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?

try getting any job requiring safeguarding if you've been publicly accused.

Considering what a tiny practically non existent percentage of rape allegations are fake... do you think that's really a baad thing? Not getting convicted doesn't mean innocent, it means, very difficult to prove when you only have two people's accounts and the burden of proof doesn't fall on the accused.

We are not debating our justice system for those 'arrested/charged' - we are debating it for those accused (there is a difference whoops).

I can understand people arguing anonymity for all crimes across the board. But to single out sex crimes really highlights how much people buy into the myth that victims of sex crimes are not to be believed.

With the Westminster pedophile ring bubbling to the service I fear this is a callous move by the establishment to protect their own.

whoops you might want to read what has been proposed instead of relying on the impassioned rhetoric here.

It is anonymity prior to charge/arrest that is being mooted...

But as you have already signed...

Not getting convicted doesn't mean innocent, it means, very difficult to prove

Somebody's going to have a pop at this, so I'll try and pre-empt it. Not being convicted means "still innocent in law". It doesn't mean the accused literally didn't do the crime - they are two different things. After a 'not guilty' verdict, the only people who know the truth of the matter are the accused and the accuser.

If the law believes in evidence that the accuser was lying, they will be charged with a crime. Let's not forget that in our rush to insist women & children routinely lie about sex crimes.

feckless. They are not named in any circumstances other than anyone accused of any other crime is named. We have an open justice system and it should stay that way.

And I agree that it's not hard to imagine why those in power are starting to get antsy about this again

I would happily support a ban on naming people arrested for any crime until they have been charged. The issue being discussed is sex crimes so that is the focus here but I think everyone accused of anything should gave the right to anonymity until they have been charged.
The media is like a bunch of pariahs who can easily make people subject to vigilantism because they have been arrested for something even if there is zero evidence to bring any charges.
By all means once the CPS is satisfied that we have enough evidence to charge somebody then go ahead and name and shame.

I've signed. And exactly what PomBears and Tondelayo said.

Nomama - I agree with Jill Saward.

And what happens when the CPS would have enough to prosecute if other victims had felt able to come forward once the name was known?

If our justice system is so open, and that's a good thing that we want to keep, then why do we protect the identity of accusers?

I agree SuperExcited.

And what happens when the CPS would have enough to prosecute if other victims had felt able to come forward once the name was known?

All that alters is the likelihood, not the evidence. If they haven't got the evidence to prosecute the first crime, then they cannot rely on subsequent crimes to make the first one stick, can they? A person either committed the first crime, or not - subsequent crimes does not confirm it.

If our justice system is so open, and that's a good thing that we want to keep, then why do we protect the identity of accusers?

Yes, I thought we'd get to that in the end. Because this is what it's all about, isn't it? Why does the accuser get anonymity, not the accused?

The answer is that anonymity was introduced for the complainant to try and improve the low reporting rate for sexual offences, to encourage more women to report the crimes against them - only about 1/10 rape victims ever even report it.

It's also worth noting that when a case is still at the investigation stage, other victims coming forward can be very important in convicting rapists.

Given that the majority of rapes are committed by a tiny minority of men, wouldn't giving suspected rapists anonymity only help them stay uncaught?

And what happens when the CPS would have enough to prosecute if other victims had felt able to come forward once the name was known?

I think we need to do a lot of work on supporting victims to come forward regardless of whether a person has been accused of a crime against another person. I think if victims could feel safe and secure in coming forward and be properly supported then we might not need to rely so heavily on media sensationalism to identify victims.
Work needs to be done on helping people recognise when they have been the victim of a crime and we need to spend money on developing compassionate support services which can help victims to report crimes.
Naming people prior to being charged is not the answer.

What happened to the woman who accused that innocent actor from coronation street of a sex crime?

Has she been named and convicted?

I'm not trying to be odd here, just wondering if people who make false accusations are dealt with properly.

Rape is often not a one-off crime, and rapists rely on the fact that victims are likely to stay silent, or that if they speak up they are unlikely to be believed. Anonymity for the accused in sex crimes would support the rapist in that.

If our justice system is so open, and that's a good thing that we want to keep, then why do we protect the identity of accusers

Well because the stigma of being raped has kept women from reporting in the past.

And while that is still an issue I'd say because a woman WILL be stalked and harassed for accusing. Thank you Twitter for turning women in to barely moving targets for the abuse of sad men who live in their parents' basements.

All that alters is the likelihood, not the evidence. If they haven't got the evidence to prosecute the first crime, then they cannot rely on subsequent crimes to make the first one stick, can they? A person either committed the first crime, or not - subsequent crimes does not confirm it.

Well, there you are. You just said yourself that it affects the likelihood the defendant is guilty, and "enough to prosecute" is shorthand for ^have we got a hope in hell of convincing a jury that our suspect did it?" So, yes, the testimony of other victims is definitely relevant.

Also, ptolemy, a rape case is not the complainant vs the accused, it is the crown vs the accused.The victim does not have a lawyer working for her, she is purely a prosecution witness.

The accused, on the other hand, has a lawyer or barrister working for him, and the weight of the law on his side which states that he is innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

A complainant loses her right to anonymity if her complaint is malicious.

I think we need to do a lot of work on supporting victims to come forward regardless of whether a person has been accused of a crime against another person. I think if victims could feel safe and secure in coming forward and be properly supported then we might not need to rely so heavily on media sensationalism to identify victims.

Yes, Yes, YES.

and rapists rely on the fact that victims are likely to stay silent

THIS ^^ is the real problem.