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?

Absolutely agree. Why is this only being applied to sexual offences? Doesn't being accused of murder affect your reputation as much as being accused of rape?

The worrying thing is this proposal ignores history, men accused of rape use to have anonymity but it was found to interfere in the process of justice so much that anonymity for suspects was removed in 1988. If you can't reveal their identity you can't put out requests for sighting if someone is on the run, you can't ask for witnesses (since rape is a repeat offence if other victims know about a case they can come forward to provide more evidence making it more likely to secure a conviction), you can't do any of the standard investigation that can be carried out for all other crimes.

So why is this being introduced? There is no evidence to show there are more false allegations for rape than any other crime, in fact the prosecutions for false allegations suggest there are far fewer for rape than other crimes. This is going to make it harder to gather the evidence necessary to prosecute a case and so the convictions for rape will go down, not because there is less rape but because more and more rapists are getting away with it. And we know most of them already get away with it. This is not good for women (the main victims of rape, sexual assault and domestic violence) but very very good for violent men.

Tondelayo my best mate was falsely accused of rape. It killed him.

Innocent until proven guilty, and if you're seriously comparing fraud crime to sexual then... What?!

Innocent people are killed because they were wrongly accused of a sex crime. Innocent people kill themselves after facing the stigma. The general public are quick to judge but find it very hard to let go even if someone has been proven guilty.

yabu
it is horrid that people are tried by media these days

I agree that more cases should have media reporting restrictions applied to prevent subjudice especially because of social media.

bluelamp this seems to be in response to Paul Gambaccini's case, which is disgusting.

The police seem to have used the system to keep his name in the public eye, waiting for someone to accuse him... no-one did!

I do think that both parties should have anonimity until the trial is over. The media/social media witch hunt following an arrest muddies the waters and risks jeopardising the trial.

My neighbour had a BBQ, 17 year old son invited some friends and a couple of their female friends went too.
It was a very pleasant evening, parents,a couple of neighbours and teenagers.
One girl drank a bit too much, mum put her to bed in the spare room.
All went home the next morning, everyone happy.
Police turned up at the house later that day and son is accused of raping the girl early in the evening.

He spent the night in the cells, was arrested.
He hadn't touched the girl at all.

The case was dropped, but in the meantime he stopped going to school, didn't take his A levels, didn't go to uni.
He got a manual job in a factory.

The girl had made previous allegations of rape against others in the past.
Obviously a girl who needed help.

Thatsnot... that would be impossible. How could evidence be gathered? Sometimes anonymity cannot be guaranteed... hence the caveats the committee have included in the proposal!

She obviously was a girl who needed help, pax, and she committed a crime. Making malicious allegations carries quite a hard sentence. In the case you describe, the boy was a victim. This doesn't in any way support the idea that rapists need protection.

It's easy to say mud doesn't stick when you haven't seen family members go through absolute hell because of unfounded accusations. When you see a loved one lose everything because of an arrest for a sex crime where the judge stated in his ruling that he was astounded that the CPS brought it to court in the first place, you might think differently.

The only bit i disagree with is that it isn't for all crimes.

Retaining anonymity until a person is charged or the police have a need to name the individual - Will impede evidence gathering.

To whom do the police need to prove their need to name the individual? At what point? After they've compiled plenty of evidence, despite not being able to identify the accused or request corroboration?

But, Steve, that's why malicious allegations are criminal. In such cases, the accused is a victim.

As it goes, such cases are rare. A few screwed-up people commit a certain type of crime. How can this mean people should be protected when committing the opposite crime (which is far more common)?

I've got mixed feelings. On the one hand, there have been some high profile cases later of serial abusers where victims have only come forward once they realised that they weren't the only victim.

But I do worry about mud sticking and innocent people being victimised for years afterwards, because of the gut instinct that "there's no smoke without fire".

You are not seeing it from both sides Gallic... the law has to.

The police will need to prove their need to name in the same way as they need to request other permissions... it is a procedure, intended to act as a check on the officers involved, lots of them exist, they are often just a matter of a review with a senior officer.

SteveBruce hopefully it will be for all crimes, eventually. If implemented well it should provide rigorous controls of social media and trail by media. It may even help change public perceptions of the police for the better!

YABVU. There is no way I'd sign that petition, in fact I might now go and have a look for one that supports anonymity until conviction.

I do not understand a mentality that thinks accusers deserve anonymity but that the accused doesn't.

those who will not sign

do you feel it was right to keep Jimmy Savile's questioning and Cyril Smith's arrest quiet neither were charged but may well have been if others got the chance to report them and felt safe enough to report them

certainly with JS he would have served the rest of his life but sadly he got to live the rest of his life free

I don't think names should be released for any crime.
Incorrect accusations and arrests wreck lives.

This doesn't in any way support the idea that rapists need protection.

Rapists don't GET 'protection' - they are not a convicted 'rapist' until they have been found guilty you know. If they are found Not Guilty then no-one has the right to call them a rapist.

I won't sign a petition on this. Can see both sides but on the whole don't agree with you as innocent people's lives can be ruined.

Whereas being assaulted, raped and abused is...

Does malicious reporting of a rape count as a sex crime? Because those who know someone who was affected by one of those millions of false rape claims, how would you feel if the person maliciously crying rape escaped justice due to not being named? Perhaps she had dne it before but never got as far as the police?

The police themselves have said that anoymity will prevent them investigating crimes properly. Don't their views matter in this?

I won't sign. I've seen first hand the damage a malicious allegation combined with police and CPS incompetence can cause.

fecklessfairy is right, until someone is convicted, they're innocent.

No, what the police mean mariamin is that they will have to have more than one trial, i.e. they take the first case and take it to court, it is then reported and more people come forward, so they have to have a second case in court. What's the problem with that?