To think anonymity for suspects of sex offences is a bad idea?

[QuentinSummers]

Barry Bennell recently jailed for raping 10s if not 100s of boys in the 70s and 80s.
Much of his offending came to light after one man told his story in the national press. Others then came forward with stories of their own, they corroborated each other. Barry Bennell was an extremely prolific paedophile.

Many people think that someone accused of a sex offence should remain anonymous until convicted, as lives can be ruined by false allegations.

If that was in place then Alan Ackley cpuld never have told his story and the other men might never have come forward. Mr Bennell would not have faced justice for all he's done.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-38104681

There are many other similar stories, John Worboys being one.

AIBU to think anonymity for people accused of sex offences protects prolific paedophiles and rapists and is a bad idea?

Oops clicky link
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-38104681

Yes. But the lives ruined by false accusations side of things is a huge consideration. I think you're underestimating the devastation caused by false accusations.

'Rape' is the one crime where 'mud sticks' even when found not guilty, or the case doesn't progress. Even when the alleged victim is shown to be fantasist and a liar, their anonymity is often retained.

Every case on it's merits.

I certainly dont think it fair to hang a young man out (as has happened, and it is usually young men) to be vilified by the media and then we find out its a revenge accusation, or remorse for a consentual ONS etc. And ther have been several relatively high profile cases lately, where the police have sat on evidence that would have acquitted the accused earlier/prevented it from going to court.

People who are charged with any other crime aren’t granted anonymity. Why is this any different?

Absolutely not, what about the falsely accused?

It's a very tricky balance isn't it. Of course, you're right about Barry Bennell, however lots of young men have been accused of rape when rape did not take place. There have been numerous cases recently - what do you propose we do to help those men that have had their reputations tarnished, their names splashed all over the media when no such crime was committed? How do we protect those?

I'd say no because sometimes people accused are actually innocent and everyone knowing they were once accused of something can ruin their lives forever even when it turns out they were innocent. The whole 'no smoke without fire' brigade. Not to mention vigilantes and the victims families seeking to exact their own revenge. It's not perfect because yes in some cases it can protect the guilty but we can't just throw the innocent under the bus.

Sadly it may have to come to that. A lot of stupid people are of the "no smoke without fire" mentality and lives of innocent people can be ruined.

Because the public reaction to accusations of sexual abuse is in a different league to that of other crimes.

Because it's harder to prove, and therefore more open to revenge accusations.

I could go on.

It's not a perfect system, but it's the only way.

I can see the arguments in favour of not granting anonymity. However in the internet age, if you have been falsely accused you can never escape it.

No. People should be tried in a court of law with all the evidence, not by one side in the media.

Well actually the others could have come forward, they just didn't. Instead of throw everyone accused of a sex crime under the bus the problems within the legal system that prevent victims from coming forward (in particular police officers dismissing claims of sexual abuse) should be addressed.

So some of you are happy for the Barry Bennells of this world to carry on raping boys if it protects someone from having their name published for being accused of rape?
I am baffled. We don't have anonymity for any other crime and I don't think mud does stick based on high profile cases like Bill Roche.

No, OP, you're twisting the responses here.

I had a family member falsely accused. There was a huge backlash, they were taken to be guilty until proven innocent. They attempted to kill themselves. It then came out that the accuser had made it up.

Anonymity is better than that any day. We need to work on creating an environment in which all victims feel they can come forward regardless of whether they know that person is already under investigation.

I have seen first hand what media backlash can do to the innocently accused. You are being completely one sided here.

Was your relative named in the press @Leiaorganashair?

Not one poster has said they are happy for the Barry Bennells of this world to carry on raping boys - what they have done is shown an understanding of the devastation a false accusation can cause.

Obviously it is not as simple as 'anonymity for all'.

it is not as simple as 'anonymity for all
How would you decide who should be anonymous and who shouldn't?
Surely if there is a principle of anonymity, it has to apply to all? Otherwise you are assuming guilt.

Quick reminder as I think a lot of people forget this or just don't understand it. Anonymity refers to press anonymity. It doesn't mean anonymity in the police investigation.

Even if accused sex offenders were granted press anonymity it still wouldn't mean they wouldn't be named throughout the course of the investigation. It wouldn't stop word spreading around and people finding out who they were. We do, after all, have an open justice system in this country.

The majority of men accused of sex crimes are not named in the press. So in reality an anonymity law would make little difference.

YANBU op. People are more concerned with false accusations than they are with rapists and sex offenders getting what they deserve.

False accusations of rape are no more common than false accusations of other crimes so I'm not sure why people always focus on that aspect. More rapists walk free from court every year than there are false accusations of rape.

Re your Barry Bennall comment - 7 charges were found not guilty. I havent read the transcripts so no idea if that is because of (a) lack of evidence (b) 'band waggoners' (it does happen).

They were not named in national press. They were named and shamed within local spheres from the moment of accusation. There was a lot of discussion on social media within their area which jumped on the accused so must be guilty bandwagon. They felt at the time that whatever the verdict, their reputation was in tatters and they would be "that person" for the rest of their life.

OP what if I accused your DP or DS of sexual assault/rape. How would you then feel if his name was splashed all over the papers and he was vilified in his community?

More rapists walk free from court every year than there are false accusations of rape.

In the eyes of the law, they haven't raped. Ergo they walk free.

The point I'm trying to make is that having seen the damage that can be done on a local scale, nation-wide press naming and shaming of accused before a verdict terrifies me.

In the eyes of the law, they haven't raped. Ergo they walk free.

No, in the eyes of the law it couldn't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that they raped. That doesn't mean they didn't do it.

Not guilty does not = innocent.