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?

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.

I can't help but feel those men who shout about "not even being allowed to say hi to a woman" will have done something in the past which now makes them feel uncomfortable about their actions. Otherwise they wouldn't respond to #metoo with such a ridiculous, over the top statement. They are overcompensating in a way.

I know at least 3 men who have done questionable things sexually in the past. Including attempted rape. I hope they have taken the time over the last year to reflect on their behaviour. One can hope.

Sorry liars was the wrong word.

You said they might be "band-waggoners". Some of the men who had actually made it to court.

I said I hadnt read the transcript to know why he was acquitted of 7 charges - thats the difference - please go back and actually READ what I said.

It's a really difficult one....

As others have said elsewhere...

Men are not proved innocent of rape.... Just because the evidence didn't reach beyond reasonable doubt (or the updated phrase..).. Does not mean rape didn't occur.

Mud sticks.... To all men accused of rape whether guilty or not, or found guilty or not.

Most rapists dobt get convicted...

There is a tiny amount of false accusations/fantasists.... These contaminate public narratives about rape

There was another interesting study which said that while false accusations were at a rate similar to other crimes, the nature of them was quite marked (it was an american study).

It said that of the false accusations (actually false - not "no crimed" or not taken further or not enough evidence or whatever) that most of them came from women with mental health issues who reported the crime but didn't name anyone - they wanted I suppose attention or something - their reports would be about a man or group of men with descriptions that were not actually related to any real people.

So if that is correct, then of the 2% (or thereabouts), many of them will not be falsely accusing an actual person and so for most of them, no-one will be on the wrong end of the accusation. These cases I think they tend to twig quite quickly. Although just writing that I wonder how many women are dismissed as mentally ill when actually they've been attacked...

It's a difficult topic and while there is such hostility in the general public towards "non perfect" rape victims, anything to worsen things is just insult to injury.

If it ever happens blame whoever in the police - South Yorkshire IIRC - let the media make a circus of it when they raided Cliff Richard's home. It was either corruption or bad policy, but either way it was a disaster.

What needs to happen is better,more measured press reporting.

Anonymity would mean that no one would know that someone is to appear in court, therefore no witness wouldn't have chance to come forward. I don't think sentencing people in secret is the way forward for any crime.

There should be anonymity until conviction. False claims of rape or sexual assault stick, and it is wrong that someone can have their life destroyed on a completely false allegation.

The argument that other victims won't come forward is irrelevant because each alleged crime should be judged on its own merit. Justice doesn't work on the basis that if ten people have a case against someone, and there is a 10% chance of conviction in each case, then the accused is 100% guilty.

If someone is convicted of rape they should be named. Other victims can then come forward and feel confident that they will be believed.

Personally I would remove the right to anonymity for the accuser, if they are found to be lying. It could be decided by the jury, working as follows:

• GUILTY (anonymity for accuser, name-and-shame the offender)
• NOT GUILTY A (case not proved beyond doubt, anonymity for both)
• NOT GUILTY B (case so weak that the accuser should be named)

ChelleDawg2020 If you are suggesting that a jury should have the power to lift the accuser's anonymity I hope you have your flameproof undies on!

So do you think all those charged with sexual assault should be anonymous or just men who rape women?

False claims of rape or sexual assault stick

Surely it shouldn't matter if the accusation was false or not?

We can't actually tell the difference between someone who was falsely accused (but they couldn't charge the accuser because there wasn't enough evidence to prove the allegation was in fact malicious) and someone who actually did do it but we couldn't prove it so they got off.

So since we can't tell the difference from the outside then surely it shouldn't matter if the accusation wasn't false. Mud will still stick and their lives will still be ruined regardless.

I don't buy that mud sticks either. How many celebrities have been accused of sex crimes, charged with sex crimes and even convicted of sex crimes without their name being tarnished? Too many to count.

