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?

*practise

I get the impression what a lot of you actually mean is "if the accused is a celebrity or politician, ie interesting, then the media can go to town, otherwise it doesn't matter because the media isn't interested in every day provincial tales of rape or child abuse so nothing will change"

It seems to me that whereas the options should be either:
-each newspaper publishes a list every week of people who have been accused of sex crimes and wait to see if anyone comes forward
-newspapers don't mention any accusations of sex crimes until the accused has been charged regardless of fame

Not this weird grey area.

Well you can get that impression all you like but it's not true.

My beef with this is that they are singling out one crime, which it is not worse to be accused of than other crimes, and that allowing this gives credence to the incorrect but prevalent idea that reports of sex offences are often a pack of lies.

I have said throughout that given what utter scum our press are, I can see the arguments for anonymity up to various points in the process, but only if applied to all crimes.

That'd be fine by me. I'd much prefer anonymity for all crimes

The anonymity was dropped in the first place because the police were unable to release names of suspects to the public when they absconded.

There are pros and cons to all of this but just for people suspected of sex offences? No.

If you are the victim or the accused?

They weren't allowed to release the names of people suspected of sex offenders who had absconded, or identify them, to alert the public or get public assistance in looking for them.

At least I've read that in a few reports and pieces about this, but not been able to find a link to the original case.

Suspects fair enough. This information shouldn't be communicated to the parents until the teacher is charged though IMO. I was working from the POV of the victim.

If a suspected rapist legs it then surely he is guilty of breaking bail or impeding investigation or something which means the police should be able to release photos?

Fickle no I don't think it works like that, no. You aren't bailed until further down the line.

Certainly the police asked for it to be removed in the 80s as it was hampering them.

Either way, I can see arguments, the problem here is why only sex offences.

If the police have a warrant for arrest, that person is a suspect. The police clearly have a strong case against them, as they've been issued a warrant.

People quite often go missing when they are wanted for arrest.
Here's a recent list of ten who are thought to be hiding in Spain.

How happy would you be if the killers & drug traffickers were included in 'Wanted' lists - but NOT rapists & child abusers? Because that's what this will mean.

Gallic the police do not need a warrant to arrest someone

The idea that the police must have a strong case against someone because they have arrested (in relation to any offence) them is laughable. And I say that as someone who works in the CJS.

Excuse my mistake! Perhaps the warrant mentioned was for extradition? I just googled for a recent 'wanted' list to make my point, and that was the first result.

My technical error doesn't alter the point, though. The point is that police can't put out alerts for suspects if they're not allowed to identify them.

I rather think this would be dangerous if all suspects were granted anonymity, and barking if only sex-crime suspects were secret.