To think some changes to the law on suspect's accused with sexual offences are needed.

[11122aa]

I am a sexual assault survivor.
After the cliff Richard verdict am I wrong to think that people should not be named when investigated for sexual offences. Or even when charged. Or even naming the accuser as does happen in some countries abroad if there is a not guilty verdict?

Well then that's pretty shitty 'journalism' then isn't it? When Loose Women becomes the arbiter of justice, God help us.

I know. The debate on it going to be bitter as anyone supporting the system as it is will basically be accused of being no smoke without fire and will get the twitter trolls out to abuse.

I think Cliff Richards got that treatment because people online had been discussing him and a certain dead tracksuited DJ in the same breath for years, and I suppose they didn't want to make the same mistake twice. I do feel sorry for what he's gone through.

But the reason this step was taken was because the rates of conviction are so horrifyingly low, and it's pretty much the only measure that exists right now to try and assist victims. Making a suspects name and face public means that other victims can come forward. That is how several serial rapists have been caught and convicted. And without that measure, chances are it would still be a 'he-said-she-said-well-and-we-can't-possibly-convict-just-because-she-says-it-was-rape' scenario and they would probably still be free and raping and even murdering girls to this day.

if the authorities can come up with something more effective - GREAT. Until then, we all need this to stay. 'We' meaning everyone who doesn't hate women.

Article about serial rapists

Rape has a very high recidivism rate. And the serial rapists tend to be even more violent and dangerous and they escalate.

I can't fathom why the pressing need is seen to be the very tiny number of falsely accused men, when the thousands of unprosecuted rapes a year are seen as no big deal.

Ironically what would really help the tiny number of falsely accused men would be to actually convict rapists. Then it would be more likely that they would be believed. If we knew that most rapists were convicted, if someone came away with a non-guilty verdict, they would be more likely to actually be innocent. As opposed to now when the likelihood is that almost all accused men are, in fact, rapists. Sir Cliff notwithstanding.

Men's credibility and women's credibility seem always to be the responsibility of women. Even though we have very little power in the Police, Courts or parliament.

If the accused is named then why not the accuser?

Mrs TP - that article is shocking

There is no need to name the accuser, they aren't on trial and it is not relevant to the pursuit of justice because everyone who needs to know the name and background of the complainant does have that information. When the accused is named, other victims or witnesses may come forward with new evidence that could help secure a conviction or clear the defendant. So that is relevant to pursuit of justice.

Granny, because there is a stigma attached to victims of rape which isn't attached to victims of other crime. And often the victims of rape see their reputation, morality, personal life, lifestyle and habits dragged through the mud in a way which the victim of, say a burglary, would never face. It's really important that victims are not put off reporting by having to face that. All too often in rape cases the victim ends up treated as though they are the accused.

MrsTP, I do find it ironic that although you say you are in favour of keeping identification you are displaying exactly the 'no smoke without fire' attitude which make it more likely that it will go.

The reason why so many people are acquitted is because it's so difficult to prove. So how exactly do you want to select your 'tiny proportion' of innocent men? By ballot? Drawing straws? The ones that look least shifty?

In reality despite campaigners constant refrain of 'studies show' the truth is that we really have absolutely no idea what the true figures of rape/false allegation are because it's a complete impossibility ever to be able to give any sort of accurate figure.

So basically what you are saying is you make an assumption of guilt, you don't know who the innocent ones are, but you're prepared to treat them as collateral damage to your belief that almost all men are guilty by treating all of them as guilty.

The fact that so many people are prepared to loudly and publicly shout that they work from an assumption of guilt purely on the basis of allegation is the best ammunition those who want to scrap identification could possibly have.

because there is a stigma attached to victims of rape which isn't attached to victims of other crime. And often the victims of rape see their reputation, morality, personal life, lifestyle and habits dragged through the mud in a way which the victim of, say a burglary, would never face. It's really important that victims are not put off reporting by having to face that. All too often in rape cases the victim ends up treated as though they are the accused.

Exactly!

I don't assume that a person is guilty just based on an accusation alone. However if someone is accused but is then acquitted I don't then jump to the conclusion that the woman must have been lying, he was falsely accused, etc iyswim. I don't think that's the same thing as assuming guilt though.

I am however skeptical about what gets classed as a false accusation. Most of the time it's because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did do it.