What do you think the first thing people will think of if they hear the name Craig Charles, for instance? I bet most people will think Red Dwarf. I doubt many people will hear his name and think 'rape accusation'.

If it's true that 'mud sticks', and that men accused of rape are not believe to be innocent even though they are found not guilty, doesn't that show that the general public don't have faith in the justice system?

Wouldn't it be better to try and restore people faith in everyone getting a fair and just trial?

- GUILTY (anonymity for accuser, name-and-shame the offender)
- NOT GUILTY A (case not proved beyond doubt, anonymity for both)
- NOT GUILTY B (case so weak that the accuser should be named)

If there was a false accusation then the accuser can be tried and convicted (and can be named at any point during that process, as with someone who is accused of rape).

So under your system a man would only be named if he is tried and convicted of the crime but a woman (and it is mainly women) would be named at the point his trial collapsed not at the point where she has been tried and convicted? So two completely different standards?

“Mud sticks”? The amount of sympathy for men found not guilty on this thread would suggest not.

It's the other way round though.

The general public tend to believe that all except "perfect" victims are lying / were asking for it,

If we need to improve faith in anything, it's around the perception that women, older girls, and sometimes younger girls, boys and men, are prone to vengeful vicious behaviour, often with no apparent motive, to the extent that they are prepared to lie to police and undergo all that being in a rape trial involves, probably for years.

People always say that the woman is automatically believed and the man is always assumed guilty but that is simply not the case, is it?

Going back to Ched Evans for a second, I've lost count of the number of people I've seen/heard saying that they always 'knew' he was innocent and that his accuser is a liar and should be charged.

Whenever I gently point out that she didn't actually accuse him of rape and only went to the police to report a missing handbag, a lot of these people back down and admit they didn't know that and they don't actually know much about the case itself.

So these people clearly didn't know anything about the case but they still 'knew' Evans didn't do anything wrong...htf does that work exactly?

Logically the only thing that can bring them to 'knowing' he was innocent is the fact they're just automatically siding with the man and demonizing the woman, because ya know, there are women just running around lying about being raped left right and centre, innit.

Not even getting a conviction ruins their lives.

I reported a historic sexual abuse case regarding my uncle. CPS took it (in the days pre- saville) and he pleaded originally not guilty to 8 counts of indecent assault (one per year he abused me!) and three attempted rapes. I geared up for the trial and he changed his mind, family said he had to plead guilty as I was such a good liar, 🙄. He got a character witness stand up and say he'd babysat for them and they'd no concerns, his GF hurriedly married him before he went down, and planned to get pregnant when he was out to prove he was safe. He got 18 months. Served 9. His job was held open for him and he walked straight back into it. He got 10 years on the sex offenders register too.
Bet he still doesn't have the nightmares I do 25 years later.

Who comes up with these statistics... 2% are false accusations.... And then not guilty doesn't mean innocent. Surely then not guilty of a false accusation is not innocent of a false accusation?

I believe the 2% figure comes from the CPS @Lichtie

Thanks toad. So that's 2% convicted. If the statistics for conviction the other way aren't based on actual rapes because lack of proof, surely the same stands for false accusations?

Ratbag I'm so sorry for what you still go through. The people around him in denial!

Fifty odd years ago rape victims were named in the press. Anonymity was brought in to save their shame and encourage them to report.
No anonymity for the accused. Otherwise lets give it to all serious crime such as murder.
I don't think mud does stick when someone is found guilty.
It may seem unfair but the rest of the judicial system is set up to support the accused - which is why the rape conviction rate is so low.

not guilty

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.

No smoke without fire.
I wouldn't release names until proven guilty.

^ what rachie said. Apart from it should be for all crimes.

The false accusations comes not from the number of people accused, prosecuted and convicted but from review of cases by the authorities involved. Because false accusations are often measured differently according to who is looking and how crimes are recorded - so if you are eg recording all "no crimes" as false accusations (as forces used to) then this inflates the figures massively.

This is one paper article from a while back

here