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?

"PilchardPrincess"

I have no idea how many women are "bloody liars" (your words not mine) that is why I posted the word "between", If I had the views that you and others are projecting on me I could easily find (bad) research that puts the % percentage at a lot higher.

"Recent experience shows us that hundreds upon hundreds of victims have been failed by the police including"

Can you show me where I am arguing against this? Many people are failed by the police and this needs to change.

pombears that is the most disgusting thing I have ever heard and I am now sat here sobbing that someone can be so small minded.

I DO know someone who was falsely accused. Actually of sexually abusing a child. There was no evidence, there was no explaination for it apart from the fact the child in question was being abused at home and had mental illness. She had transferred what was happening to her at home onto my relative. My relative went through two years of hell and ultimately died before the case could be taken to court due to the police desperately trying to find any eveidence to put to the CPS. there was nothing except an extremely sexualised child saying my relative was nice to her. Even the social workers commented in the family court case that the a use was most likely going on in the home rather than outside it.

Two weeks after he died the case was taken to court for the CPS to present their evidence with a view to prosecution and the judge threw it out with the words "this man was hounded to death, there is no evidence and his family can leave court today knowing he doesn't have a stain on his character" we as a family cried more that day than we did at his funeral out of sadness and anger.

But you think he got off lightly? FFS, it's attitudes like yours which are the reason accusers need anonymity. People like you who encourage vigilantism and would probably have shunned my relative long before when he had done nothing wrong.

It's nothing like as high as 10%, BBJ, which is what you first posted, and it's good research by the CPS that says so.

By the way, the only good thing that came out of the case was the child was removed from the family home and last I heard living with a foster carer with a view to being adopted. She has no contact with her family and will never have again.

In both scenarios, you need other victims & witnesses to come forward, so the police can prove a pattern of intent.

Why? If there's DNA evidence why would the police in your first scenario need other victims and witnesses to come forward?

In your second scenario, why would the police need other victims and witnesses to come forward if they already knew that the person had had the same accident numerous times before? What is knowing that it happened a couple more times going to do to help?

I wont sign because even one person falsely accused and named is one person too many.

ptolmey, you don't think that being actually convicted of rape is a good enough reason to believe someone is a rapist, so it is hardly surprising that you don't think that multiple victims coming forward would be of any use.

Christ.

You think people go to prison for rape because of DNA evidence?
Obviously the man will say it was consensual.

Anyone seriously arguing against the concept of multiple victims being used together to form a case has really serious issues IMO.

Why not just make sexual crimes like any other crime and just give no one anonymity?

And there we have a beautiful example of the view of worth. One man is worth more than scores and scores of women and children.

This idea is like turning up a stone isn't it, you do it and all these ideas about men & women start coming out that wouldn't shame the Taleban.

You want to reveal the names of children who have been raped, Christy?

Aren't you just lovely

because of attitudes towards rape and sexual assault

when someone has been mugged their is no allegations that they may have asked for it, or if they have had their car stolen, or then have been beaten up do people get accused of lying about this is misinterpreting someone's actions

but so often woman's actions are questioned, was she drinking too much? what was she wearing? did she make it clear that she did not want to have sex?

for there to be a conviction in cases like this often it needs to be shown there was a pattern of behaviour from the accused we only need to look at the support of Ched Evans to see that far too many still see rape and sexual assault as being a crime that is often done unintentionally. Anyone of those supporters of Ched Evans could be on a jury and having those views and could stop a conviction, but seeing that this is not the first time it may get them to actually think about the crime committed not what they victim may or many not have been doing/wearing/saying or not saying

this is why as much evidence as possible is needed, rape sexual assault is treated differently by society so it has to be treated in accordance when trying to get a conviction

christy, the attitude on this thread (unless the man is found guilty then the woman must be lying) is why victims need anonymity. Those found to be making malicious allegations should, of course, be prosecuted - at which point they lose anonymity.

Anyone seriously arguing against the concept of multiple victims being used together to form a case has really serious issues IMO.

I'm not arguing against it, I'm saying that people don't need to be named before conviction for it to happen. The police will know if the man has been accused of rape before if other women have come forward before, not because his face is in the local paper.

And if women will only come forward when they see their rapist accused by someone else, then the police need to do something to change that regardless of whether we name the accused or not.

Agree fully with Feckless. A friends son was accused of something horrifying that the accuser later admitted was a total pack of lies. The consequences for him have been beyond terrible.

Jessica, the attitude that if a man is accused then he must automatically be guilty is just as bad. And that is why people should have anonymity until their guilt had been proven in a court.

You want to reveal the names of children who have been raped, Christy?

There are rules around anonymity for children in all crimes, so, no, children would be different anyway.

I guess sexual crimes are different in that it is much more difficult to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

FWIW, I am happy with the current system and don't particularly think it needs changing, I am just musing really.

It doesn't really matter what ptolemy thinks - as in the case of Ched Evans, (and how any others??) even a rape conviction in court doesn't hold water.

I'm astonished that there are so many people on here that seem to think that just because they know someone who was falsely accused, that it must be more common for people to be falsely accused than it is for victims of sex crimes to not receive justice. Next time you're wringing your hands over someone who claims to have been falsely accused, think of all the people you're likely to know who have been the victims of child abuse or rape, who never sought justice because the odds are so grossly stacked against them. And you want to make it even harder?!

Yoo-hoo Ptolemy

You seem to have missed my posts asking what you found wishy-washy, so I'll leap straight on to the explanation.

In actual fact, the structure of what constitutes rape is very similar to other crimes. A jury must be convinced that [something] happened to the victim, and that the defendant actually knew he was doing it, or was reckless whether it happened.

Let's take theft. The act is taking it without permission, and the mens rea is an "intention to permanently deprive". Suppose my (ex!) Best friend takes my 5 DVDs of Michael McIntyre without me realising. I realise and then go down the police station and accuse her of stealing them. The police may find the DVDs at her house, but the case isn't open-and-shut because of that. If she swears blind she was going to bring them back next week, and the court believe her, she'll walk free.

Why bother ptolmey, why not just stick with "even if they're found guilty I still won't believe it"?

As I said earlier, a man is more likely to be a victim of rape than falsely accused. I'd prefer to spend my time worrying about the treatment of victims and general lack of understanding around consent than the tiny minority of people who are falsely accused.

"There are rules around anonymity for children in all crimes, so, no, children would be different anyway."

Perpetrators yes.

Children who have been mugged or murdered or beaten up are named in the papers all the time.

The reason child victims of sex offences are not named in the papers is for the same reason that adult victims are not i.e. it is against the law (currently) for the papers to identify victims of sex offences.

If you want that changed then feel free to lobby your MP.

No one wants to make it harder. Victims of sex crimes should be supported better by the police and jury attitudes to consent modernised.

There was a fab post a while likening consent to a cup of tea. If a jury and police officier had to read that every morning before starting work maybe victim blaming would stop, allowing more victims to feel comfortable coming forward and more prosecutions to occur.

The conversation of what is consent needs to happen earlier, I do know people who have been raped. None of them reported it choosing to blame themselves, i was never taught officially about consent either at school or at home. Nowdays children are, hopefully this is a turning point.

It used to be believed most rapes were carried out by strangers attacking in dark places with a weapon, know we know most rapes occur by people who know their victim, friends, family members or even husbands and wives. Things are changing, maybe not fast enough but that still doesn't mean that someone who is accused of one of the most awful crimes should be named and shamed before being found guilty.

^This is like turning up a stone isn't it, you do it and all these ideas about men & women start coming out that wouldn't shame the Taleban.

Yes :(