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?

No they arrested who they meant to arrest. She was proven to have lied and has been charged with perverting the course of justice and wasting police time

I know of 2 local situations where women have said men raped them.

People who heard immediately disbelibeved the women, and felt sorry for the men, in both cases.

In my experience, people in the public are highly sceptical when women say men have raped them, in the cases I know, it was the women who were villified.

This reaction shows to the max in cases like Ched Evans where the poor woman never even accused him of anything, she's been repeatedly named on social media, had to move away from her job and family and change her name, and then it happened again and she had to move again. She is still absolutely hated in many quarters, and she never accused him of anything, he told the police what happened and they arrested him on his own testimony.

This is what is waiting for women who report rape, if anonimity is removed.

Plus it's not a small matter, how could I face going into work if all my colleagues knew the initimite details of a rape? I don't care if they know I was mugged, being conned might be a bit embarassing, but for them all to know details of a sexual violation, just no.

That's fascinating @gta. So why do you think they tweeted his arrest specifically when they arrest lots of suspected criminals every day?

This graphic shows (as far as is possible to ascertain from the data), the prevalence of false accusations vs men getting away with rape):

sarahbeaulieu.me/the-truth-about-false-accusation

Delete it's not a fact. The verdict of 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'guilty, but not enough evidence to prove it'.

Not guilty means it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that a crime was committed.

Delete there's no need to be so patronising. I already know that. Someone asked you how you would feel if one of your male relatives was falsely accused of rape and as a result stigmatised in the press and on social media. You might be happy to dismiss the effects of that but other people aren't.

Gosh, if police tweeted about everyone they arrested they wouldn't get much else done!

Delete, again, we know what a not guilty verdict means. It doesn't mean either 'innocent' or 'guilty'.

I do wonder if there is something that could be done around celebrities - I don't know what though.

On the whole I think any steps need to absolutely ensure that we don't reduce the (already low) liklihood of victims coming forward, or do anything to reduce the chances of getting the Bennells and Warboys put away (for 5 mins).

Someone on a thread a while ago said better thousands of crimes are committed than one man goes to prison who is innocent... Which I found very stark. It's easy to feel calm about an innocent person being imprisoned and feel "it's for the greater good", but .. it could be you.

it's not a fact. The verdict of 'not guilty' doesn't mean 'guilty, but not enough evidence to prove it'. "not guilty" means "not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt". The reason there is not enough evidence is either that they were innocent, or that they were guilty but there simply isn't enough evidence to tell.

I'm not being patronising, how about you don't be so rude.

If a male relative was falsely accused of rape (and it was actually proven that the accusation was false rather than me assuming he couldn't possibly have done it) then of course that would be awful.

False allegations are so rare though that I don't generally worry myself about it. I'm more concerned with the 85k+ women and 12k+ men that are raped every year by men and why so many rapists get away with it. My DD's are at a far higher risk of being raped than my dp is of being falsely accused of rape. Perspective.

I feel very strongly that our justice system is innocent until proven in a court of law. We cannot allow trial by media and vigilantes, regardless of allegations. I feel very uncomfortable that historic allegations allow no scope for defence and the person is deemed guilty without any trial.

There are a few problems with granting anonymity. The first is that a number of dangerous men have been jailed because their names were published. Secondly, it is a crime overwhelmingly committed by men, so the people benefitting will only be men, whereas crimes committed by women will see their names put out there. No hiding place for women!

Thirdly, it is patently not true that people see those accused of sexual assault as complete pariahs - the default is that the woman is lying hence why we are even considering anonymity for sex crimes. And that brings me onto my next point - that offering anonymity in these cases suggests the women is lying about it. When women already feel they won't be listened to, this will just make it worse for them.

In a world where 1 in 3 women will be assaulted by men, we would still rather focus on the tiny TINY number of men falsely accused (a number which is on par with false allegations of other crimes yet is reported disproportionately so) than the millions of women raped by men and who NEVER see justice.

Why don't we also focus on the thousands of raping men walking free in our society who lie about what they have been doing to women? They lie so much they get away with it.

I have read that men are more likely to be raped by another man than falsely accused.

Yet it is the latter that seems to preoccupy.

I think that many men have done things in their sexual history that when they look back were a little dodgy, and as things change aorund consent etc it freaks them out. This is what the pushback on #metoo is about - men are uncomfortable, and start saying things like "oh so men had better never talk to women then in case they accuse us of something". Which is clearly ridiculous.

Fundamentally a lot of people feel that only "rape rape" should be a crime - with a "perfect" victim and lots of extra violence. A lot of people feel that a man who rapes a woman who is incapacitated through drink, but doesn't punch her in the face or anything, is not really doing anything that everyone wouldn't expect him to do so how can it be a crime? This is the cultural backdrop to this.

Exactly @UpABitLate.

I was sexually assaulted at work by a co-worker. I reported it to the police who arrested it and investigated but because it was my word against his the case was dropped.

