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?

I agree pilchard and TM said abuse was running through society.

To say that men have to be named 'just in case', it's equally preposterous to me. I fail to see how that makes a terrible situation any better.

I'm not trying to get innocent people named and shamed.

I am pointing out that this recommendation comes at a very suspicious time, given the investigations that are ramping up.

I am pointing out that singling out rape for this treatment only rather than applying it for all crimes, gives credence to the myth that women and children commonly lie about being victims of sex offences.

People who feel that all suspects should be anonymous to whatever point, their stance has some logic to it, and given our media I can understand their position.

People who feel that only rape should be treated this way, I cannot understand at all. The idea that rape is a singularly repulsive crime, is nonsense. There are loads of crimes that repulse the public.

Do you know what really bothers me? That some of the illogical thinking people on here are actually and truly eligible for Jury Service. Frightening that they can deduce that if Y didn't happen then X must have

Why is it illogical to say that if anonymity for people accused of crimes but not convicted is reasonable, then it should apply to all crimes?

It is highly illogical to single out some crimes for this treatment and not others.

Interesting language itsnotmeitsyou. "Witchhunt" eh?

I disagree with you. These men in power from Jimmy Saville to Stuart Hall to Cyril Smith all got away with it too long. Some have escaped justice via death - some have been convicted (I fear it's the tip of the iceberg) others are still in power. It needs to be blown open - secrecy has ruled too long. It's not a witchhunt - it's a search for justice where secrecy and cover ups have prevailed.

Your post about your dad/brother/cousin being accused is plain and simple fear-mongering, we have already said, men are more likely to be the victim of rape by another man, than to be falsely accused of it. False accusation are very rare, according to the cps. Rape and sexual abuse victims that don't get justice - not so rare. Cases that would be greatly helped in getting to court by having corroborating victims come forward - enough to make a difference.

Sorry I've this had bedn said, I cannot rtt it's just upsets me so much.

I think a verdict of not proven should be introduced. It can be devastating for victims to hear "not guilty" therefore innocent.

Pilchard, I agree. All accused of a crime should not be named unless found guilty, that is only fair. There are many crimes that repulse people, very few had ongoing effects years after the verdict, especially a not guilty one. I believe only a murder of a child has equally or greater consequences in the wider community. It's awful that we even have to argue about such things in this day an age, however there has to be some belief in innocence somewhere in the system, otherwise what is the point at all?

Cases that would be greatly helped in getting to court by having corroborating victims come forward - enough to make a difference.

Still doesn't mean that there is enough evidence to get a guilty verdict - if there isn't enough evidence then no matter how many people come forward and say it happened to them won't change it whoops

I think it should be anonymity until charged, unless a court agrees that someone should be named. If there is a good reason, it should be the courts that decide, not some policeman who leaks the information to the press.

Glad we agree.

truth be told I would prefer a system where the media would be held accountable for any and I mean ANY vigilatatie attacks or loss of jobs/ fiancal loss that happen upon people named in new papers about people accussed of rape and murder its bloody disgusting the trail by press that people suffer is disgusting. (oh and on any employer that fired and employee just because they were accused) because if the person is innocent why should they be punished by losing their jobs before they are even seen a court room.......

as damn it we live with a justice system of innocent until proven guilty otherwise why have a judgical system might as well just have kangaroo courts like seen in the old USSR and nazi germany or any number of depost states in the world

(that poor teacher that was accused of murdering that reporter was dragged through the mud just because he was a little ectric comes to mind he damn well should of had a much larger settlement then he recivered (it was only a fraction of what he should of gotten but not allowed to say what the settlement actully was) lets just say i have seen people get far more money from a couple of broken bones than what he recivered in compensation.

And if the newspapers/ anyone reporting about said crimes were held accountable there would be far less vigilistism / horrid and judgemental/ partial true gossip stories in the press which in turn would signifcantly reduce vigilistism without actully changing the justice system making people accussed of sex crimes/murder different than to petty theives

and before anyone brings in the bloody awlful contracts of bringing profession into disrupbute crap should not come before the trial and found guilty etc should also be invaild in these cases but sadly i doubt anything like what i would like see happen

Feckless - I know you keep on with this, but you know it's recognised in law. Corroboration can be a powerful tool in bringing offenders to justice. If a number of independent victims, come forward with the same story about one person, that is powerful evidence. No it doesn't guarantee a guilty verdict, but what does?

