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?

PomBearsAhoy
"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."

Is this an example of mud not sticking?

Grays why do you believe that people accused of sex crimes need anonymity while people accused of other crimes that revolt the public sensibility do not?

(Note: rape only revolts the public sensibility where the victim is a "proper" victim, or the attack includes extreme violence apart from the rape, or similar. A woman being raped by a colleague in her own home after a night out, for example, outrages hardly anyone's sensibilities at all).

agirlcalledbob read the thread.

What about someone accused of murder? Or beating old people? Or stealing from charities?

No one wants to give those people anonymity though and they probably would have their lives ruined by a false accusation. Because unlike with rape victims no one ever wonders why someone asked to be murdered or what dress they were wearing when their charity was robbed.

Pilchard, you could still have 5, 10 or 20 people accusing the same man and still get the conviction without publicly naming the accused. The police can keep records that don't have to be shared with the public or be allowed in the media.

Police should be workng on other ways to encourage rape victims to come forward, and if they do, police can still build up a case against one person that has raped numerous women. The police shouldn't need the media to do their jobs for them by naming people who could have been falsely accused.

If between 3-10% of rape accusations are false (not that I think that's a statistic that we can have complete faith in) then that is far too many innocent men being publicly shamed for crimes they didn't commit.

You can find someone guilty of rape when you have multiple victims all with a similar situation, where one of them would not be enough to secure a conviction.

People have really extreme views about this don't they. Seem to be based in myths around a. most women and children who report rape are lying and b. lots of sex crime isn't that bad really and stop making a fuss you're doing a good man down for an "indiscretion".

Boneyback I sense a pattern to the threads you post on.

"If between 3-10% of rape accusations are false (not that I think that's a statistic that we can have complete faith in) then that is far too many innocent men being publicly shamed for crimes they didn't commit."

What would your guess be at the statistic then?

Keir Starmer found that false allegations are far rarer than previously thought - About 2-3%.

That's a lot of rapists walking around free when you look at current conviction rates. And even more when you look at current reporting rates.

Yes, but whoops those men can't walk in to pubs without being judged :(

I somehow doubt that ptolemy was looking at BBJ's stat of "how many women are bloody liars" and thinking "hmm that seems a bit high, when I consider what the previous Director of Public Prosecutions found when he carried out research".!

PomBearsAhoy

Really! because I post on a range of different types of threads.

But if that is how you respond to my posts on this thread , then what does it say about you?

And I don't see Ken Barlow being hounded out of life because of the accusations against him.

This is a disgusting attitude. Do you really think that that mans life wasn't seriously affected in an awful way when he had to wait months with his face all over the papers waiting for his innocence to be proven?

I don't like him as an actor btw, he's given me the creeps ever since I was a child, but to just dismiss his experience as a victim of a false allegation as if it were nothing is just horrible.

Ah, I see you don't comment on the rest of that post though. ABout Ched Evans's and his victim?

PilchardPrincess
"I somehow doubt that ptolemy was looking at BBJ's stat of "how many women are bloody liars""

Could you post where I have posted "how many women are bloody liars". I mean exactly where I have called these women liars.

I wouldn't have a guess at a statistic, because I don't think it's one of those things we can ever be at all sure about.

Other crimes rarely come down to one persons word against another. There tends to be evidence in other crimes, like bodily harm

Hang on. Say you do everything dead right after being raped - you go to the police before showering, have your blood tests, provide samples from your rapist, give a name and an accurate description. The cops recognise a man who's been accused of previous sexual assaults. His friends say they saw you disappear off with him willingly, and you didn't seem upset afterwards.

Another time, let's say you run into a car that's suddenly stopped in front of you at a roundabout. The occupants of the other car claim whiplash and PTSD. The police know the other driver's had the same accident numerous times before. They suspect 'crash for cash' but the person claiming injury has a friendly doctor.

In both scenarios, you need other victims & witnesses to come forward, so the police can prove a pattern of intent. This is going to be extra difficult if the details of the suspect cannot be shared.

But if that is how you respond to my posts on this thread , then what does it say about you?

That I think you post in a sexist way and have a problem with women? But you still like to post on a board populated by mostly women?

Am I being a bit subtle? Certainly didn't mean to be.

Do you think BabyP's attackers should have had anonymity, ptolemy? They were also innocent until proven guilty.

What about April Jones's murderer? Ian Huntley? Roy Whiting?

I didn't comment about Ched Evans because I'm one of the people that isn't sure that he should have been convicted, but I relause that won't be a popular opinion and would have the potential to derail the thread.

If more victims come forward from a publicised case, I'd wonder how many of those victims didn't jump on the bandwagon.

I'm sure a particular case can still be publicised and to ask for more victims to come forward if only particular aspects of the case are released. Aspects that the victims will recognise, but that are not widely known to the public and wouldn't allow to easily identify the accused.

You can still show e-fits but not mention what type of crime it was in detail. Assault should suffice.

Unfortunately, more often than not, rape ends up being a person's word against the other. In the same way as verbal threats and harassment.
I doubt there will ever be an optimal way of dealing with these that is fair to victims and anyone falsely accused.

Having said all this, I don't think accused of sex crimes should be treated differently from people accused of other crimes. Either all should be available, or all should be treated discreetly.

A man is more likely to be raped than falsely accused of rape.

If an allegation is malicious then the accuser can be prosecuted for malicious allegation. More usually though, they aren't. So on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty', we are expected to simultaneously believe that the accuser was raped, but the defendant didn't rape anyone. Which shows that "innocent until proven guilty" is fine as a basis for law, but doesn't really work in real life.

For some unknown reason, the majority of people seem to be able to believe that most rape allegations are malicious (ie women are liars) without worrying about "innocent until proven guilty". Even though the proper research shows that most allegations are NOT malicious.

Seem to be based in myths around a. most women and children who report rape are lying and b. lots of sex crime isn't that bad really and stop making a fuss you're doing a good man down for an "indiscretion".

Yes, this :( When a rape victim and a falsely accused man may suffer similar trauma, why is the man's suffering more important than the rape victim's?

Especially considering there are a hell of a lot more rape victims than men whose lives have been hurt by false accusations. Yet MPs want to change the law so it will protect the few, and harm the many?

PomBearsAhoy
"That I think you post in a sexist way and have a problem with women? But you still like to post on a board populated by mostly women?

Am I being a bit subtle? Certainly didn't mean to be."

I happen to like this forum, and share similar if not the same views as a large amount of the other posters. If you don't like that then that is your issue not mine.

Ptolemy, why am I unsurprised that you are one of the CHed Evans shouldn't have been convicted crew?

lol you carry on BBJ

Finding out a stat which says up to 10% of women who report rape are bloody liars and then pretending that wasn't the gist!

Recent research by the public prosecutor puts it at way lower than 10% and so do many other pieces of research.

Recent experience shows us that hundreds upon hundreds of victims have been failed by the police including, yes, being accused of lying and told yo go away. And that's just the ones who have got justice, not all of them by any means.

Why people like to propagate the idea that women and children are inveterate liars when it comes to this, it's just bizarre.