'Rapists' anonymity

[lostjanni]

Have been reading the post about the Irish rugby players and it got me thinking, do people accused of rape deserve anonymity until they're found guilty?

In my opinion yes, it was on the news a while ago that a man was accused and put through 15 months of he'll, lost his jobs, friends and family. And it turned out the girl had made it all up and had texts to prove she was lying. That guy suffered immenseley. And many do when wrongly accused. So I was thinking AIBU to think people accused of rape or sexual assault crimes should be kept anonymous until proven guilty?

Want to clarify I don't support rapists and think they're scun but shouldn't it be innocent until proven guilty.

No. If the accused anonimity was preserved John Warboys may very well not have been convicted.

I don't see why. We don't give those charged with murder anonymity.

Also what flock said.

Sometimes the name needs to be public for others to come forward. But, it's so unfair on the men who are 100% innocent and have their lives destroyed because police did not do their due diligence.

How about, if the accuser is found to have 100% made it up then they lose their right to remain anonymous and are put on gruel themselves. Not in cases where the defendant just got off due to lack of evidence or whatever, but when they have texts/emails which prove they have lied. They should be prosecuted for ruining innocent lives.

No because it helps other victims come forward. While I understand it is horrendous for falsely accused rapists, the balance in my mind is tipped from the odd man suffering to the eleventy million victims of rape who don't see justice because of difficulty of proof and fear of coming forward.

I would say yes anonymous for the bulk of the time (meaning days/weeks) but examine the likelihood of possible 'other' incidents and widen the net by releasing names if it is felt that it could be a serial case.

People falsely accused of other offences suffer consequences too. A lawyer or other trusted professional accused of theft, for example, could lose their job and reputation.
Why this desperation to privilege men accused of sex offences?

I think I could agree with outabout.
Tbh I think all people accused need to stay anonymous. It can ruin lives. I understand the argument of it can help convict the person by making them but it can also ruin that's person life forever.

What about the people accused of murder who are found not guilty?
Those who are proven to have made a false claim can be dealt with under the existing laws. These account for a tiny number of cases.

Wheresmyfuckingcupcake. You shall see I think all people accused should be anonomous.
I think it should be if the person is charged by the cps then name them as that usually means enough evidence to convict. Otherwise keep their name out of the media

No.

Unless you're happy to serial rapists to get caught and prosecuted even less than they do now.

You know what ruins massively more lives (by a factor of about 100)? Actual rapes that go unprosecuted.

I will be astounded if those rugby players lives are ruined. I imagine the poor girl's life is though.

@Flockoftreegulls. This women got 16 weeks behind bars. But ruined a life. Honestly I think she should have got years. And I hope the guy sues

This.

Terry. I think I have been persuaded. If charged with rape release name and see if anyone comes forward but make it clear they're innocent until proven guilty. Not publish name asking for help if you can't prosecute the Case at the stage you're at.

I feel like people are all to ready to believe the man was falsely accused. I know of one case where the guilty man got off (because the girl knew martial arts) and everyone was ready to forgive and forget and blame the victim. I'm sure this attitude is widespread otherwise why are people more worried about the rare cases of false accusation as opposed the the tiny percentage of rape accusations that lead to a trial.

Malicious accusations are so few and far between and affects a teeny proportion of men so I don’t see why all those accused should have anonymity for the sake of preserving a couple of careers.

No they don't no one else accused of a crime is afforded anonymity, if alleged rapists get it then you'll open the gates for all people accused of a crime, like GBH for example having it too.

Other victims of crime sometimes only come forward because of the publicity surrounding a subsequent event, I think its important to leave that part of the law in place, there should be no protection for alleged criminals who have been sent for trial, before that possibly.

@Flockoftreegulls
There were a lot of high profile cases in the UK that fell apart this year and last year because emails/texts/diaries were uncovered or finally investigated that proves the men's innocent. As far as I can see, the women who made those false reports havnt been named due to anonymity rules for rape victims (which these women were not) or prosecuted.

It seems they very rarely are. If we want to name people who have been accused, then we should be naming the women making it up. But only when it is without a doubt that they have made it up.

Scurryfunge. 0reserving a few careers. You mean preserving lives. It ruins lives. I understand rape does and hope rapists get all that is coming to them but should innocent people's lives be ruined?

@Avasarala. Thank you.
I think all criminals should stay anonymous until charged

The basic principle in this country is open justice. Save for exceptional cases you can walk into any trial in the country and see who is on trial, what for and, most importantly, how the trial is conducted.
That public scrutiny is what ensures fair trial. Take trials under wraps to protect defendants and that won’t just damage the efforts of police (although it will do too).
It’s a silly idea and I hope it never gains traction.

No way should they be allowed anonymity. The only thing that gives me any slight relief about the vile man (who was meant to be a very close friend) that raped me is that his name is known to the police, his friends / family / work and that there will always be an air of "what if he did do it" which will hopefully make any potential victims of his more aware. I know he also lost his job and his house mates kicked him out when they found out what he was arrested for (despite not being convicted) which also gives me some sort of satisfaction that at least those people believed me. I just hope that even though he hasn't been convicted, people will be more aware of him now as there will always be rumours.

My point is that it affects so so few and the benefits of naming outweigh this.

Ps have a look at how the family courts operate for a taste of what you’re asking for - oh wait, you can’t. No chance if uncovering whether secrecy kills fairness there.
It’s not a model to replicate, trust me