I was talking to someone a few months back and she brought up how one of her friends was falsely accused of rape and how horrible it was for him. She was of course angry and bitter about it and she thought that the "lying slut" who accused him should be jailed but she had got away scott free.

I then asked how she knew the accusation was false and of course there wasn't actually any evidence, it was simply because he was acquitted. There wasn't any proof the accusation was false but because he wasn't convicted then in her mind (and I guess a lot of other peoples) that means he was falsely accused. That and of course he's a "nice guy" (because obviously rapists have horns ).

If Saville had been named public ally, more survivors would have come forward...

I don't assume that a person is guilty just based on an accusation alone. However if someone is accused but is then acquitted I don't then jump to the conclusion that the woman must have been lying, he was falsely accused, etc iyswim. I don't think that's the that's the same thing as assuming guilt though.

I take a pretty similar view. I think the best we can really do in a lot of circumstances is admit we have absolutely no idea where the truth lies. But I think the fact a lot of people are prepared to accept that as guilt, and treat the acquited (or the not even charged) as guilty is where the danger lies.

I am however skeptical about what gets classed as a false accusation. Most of the time it's because there wasn't enough evidence to prove that he did do it.

It does work both ways though, as far as false allegations go. False allegations are also incredibly hard to prove for exactly the same reason that rape is so hard to prove. Because the very nature of the crime is so clandestine, behind closed doors, without witnesses or definitive forensics. It often literally just boils down to one person's word against another. There do seem to be some quite sinister undertones in the 'we must convict more' campaigns, which seem to be verging on suggesting that one witnesses evidence should be weighted more than another's purely on the basis of their sex. I find that quite disturbing.

I hear hooves; I think horses. Now, if someone says they think it's a zebra, I'm open to treating it as a zebra until I know. But it's probably a horse. Because there are vastly more horses than zebras. Of course there are zebras but if I go treating the thousands of horses like they are the one zebra, I'm pretty stupid.

Unless you think that thousands of women make up rapes every year, we do, in fact, have a fairly good idea how many rapes there are and we do know how many convictions there are. Do you think thousands of women are making up rapes every year, BillSykesDog?

In fact, have a fairly good idea how many rapes there are and we do know how many convictions there are.

No we don't. We have theories. Not facts. And no figures that can stand up to any sort of scrutiny.

I have no idea how many rape allegations are made up. I tend to thing that it probably tends towards the low side that anti-rape campaigners suggest. But I also think that there is absolutely no way of knowing with absolute certainty and accept that could be way, way off.

As for the zebras, horses analogy. That's just another pointless way of saying that you assume guilt on allegation and you really don't care if you've got it wrong. Personally that doesn't affect me at all, but I do think it's that sort of attitude which is probably going to precipitate anonimity for the accused in rape/sex abuse cases.

That's something I don't want and it bothers me.

Do you think thousands of women are making up rapes every year

Sadly there are people out there who would answer "yes" to that question

I tend to thing that it probably tends towards the low side that anti-rape campaigners suggest.

Which would make false accusations of rape no higher than false accusations of other crime.

Which brings up another question - do you doubt the stats for false accusations of other crime or is it just the rape one which is held up for scrutiny and doubt?

If you accept the stats for false accusations of other crime as being true then why would you doubt the rape one? What makes you think that rape is a crime that people lie about on a more regular basis than other crime?

Is there a case for trying sexual offenses in a similar manner to family court proceedings? The majority of the time mumsnet seems to think that the family court makes the right decision on removal of children etc, perhaps convicting on balance of probability is the way to move forward.

I have no idea how many rape allegations are made up. I tend to thing that it probably tends towards the low side that anti-rape campaigners suggest. So you believe the same as me but either don't think that means that guilty men are going free often or you think we shouldn't say that guilty men are going free. I'm confused.

I do absolutely think that an individual has the right to a fair trial, which is where 'innocent until proven guilty' is useful. But someone like Mike Tyson or Micheal Jackson? I'm sorry but an acquittal does not an innocent person make.

Which would make false accusations of rape no higher than false accusations of other crime.

I doubt the terms that study is couched in. I believe the wording it used was that they 'found no evidence that false rape allegations were higher than false allegations for any other crime'.

