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?

Ah so there we have it.

It's not like other crimes because there's rarely any other evidence (not true anyway) and so as women and children can really easily make it all up (and obviously that's something they are prone to doing) it's not fair on those accused.

Neatly sidestepping the fact that most rapes are never reported, especially those with no other evidence as victims triage their own rapes and know fine well if it's their word against the man's they don't have a hope in hell so why report it. This fact is of course what makes it so likely that other victims will come forward who have not previously. but we can't have that now can we.

That often doesn't happen in rape cases where it can all be about one small sentence that was either spoken or not spoke

Ah, the "I'm not a rapist, I'm just a shit lover" defence. Could you clarify what you were saying was "wishy-washy"?

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.

But in any other crime the accuser is not given anonymity either are they? Isn't that part of the argument - that sexual crimes are either like other crimes or not and that if they are different in that the accuser is given anonymity, then the same should apply to the accused?

That is precisely why corroboration is so important in sex crimes - if other people come forward independently and report the same/similar crimes to the police, it is all the more powerful, more likely to get to court, more likely to get a conviction.

Although - rape more often than not has other evidence rather than just one person's word against another. There is often other witness evidence, medical evidence, cctv and so on. I have been prosecution witness in a rape trial where I was not a victim, for example.

"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 hmm for the people keen on transparency you don't get more transparent than that."

yes, the testimony of other victims is definitely relevant. -> This is why those accused should not get any more protection than other alleged criminals.

Steve, I am very sorry for the man you've described. He's been, apparently, the victim of a cruel crime.

What he's suffering is very, very similar to what many rape victims suffer. In both cases, their lives have been irreversibly harmed by a malicious act. It's also comparable to what my elderly mother suffered after being mugged. Crimes cause injury.

I don't see how this strengthens the argument for protecting a single class of accused.

Absolute rubbish pilchard and Id appreciate it if you didn't try and suggest that those of us who think they should have anomity are victim blamers.

The problem with your analogy is neither of those things happen as often as rape and accusations of rape.
And this isn't about either of those scenarios is it?

Ive seen people's lives get ruined because of false accusations. A woman I know quite well accused two men of raping her. Eventually her lies came to light and despite her being prosecuted for her lies people still wouldn't accept the men were innocent.

Poste too soon - I totally a agree with pilchard

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?

Of course rate victims should be treated with empathy, I don't think anyone's disputing that. I think they should be treated like the accused because until conviction, both of them are innocent.

We should either have a justice system that is based on innocent until proven guilty, or we should re write the whole thing.

"The problem with your analogy is neither of those things happen as often as rape and accusations of rape."

Surely you mean they don't happen as often as false accusations?

I am not sure that the fact that rape is a common crime is a good argument for protecting those accused of it

The only way that post works is if it is a fact that most men accused of rape are innocent. Which they aren't.

Also people beating babies to death and conning old people out of money are not uncommon, unfortunately.

That is precisely why corroboration is so important in sex crimes - if other people come forward independently and report the same/similar crimes to the police, it is all the more powerful, more likely to get to court, more likely to get a conviction. said whoops

No - if a rapist rapes twice or three times still does not make him guilty of the first rape if there is not enough evidence to support the first rape in the first place. It might make is more likely, but does not prove the first rape at all.

I also know someone who was accused and the case thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Between charge and trial he was beaten up by vigilante members of te public. It was fucking appalling and they were rightly arrested, charged and convicted. It doesn't change my opinion that anonymity is not appropriate, nor that the fact that MPs are calling for this yet again is highly suspicious.

Naming the accused doesn't prevent them being presumed innocent in a court of law, just as it doesn't in any other crime. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

And I don't see Ken Barlow being hounded out of life because of the accusations against him. In fact, what I see is people sticking up for convicted rapists like Ched Evans, and his victim being hounded out of her life.

On that basis many of the people convicted recently of rape / child abuse would still be free, fairy.

Sex offenders are often serial offenders. They are also often clever and choose victims who will find it hard to get complaints taken seriously. So one is often not enough to get a conviction, but when you have 3, or 5, or 10, or 20 people who have not interacted with each other and all have the same complaints about the same people, then you have a much better chance of conviction.

I see you are comfortable removing that, on the basis that if there isn't enough evidence to convict on one of them then they shouldn't be allowed to put multiple victims together.

This would have a huge impact on the convictions of sex crimes based as I say on the usual nature of the offenders and the victims they choose.

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

Which actor? there are 2 that I know of.

PomBearsAhoy

*Considering what a tiny practically non existent percentage of rape allegations are fake..."

Between 3 and 10% are false.

I see you are comfortable removing that, on the basis that if there isn't enough evidence to convict on one of them then they shouldn't be allowed to put multiple victims together.

I didn't say that Pilchard, did I? By all means put multiple victims together - it still does not prove anything unless there is hard evidence for each one.

I can be accused of theft many times, but unless you can prove it, it is all supposition isn't it?

As I said, it may make it more LIKELY, but it does not prove it.

rape inforgraphic from 2013

Basically a lot of people want to throw vast numbers of victims under the bus - even more than already happens - to protect a tiny number of men.

That's the long and short of it.

The only way that post works is if it is a fact that most men accused of rape are innocent. Which they aren't.

How do you know?

"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?"

Advocating for "one at a time" handling of sex offences, even though the police say this will hinder them in getting convictions.

Protecting the anomity of the accused is not throwing victims under a bus.

I am one of those 'victims' you speak about, that doesn't mean I think their faces should be plastered all over the news to allow the general public to be judge, jury and in some cases executioner.

Hey! All you people who knew a person who was falsely accused! You probably don't. You probably know someone who got off lightly for being a rapist.

You do know a rape victim though. Probably several

contortionist multiple vast amounts of statistics say that.

False reports of rape run at a similar level to false reports of other crimes.

Of course some people will prefer to take the statistic that only 6% of reported rapes result in conviction to mean that 94% of reports were lies, that is their prerogative of course. Kind of shows up what they think of women and children (and sometimes men) doesn't it.

Yes, you can't find someone guilty of rape, solely based on the fact that they were previously accused of rape by someone else can you?

Yabu innocent until proven guilty.

What happens if someone is wrongly accused and turns out innocent. What damage could be done to their lives by being openly accused.