'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?

Because there is a culture of it, you cannot ignore the affect of false allegations.

There is not a 'culture' of false allegations. That would imply they were common place, which they are not.

There is a culture of people not believing women who have been raped. That is not the same thing.

This is an awful thread, with the assumption that there are a lot of women who make up false allegations of rape. That appears to me highly improbable when there is such a low conviction rate and the process is so harrowing.

There are probably as many who lie about other crimes like burglary and fraud, or house fires that turn out to be arson, just so that the supposed victim can claim on their insurance. So why focus on rape? Because there is this prevailing misogynistic idea that women 'cry rape' and shouldn't be believed.

I think everyone has gone a bit off track here, with meens and womens rights. My simple question was should people accused of rape be given annonomisity, because the accuser does and that doesn't hppen in any other crime so why should the accuser remain annonymous if the accused can't.

Just saying i do volunteer in the police, so have seen first hand the affect rape does have on people.

As soon as police actually started to look into the reality of 'fake rape' claims, they discovered they're extraordinarily rare.

Out of interest, how many women on here would report rape or sexual assault? I wouldn't bother. Bad enough to go through it once, without the shit of trying to get to trial. I wish I could, to protest the rape culture, but the reality is that it would be far too much hassle.

Because we all know men walk away scot free. But no, please feel free to worry about the poor bloody men and the ruinous effect rape has never had on their lives, any more than consensual sex does. Many don't know the difference anyway.

lostjanni - because the effect on women's lives is far far worse. Sex is such a problem for women in so many ways, even before you get to rape, whereas for men it is never an issue. And because most men accused are rapists, but have walked free.

Out of interest, how many women on here would report rape or sexual assault?

Never in a million years even if they paid me.

@SusanBunch of course I’m not saying that complaints shouldn’t be investigated, I’m saying that they should be investigated properly with the police looking for evidence of innocence as well as guilt, that complainants shouldn’t be described as victims until a court has come to a verdict, that the possibility of false accusations and the many reasons for them should be addressed, that the issue of compensation should be reviewed, and if a woman gets anonymity when making an accusation, then men should get that too, unless there is already proof that he may be a serial offender.

Focusing on Liam’s stated stress is missing the point. One case isn’t the whole picture. What about the men who lose job, home and children because of an accusation that proves to be unfounded? What about the people whose lives are on hold for 2 or 3 years before the CPS decide there is no case worth pursuing? Accusers and accused?

There are other things that need addressing but that will do for now. :-)

Oh for god TemporarySign, so i can't worry about the affects i admit the rare false accusation has on men? Or the accusation that goes public before it goes in court!!!!

I volunteer with the police, and if the name is published in papers locally which it is, the mans family suffers, which isn't fair even if he did do it.

I'm asking why should the victim be annonymous and not the accused, because in all other crimes the victim doesn't stay annoymous.

Because there is a culture of it, you cannot ignore the affect of false allegations

It should not even be an issue.
Imagine in a trial for burglary if the jury was thinking 'so the complainant's stuff was all missing, the window was broken, the defendant was seen running from the scene, but I hear that sometimes people stage burglaries and then try to fit others up for them, so I will not convict'.

The woman in the Belfast case was inconsolable, bruised, bleeding, with a laceration to her vagina. She reported it the very next day, sought medical attention. The jury clearly thought 'well, despite all this, we all know girls cry rape, especially with rich sportsmen. Must all be a lie'.

The fact that sometimes people lie should not be the thing at the forefront of your mind when it isn't for other crimes.

Can we focus on the question, if the accuser gets to remain annonymous why shouldn't the accused.

Seriously lost

But how would a press anonymity law prevent any of those things from happening Meg?

Alleged rapes would still need to be investigated even with anonymity in place.

yes! In no other crime does the accuser remain annonymous. So if they do in the case of rape, why can't the accused.

I’m a newspaper court reporter.

