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?

Issues around "no criming" sex offences with large regional variations - many take "no crime" to mean false allegation (they shouldn't).

[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-25979285 here]]

There's loads more, it's a complex subject. With this offence the cultural beliefs around sex offences, perfect victims, and all the rest of it, I don't think there any easy answers.

Clearly sex offences (across the board) are extremely common and very few get reported / let alone convicted.

Rachie1973 how then would you seek to see men like warboys and bennell convicted?

ratbag
I really want to see some evidence (not anecdata) that false accusations ruins people's lives. I've read too many examples where it's the woman who made the allegation who's life is ruined, who leaves her job or even commits suicide. But that seems by the bye.

I know two separate women who came forward as victims when their abusers / rapists were being prosecuted. One man was convicted, which is unlikely to have happened had they not had a large number of victims come forward.

Thanks UpABit. Interesting read.
I think what's clear is none of the statistics can be reliable in deducing guilty/innocent/false

The national crime survey is a decent source of info on prevlance of different types of crime (although has failings around DV).

There is also the avalanche of stories from women #metoo, and our own experiences, and those of our friends, that show how prevalent sex offences are from low grade sadly to much worse. Most women never report it.

So while the official stats around actual prosecutions and so on are tricky, there is plenty of evidence out there to show that sex offences are common, rarely reported, and hardly ever convicted.

Look at this guy in the news as a case in point. They think he has had well over 100 victims. Who only ever told their stories in the last few years. There are other men out there like this.

Fundamentally our laws were built to protect property, and sex offence laws were also created when women were property. A sex crime against a woman or a child was essentially a violation of another mans property. You see tihis still with reports on things that happen in other parts of the world.

I think we should explore other options - some countries have an inquisitorial approach (is that the right word) rather than adversarial, that would be good to look into.

Other option is pursuing men through the civil courts which, while unsatisfatory from a social POV (this is a CRIMINAL matter) might result in more guilty verdicts as the bar is different (balance of evidence rather than betond reasonable doubt).

Certainly as things stand women children and men who are victims of sexual violence across the spectrum are not being served by our law enforcement / courts etc.

YABVU OP and your post immediately reminded me of this heartbreaking case: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-40494218

It is innocent until proven guilty for a reason although the age of social media is making that more and more difficult.

OK so how would you implement this.

Is it anonimity for rape only? Or all sex offences? Or all offences across the board?
Anonimity for all types of case or only with adults?
Anonimity except in cases where there is a reason to believe it may have been a pattern of behaviour?
Anonimity where there were other crimes committed as well eg GBH, threats with a weapon, murder?
Anonimity where it's a gang offence?
Anonimity where the victims have been trafficked?

Is having men like warboys and bennell still operating a reasonable offset?

What about calls to identify suspects, how would these be handled?

If a victim says that there were other victims involved, eg rotherham, or within families, or where they have been told of others etc, should the police call for vctims? Or with eg teachers, where they suspect there may have been multiple victims? Priests? In cases like this one, sports coaches?

Pleasedontgoadthetoad if anonymity for those accused was removed then his name would probably be revealed.

How will your plan to anonymise people accused of sex crimes, have an impact on institutional racism in the police, Mission?

mission the local people didn't decide that man was a paedophile based on his name being reported in the paper due to false allegations. It sounds more like the false allegations were part of an on going campaign against him. I can't see how anonymity would have helped him? The police taking his complaints seriously would have been more effective.

@UpABitLate

It wouldn't.

Can you not see how cases like this would be exascerbated if OPs argument was implemented? I understand the argument, I just don't personally agree with it.

@QuentinSummers

Okay I may not have explained myself well as you and another poster have questioned this. What I was trying to say is exposing somebody without clear evidence can lead to situations like that.

My "argument" is what is already in place? I don't think there should be any changes

I understand your point OP and tbh would quite happily hang all paedophiles and rapists, but on balance I'd rather risk someone escaping justice than any innocent men being publicly accused and having their life permanently blighted. If there is enough evidence to bring a case then justice should take its course, trial by media based on someone else's word is so unfair and as we've seen recently there are too many lowlife prepared to falsely accuse.

Yanbu OP

The figures regarding rape convictions are shocking. False accusations represent a tiny proportion. Contrast that with the amount of men who have committed rape and got away with it.

Not guilty does not mean innocent and that's besides all the others that don't even get to court. It's a disgrace.

I'd rather risk someone escaping justice than any innocent men being publicly accused and having their life permanently blighted

So it doesn't matter that the majority of victims have their lives permanently blighted having been raped and then seeing their rapist walk free. As long as a small number of men don't have their lives 'permanently blighted' by a false allegation?

Pre Mumsnet I wouldn’t have agreed with anonymity for alleged perpetrators - after all, why anonymity for the accused for this crime and not others.

But after seeing post after post on thread after thread about how ‘not guilty ‘ doesn’t ‘innocent’, how prosecutions wouldn’t be brought unless the accused were guilty, and how ‘I believe you’ seems to have displaced the presumption of innocence, I am inclined now to wonder whether anonymity might be prudent.

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.

Yes - this sort of comment makes me think anonymity might be a good idea.

False accusations ruin lives

Acquaintance was accused; arrested and went to trial for CSA.
We were all shocked.

He and his family maintained that he was innocent and the child was a manipulative little liar.

After day 3 of the trial, he changed his plea to guilty. (but not before the child was ripped to shreds) and only when it became clear to everyone he not only was guilty but was also going to be found guilty. Got sentenced to a measly 3 years; served about 16 months. And 10 years on the sex offenders register.

Walked out of jail, straight back in to his job; his family; some of his social circle...apparently he'd...served his time.

His daughter still maintains he was innocent. His daughter who he visits daily and is a childminder....

This has been reported to Ofsted and the parole board several times; they're looking in to it.

Other friend was raped; guy got off because CCTV showed he was elsewhere; multiple people disputed this having seen them together on the night in question. Turned out the police looked at the wrong date; case is currently being investigated by the police ombudsman.

I was assaulted by a 'friend', one of our other friends heard me screaming and came to my rescue; our social group at the time fell over themselves to make excuses for him; it wasn't till my (real and happens to be male) friend backed me up was I believed.

None of the above men have had their lives ruined.

Every woman I know has experience some form of sexual assault form minor- hand on knee, to gang rape.

One in 4 women are sexually assaulted or raped in their life times (and these are the ones who can talk about it)

These are 3 incidents I can write about with out having to think hard; I cannot not bring to mind one true false claim; and I should be able to if it's so common

Thread after thread will tell you that many women are repeatedly assaulted; 2 women a week, now nearly 3 are killed but we should put the fact that there is a negligible amount of false rape claims first..........

bindi

So it doesn't matter that the majority of victims have their lives permanently blighted having been raped and then seeing their rapist walk free. As long as a small number of men don't have their lives 'permanently blighted' by a false allegation?

Hi, sorry not sure how to reply directly. But no it doesn't 'not matter'. Rape is awful and rapists should be executed in my opinion. If you read my post I did say 'on balance'. The justice system should be very rigorous in investigating all accusations but that doesn't mean splashing names in the papers without knowing full facts.
What you're really saying is it's OK to potentially sacrifice an innocent to avenge a crime that's already happened, and never mind the few poor sods who were falsely singled out. I understand that view but don't agree.

I dont think that the accused should get anonymity

And i also think that - NOT GUILTY B (case so weak that the accuser should be named) is a dreadful idea

The accuser should be tried separately if there is a case to answer