Dame Helena Kennedy speaks about it a lot in her legal books, and is firmly against anonymity for the accused.

The Labour peer Helena Kennedy QC said the naming of accused rapists helped police investigations. "People who commit crimes like rape and serious crimes of violence, particularly sexually motivated ones, are often repeat offenders," she said. "What the police will tell you is that very often the exposure of the identity of the accused brings forward other people.

"We really haven't got it right on rape yet and this would be one of the ways in which we would undermine it further."

^ Dame Helena Kennedy on the subject back in 2010.

but the power of corroboration should only work if the bloody press are not allowed to post the vast majority of the details in news stories as it can allow people to take the printed facts and state that they also suffered similear the press should only report name, time/date and rough location and of course picture of accused no details of the crime its self etc that could be used to produce false corroboration

sorry on phone and with this in mind the power of corroboration is stronger as without the majority of the facts in the public domin it provides a much stronger case for corroboration

The whole tenet of our Justice System is innocent until proven guilty. Someone accused of a sex crime and then found innocent by law is NEVER innocent again in the eyes of neighbours, villages and the press. Never. To be accused is somehow to be guilty of 'something'. This should never be allowed to happen.

sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in cases like Jimmy saville, or more recenlty cliff richard, HOW do the police, let other potential victims KNOW that this person is on their radar and being investigated?

Yes feckless, but the justice system is already balanced wildly in favour of perpetrators.

Or is it balanced in favour of 'not enough evidence, no conviction' Buds?

I do not know a single woman who has not been 'sexually' abused in some way myself included. These are just a few examples

Groping
Attempted rape
Flashing
Obscene phone calls.

etc etc.

The attempted rape was by a neighbour I knew well. Never reported it but I heard it was 'his thing' years later. How many did he 'succeed' with?

Flashing - I was alone on all the occasions.

Being groped on a crowded tube train when a guy rubbed his erect and naked penis up against me. I was 20 and I wish I had had the courage to scream at the top of my voice 'Fuck off you disgusting fucking pervert' and pointed him out to everyone. I didn't but I was NOT to blame.

I feel ashamed of my 'complicity' in their disgusting acts and applaude everyone with the nerve to come forward but again I was NOT to blame.

A lone goose honking is a lonely place to be and anything that makes it easier for a victim of serious sexual abuse to stand up and tell their story needs all the support they can get.

I still feel the need to reach for the phone and tell the police about the 'neighbour' and that was 25 years ago when I was about 20. Who else would come forward?

Do I put his name out there?

but the power of corroboration should only work if the bloody press are not allowed to post the vast majority of the details in news stories as it can allow people to take the printed facts and state that they also suffered similear

They don't. They sure did a job on Christopher Jeffries,and that was awful, and he deserved every penny of compensation he earned. But they do not print the details of sexual crimes before a trial- because that could prejudice the case. It really is a horrible myth that scores of women are simply jumping on the bandwagon making up stories of historical sexual assaults from what's been reported in the paper.

The details of the cases only come out in the trial.

Sorry for going off on a tangent - it is just that the same arguments are being used here by some people as are used by family members that the victims are all liars and attention seekers and that is just not so. Back to the point anything which inhibits a free press to publish something about a criminal act that is ultimately factually correct and in the public interest is dangerous. The CPS is only human and I don't want to rapes and sexual assault given special treatment so that they can be covered up like they were back in the 1970s and 80s. It took a television documentary about someone who was never charged with anything whilst he was alive to start this rolling. If anonymity is ever given to suspects of any crime there must be something in place to enable the press to appeal. The press must also be allowed to publish that they are making such a move. Personally I think that I would prefer that this proposal was thrown out.

Or is it balanced in favour of 'not enough evidence, no conviction' Buds?

How do you get evidence?

How was evidence collated in all the recent scandals?