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?

OP the problem is, as another poster or two have mentioned, is the gut reaction of 'no smoke without Fire'.

The other issue is the mental state of the falsely accused - I'm talking here about a man who has lost his job, been removed from a board he'd sat on for years, had pubs go silent when he's walked in, been shunned at community events. He now gets palpitations even thinking of going to a public gathering because of the reactions of the very small community he lives in. Someone who is considering moving from the home and village he's lived in for 40 years.

Whether she gets found guilty of falsely accusing him does not matter. He's a shadow of the man he used to be. Never mind the cost of the whole debacle, of which he can claim back only around 10% of a very large sum of money.

This is why I think the anonymity should applied to all accused people. There shouldn't be a distinction for sex offenders, but surely, again as a previous poster has said, one ruined life is too many.

I'd say because a woman WILL be stalked and harassed for accusing.

What, just like men who will be stalked and harassed for being accused you mean?

Thank you to those who answered about why accusers get anonymity, I can see that makes sense. But after a case has been closed with no conviction, shouldn't that right to anonymity be removed? How can if be fair that in a case that has basically reached stalemate with neither guilt or innocence being provable, that one party has their identity protected and one doesn't. That just seems wrong to me.

ptolemy, I really don't think the accuser of the corrie actor you are talking about made it up maliciously. I also think she was a child.

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

So what happens when no verdict can be found in a case then? Do the police automatically start investigating to see if the the complaint was malicious, or do they just let the whole thing go?

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

Without getting into the specifics of any actors on Corrie, are you aware that it is possible for it to be true that a woman was raped and that her rapist wasn't guilty of rape? A rape conviction necessitates that
a) the jury are convinced the victim was raped
b) the jury are convinced that the defendant realised the victim wasn't consenting.

A not guilty verdict does not mean the accuser was lying.

But to answer your question, this is what happens to a woman who falsely accuses a man of rape.

Given the rubbish conviction rates, I'm amazed that anyone would have so much faith in the system as to believe a dropped case or not guilty verdict would automatically mean the accuser was lying and should be named. If an accusation has been found to be malicious, then they are named and prosecuted, usually receiving a lot more coverage than the thousands of rapes that occur every year. But if a victim has the prospect of being named if the case doesn't go well hanging over her, then it's likely that victims just wouldn't come forward any more, making it even easier to get away with rape than it already is.

I have only read to half way down page two, so apologies.

In the eyes of the law a rapist is not a rapist until they are convicted. We cannot pick and choose the parts of the law that suit us. We cannot change the law to be harsher when we feel like it. The law has to be balanced to protect the innocent, and in order to do that, criminals will have rights too. A rapist has just as much right to anonymity before conviction as a man who has been falsely accused, because otherwise the innocent are not protected. And that rule needs to work for ALL crimes no matter how heinous or emotional.

And it's that sort of wishy washyness that makes sex crimes different to other crimes, and why the accused should have their identity protected.

It is much harder to accuse someone you've never met of stealing your car than it is to claim you didn't consent after having sex with someone.

Ptolemy Are you talking about Bill Roache or Michael LeVell. In the LeVell case the person who made the accusation was a minor. It's actually not that hard to deduce who she is which is why her name was on twitter. her name was anon as a child under the children and young people's act

Whoops, that is what happened to one woman, it doesn't explain what usually happens.

Ptolemy Could you clarify what you find wishy-washy? That rape has an actus reus component and a mens rea component like many other crimes?

I won't sign it for the reasons given above.

I can see the other side as well though. I support anonymity for all crimes but could probably be easily swayed to the other side.

And I might get flamed for this, but I will be honest. If I hear about someone getting away with a crime my first thought is often that they were actually guilty but there wasn't just enough evidence to convict. I try not to think like that but that is my first thought and I am sure I am not alone. Mud does stick.

It is absolute nonsense that people accused of sex crimes are treated worse than people accused of other crimes. Clearly people accused of murder, terrorism, violent assaults on babies, conning elderly people out of money do not have their reputations unscathed

The real reason for this is that lots of people think women and children are malicious little liars who get kicks out of accusing innocent men of sex crimes for kicks. Of course this is an absolute myth, the rate of false reporting is similar to other crimes. Still, this idea that women and children are dirty liars just won't go away will it.