The man who sexually assaulted me kept his job. He wasn't suspended throughout the course of the investigation however we were put on separate shifts for a while. When the investigation was dropped, everything just continued on as normal for him. Work began putting us on the same shifts again so I had to work with him and see his stupid smug face. There were no repercussions at work for him at all. In the end I was the one who was told to leave.

This is why I always scratch my head when people say that an accusation alone will ruin someone's life and they will automatically lose their jobs, homes, families, etc. I'm sure it happens sometimes but if it didn't happen to my coworker who sexually assaulted me while actually at work (or an allegation was made against him in these circumstances to the outside world) then I really doubt it's as commonplace as people suggest.

They had tweeted loads that day, not just him specifically.

*arrested him, not it.

I was of the mindset of anonymity until recently. 8 months after a sexual assault I want my story heard. I have a confession and so have proof. The police are not yet involved and I doubt they will be even with such incriminating evidence but I am at a point of why should victims stay silent. I am currently writing a blog to support my healing process and wish to name this person. However, why am I forbidden to do so unless it is in court of law? Why can I not say, this is my story and this is what he has to say? I would love to publish his texts so it is actually him telling the world what he has done not me. Why should I stay silent and not receive the support from everyone around me? Why should I only tell a 'select few' in confidence and secrecy? Being silent protects the innocent but it also protects the guilty. Not enough people report as it is for fear of not being believed, this sends a message to those who have suffered that it should be kept quiet just in case you aren't believed. Silence reinforces that people are victims and does not empower those who survive. People saying anonymity shouldn't be granted to victims when people are found not guilty need reminding a 'not guilty' verdict does not always mean 'innocent'. It means that the person accused can not be found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt'. He or she may still be guilty but there is not enough evidence to support that. This doesn't mean the victim is a liar but it is often portrayed that way when not guilty verdicts are reached. That said, there will always be a minority who do accuse for revenge etc.

Just remembered in my old work there was a man who was a bit of a twat. Anyway after I left another friend told me that he had developed an obsession with a much younger female colleague and was essentially harrassing / stalking her (at work) and wouldn't leave her alone. HR got involved and he took an extended (paid) sick leave during which time she was (can't remember - encouraged to leave / made redundant) and then he came back. My friend relayed this as gossip as she knew I didn't like him. She didn't seem particularly outraged and I thought it was unfair but wasn't surprised...

This is the way it actually goes. I suspect meanwhile he will have told all his friends that she was a vicious liar who made things so difficult for him that he had to go off sick.

Just remembered that after your story please.

Actually just remembered a third local accusation of rape, again no-one thought of or treated the man any differently.

Your story is awful but not untypical I don't think please.

I'm sorry for what he did to you, and that it was compounded by your employer.

To take a man like Bennell and say yeah probably some of these men are liars is crass in the extreme.

Lovely bit of wilful misinterpretation and projection there. I didnt say or imply anythig of the sort. Read whats written , not put your own warp on it like a Blairite spin doctor

"Someone on a thread a while ago said better thousands of crimes are committed than one man goes to prison who is innocent... Which I found very stark. It's easy to feel calm about an innocent person being imprisoned and feel "it's for the greater good", but .. it could be you."

I don't feel "calm" about an innocent man being imprisoned.

But I do feel not calm about the idea that because the above might happen, very very very rarely (how many men falsely accused actually end up in prison - tiny tiny tiny number) and from a theoretical viewpoint (It MIGHT happen so we need to protect against that theoretical occurence) that it's worth thousands of women, children (and men) being raped.

The reaction to the idea that something might negatively affect a man rather than a woman is very interesting.

But here's a novel idea - instead of bewailing the risk of false allegations, men could take their sexual responsibilities seriously. What about that? What about not seeing children or people with emotional or psychiatric issues or strangers? How would making sure that you understand that the absence of no does not mean yes? Why not consider the possibility that women aren't in a perpetual state of consent unless they say otherwise and assume that sex isn't on unless she says it is? Then you don't have to worry about accusations.

There is a rape trial in Belfast right now and the comments from men on blogs and boards are just shocking. If what they are saying is a reflection of how they think, I'm amazed that all of them haven't been rightly prosecuted for rape.

Someone on a thread a while ago said better thousands of crimes are committed than one man goes to prison who is innocent... Which I found very stark. It's easy to feel calm about an innocent person being imprisoned and feel "it's for the greater good", but .. it could be you.

We're not talking about an innocent man going to be prison though but an innocent man potentially being falsely accused and the story being covered in the press - so that would be better re-phrased as "better thousands of women and children are raped than one man is reported in the press as being arrested for rape but then found not guilty". Why would it be the one man in this scenario that 'could be me' and who I should prioritise and not the thousands of women and children? In this scenario, he is found and reported as not guilty and, yes, I'm sure it's very stressful but it is very rare whereas the rape and sexual abuse of women and children is very common and is very traumatic and harmful to them. The justice system massively fails rape victims and the vast majority of rapes go unpunished so I would struggle to support a change that would make that situation even worse.