But that leaves some important unanswered questions. Did they find any evidence that false rape allegations were at the same level of those for other crimes? Because an absence of evidence does not prove anything. That study is often cited as 'proof' that false rape allegations are at the same levels to other crimes. In fact, it's nothing of the sort. The only thing it proves is that there is no evidence they are not, not that they definitively are. Which is quite a different thing. It's a 'fact' which is rather twisted in its presentation to imply that it shows something it does not.

I don't pass any judgement on whether or not lots of people are lying, because we just simply don't know one way or another and it would be hugely hypocritical of me to say that you shouldn't assume guilt to the accused on one hand whilst simultaneously saying that accusers are lying. My position is that we simply do not know, and that goes both ways.

And, yes, I do think it is very much different to other crimes. If you're looking at things like rape, murder, fraud, violence - there is normally a wealth of other evidence to back it up, witnesses, forensics, CCTV, injuries etc, etc.

Rape often doesn't have that. And the issue is one of consent, rather than actual intercourse. Which makes it so hard to prove. It is always illegal to hit someone and always illegal to murder someone, it is always illegal to rob someone. So these cases are far more cut and dried, you just have to prove the act occurred. You don't have people all over the country regularly engaging in consensual beating ten bells out of each other or consensual let stabbing each other in the face or doing a bit of mutually consensual mugging. But people do consensually have sex all the time. And when the issue of consent is thrown in the water becomes absolutely muddied because it does just boil down to one person's word against the other.

So do I think more false allegations are made? No clue.

But do I think that the nature of the crime of rape means that there are more opportunities for false allegations to be made? Yes, probably.

So you believe the same as me but either don't think that means that guilty men are going free often or you think we shouldn't say that guilty men are going free. I'm confused.

What you're doing is confusing an opinion or a theory with what can be proven. Yes, we both think that false allegations are probably on the low side.

But where we differ is that you believe that this means that a blanket assumption of guilt for all on the basis of an allegation.

I'm much more circumspect about this, and think that as we can't know who the genuinely innocent ones are, we have to treat it as an unknown factor (at the very least) rather than just saying 'Well the innocent ones don't matter, there aren't many of them and they just have to suck it up'.

Especially as it is just our opinion that it is probably low and we really don't know for certain because nothing is provable.

BTW, Mike Tyson was convicted.

On a very small scale most of the women i know have been sexually abused and/or raped,some of them including myself several times by different men. Only two men i know were victims of false allegations. And before anyone asks why/if i haven't reported mine, it's because i was a kid/teen and blamed and told we do not talk about such things ok?

Oh here we go again

There is no reason at all to think women lie more than men - all your chat about false allegation boils down to fundamentally believing that women lie. Nice.

Consent isn't complicated at all. If a man had a reasonable belief a woman consented to sex when she didn't, that is a defence and he will get found not guilty. But that doesn't mean she wasn't raped and in fact did consent even though she says she didn't.

I'm much more circumspect about this, and think that as we can't know who the genuinely innocent ones are, we have to treat it as an unknown factor (at the very least) rather than just saying 'Well the innocent ones don't matter, there aren't many of them and they just have to suck it up'.

There is nothing at all to suggest that innocent people get convicted of rape at a higher rate than any other crime. Yet we don't have all this hand wringing about innocent people being found guilty for any other crime.
Even in the US where there are well documented cases of black men spending their lives in prison for murders they didn't commit, it's not a high priority.

Yet the possibility that a man might be named as committing a rape when actually it's just some woman making it up is far worse.
Better to have anonymity and leaved paedophiles and rapists out there abusing. Cos it's only some women and children and they matter less than men.

Because an absence of evidence does not prove anything

Actually, if you look really hard for something and are unable to find it, that does rather strongly suggest that it does not exist. It is, in real life, literally impossible to prove that something doesn't exist.

So when evaluating these things properly (ie in a scientific way), you look at the balance of evidence. If there is no evidence at all that there is a teacup in orbit around the Earth then I'm pretty confident that there isn't a teacup in orbit around the Earth.
Similarly, if there is no evidence that the false accusation rate is higher in rape then other crimes, then I'm pretty confident that it isn't.
But obviously others are free to believe that there might be a teacup in orbit around the Earth. And I'm entitled to think that those people need a better education in basic science.

The man I 'knew' irl who was convicted of rape, and is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence would have everyone believe he is victim to a 'false allegation.' His family believe him. For all I know, they could be typing on this thread about the poor man they know who was falsely accused

He wasn't falsely accused. Even the judge said he had been convicted on overwhelming evidence.