Handy for the people who want to bring this in just when the investigations into powerful people and paedophile rings is about to get underway for the people keen on transparency you don't get more transparent than that.

Personally with our media being the utter scum they are I can see the need to do something, but whatever needs to be done needs to be for all crimes else the only impact is that, in direct contravention to all the "lessons learnt" in Rotherham, with jimmy Saville, in various childrens' homes and etc etc a truly terrible long list, everyone in society and in authority and involved in investigating these crimes has it confirmed BY LAW that women and children are almost certainly lying when they report sex crimes.

The motivation of the politicians in this is clear. The motivation of some supporters can also be guessed at. But the others? No fucking clue.

Yes, it is ptolemy. There are huge emotions in force for a woman who has been raped. False accusations are rare because of this - the process of a woman getting justice for the crime of rape is hugely difficult - which is why so few women report in the first place, and why there are so so few false accusations. That's why she is given anonymity.

I can't see an argument why those accused of sexual crimes should be given anonymity, where those accused of any other crime are not.

Can't believe I'm still arguing this shit tbh.

I meant the older one, ken Barlow. I can't stand coronation street and didn't follow the stories, but I think it's incredibly unfair that either of those men were publicly accused.

It is a way of protecting abusers. Don't sign but then don't complain when your children are abused by someone who has been tried but acquitted because of lack of evidence but it was kept secret.

Oh I know 2 men locally who are widely known to have raped people (one reported to police one not) and the impact on them has been fuck all. In one case the local consensus was that the victim was definitely making it up (based on nothing more than the fact that he was "good bloke" and people don't like to believe that about "good blokes" do stuff like that) and both the men are married, children, good jobs etc etc etc.

Actually I know another one as well who is widely thought to have "taken advantage" of someone and no-one thinks much of it really.

The common response in this part of the world for non-stranger rapes is, well what surveys say repeatedly the public attitude is, oh she's probably making it up and/or oh she was asking for it and/or she probably just regrets it.

I mean when we have social workers FGS saying that children being abused are "child prostitutes" it doesn't really bode well for what the rest of society thinks does it.

I think there may well be men in power right now who are rather fearful of the historical sex abuse scandal, that's for sure. The last thing we need is more bloody secrecy.

I can't see an argument why those accused of sexual crimes should be given anonymity, where those accused of any other crime are not.

Other crimes rarely come down to one persons word against another. There tends to be evidence in other crimes, like bodily harm, or a car that's gone missing. That often doesn't happen in rape cases where it can all be about one small sentence that was either spoken or not spoken.

I knew (quite well) a man accused of rape who is now in prison for it. Nothing was reported anywhere until the first day of the trial - so I do think it's a bit of a myth that men's lives all around us are being ruined by nasty false allegations.

I mean this what I just wrote:

"The common response in this part of the world for non-stranger rapes is, well what surveys say repeatedly the public attitude is, oh she's probably making it up and/or oh she was asking for it and/or she probably just regrets it. "

Is why people think there shouldn't be anonimity, they don't see a lot of sex related crimes as actually crimes, they think the victim should bear some or all of the blame, they don't think "decent" men should be punished for "indiscretions" etc etc etc

The idea it's about anything else is a total whitewash. No-one really believes that being accused of raping an adult woman will reflect worse on a person than being accused of beating a baby to death, attempting to blow up the underground, or cannibalising a neighbour.

had pubs go silent when he's walked in, been shunned at community events.

Gutted. :(

Pilchard, that doesn't make sense. It is either widely known that the first person you are talking of has raped or it's widely assumed that he was falsely accused, surely it can't be both. And if he was innocent, then I hardly think it being 'widely known' that he has raped someone is fuck all.

What, just like men who will be stalked and harassed for being accused you mean?

No, I mean as inn they will have their adresses read out and they will get further rape threats. So no, not quite like that.

And those people have been accused and are statistically MUCH MORE likely to have actually done the crime than the woman is to have made the things up.

So yes, actually I do think rape victims deserve a bit of empathy. [anger] Why are you acting like should be treated as the accused?

That's what it fucking comes down to. It doesn't matter if the accuser has anonymity. They are not the same. They don't deserve the same treatment.