincess · 22/03/2015 19:25

That's correct slug but in the eyes of some that is a price very well worth paying.

PilchardPrincess · 22/03/2015 19:27

Because of the value thing. The lives of women and children are simply not as important. If 100 children are raped to save one man being falsely accused (not charged, prosecuted or convicted) then that is a worthy, appropriate and actually really positive outcome.

PilchardPrincess · 22/03/2015 19:29

Which is where this is from at the moment. Some very very powerful men are going to be investigated, of the rape and sexual abuse of children. Revealing their names might well lead to further victims coming forward and thus more chance of prosecution etc. But, the men are very very important. So reducing the changes of securing convictions against them, is seen as a worthwhile price to pay.

TheFecklessFairy · 22/03/2015 19:30

Because of the value thing. The lives of women and children are simply not as important. If 100 children are raped to save one man being falsely accused (not charged, prosecuted or convicted) then that is a worthy, appropriate and actually really positive outcome.

Oh really, really, come on now - that is the most totally ridiculous statement in this whole thread!! Talk about OTT.

Jessica2point0 · 22/03/2015 19:32

feckless, why did you pick out the statement referring to the woman as innocent?

You are, however, helpfully illustrating my point. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't work for real life, and people only apply it to the accused (usually men), not the accuser (usually women).

PilchardPrincess · 22/03/2015 19:33

What do you think has triggered this recommendation from MPs? Just as some MPs and other powerful people are about to be investigated for the systematic rape and abuse of children?

Look at Saville, and his cronies. They got away with it for years because they were powerful and important and their victims were not.

Please don't pretend this doesn't go on when it's in our papers all the time.