I think the mistake people often make with this issue is to base their thoughts on a very small number (I can count them on one hand) of high profile cases where men have been accused of rape and found not guilty at trial (Michael Le Vell, William Roche et al)
.
The huge majority of rape trials taking place in courts up and down the country every day are already essentially already held in secret because there simply aren’t enough court reporters to cover them. I’ve been doing this for two decades and I’ve never named a rape suspect before charge. In fact, I’ve only once even had the name of a suspect before they’ve actually made their first appearance on the court list.

We don’t name them because a) we only very rarely know their name and b) it’s not worth the libel risk. We just wait until their first court appearance then name them.

If we weren’t allowed to name suspects until conviction then, in effect, that would be the end of any reporting of rape cases except those where very, very high profile men are the defendants. This is because you simply cannot report a case where you can’t name any of the parties. You can’t report names, locations, relationship to the witnesses, or anything that might identify the parties involved. It just becomes a nonsense and one that my newsdesk would not allow me to report for a whole week with no copy to show for it. If you think that newspapers wouldn’t give up going to court, then look at the total lack of reporting of the family courts where nobody can be publicly named. Miscarriages of justice every day, with nobody there to report on them.

One of the principles of justice is not only that justice is done, it is that justice is seen to be done. If there is, in effect, no reporting of rape cases then justice is less likely to be done. Crimes against women will go largely unreported and people will stop hearing about the terrible things that women encounter every day.

And, actually, most men accused of rape who are found not guilty do go back to their jobs with the full support of their employers. The women who accused them don’t usually have the same luxury.

In no other crime does the victim get blamed for being the victim.

In no other crime is the victim treated on the dock as though they themselves had committed a crime.

In no other crime is the finding of "not guilty" translated as "the victim made the whole thing up, is a vindictive liar and a slut/pricktease/whatever and deserved everything they got) etc etc etc.

In no other crime is the victim more vilified than the accused.

That is why rape victims get anonymity.

Not to mention the historical background to rape, where the woman is the "possession" of another man, and her being raped brings shame on her owner, but that's a whole other thread

Oh, and if anyone thinks there are loads of women all over the place making up this kind of stuff, they should go to court to see a rape trial. It’s hideous. Such a traumatic experience for them. I have only ever seen one case where I wasn’t actually sure if she was telling the truth or not. Conviction rate in the court multiple cases I’ve seen over the years: I’d guess at about 50/50. If there’s any doubt, they are found not guilty, pretty much every time.

One case isn’t the whole picture. What about the men who lose job, home and children because of an accusation that proves to be unfounded? What about the people whose lives are on hold for 2 or 3 years before the CPS decide there is no case worth pursuing? Accusers and accused?

That has nothing to do with anonymity. I live in a mid sized city. there will be dozens of men accused of rape here, awaiting trial. I haven't heard about a single of them because I don't know them. Contrary to belief, the local paper does not do a huge spread every time a woman reports a rape.

I do know someone who was accused of rape, later convicted. He lost his job straight away because his bail conditions stopped him from attending that area. No paper wrote about it. His colleagues found out from their head of department and spread it round the office. How would anonymity possibly have made a difference here? Sometimes investigations take a long time.

Re children- again, nothing to do with anonymity. That, as the OP keeps saying, was her question. Child protection must be based on what is best for the child. If there is an allegation of rape, it is necessary to ensure that any contact takes place safely. It's unfortunate if it turns out the allegation is untrue, but not as unfortunate as the impact on children who are left on their own with sexual abusers. Also, with child protection, action is often taken even if a prosecution is dropped, because they work on different standards of proof.

One thing that men can do to make it less likely to be accused is to treat women with respect, don't use them as sexual objects, don't talk about them like they are nothing, ensure that consent is enthusiastic and freely given, have sex within trusting relationships rather than with a drunk stranger who you are not 100% sure she is up for it, don't laugh and boast with your mates and send them humiliating pictures of your sexual encounters. Be a nice person. People are always giving women advice on what to do, so here is my advice to men. The fact that the men in the Belfast case were misogynistic pieces of shit surely made their odds of being accused much much higher than had they been kind and respectful people. If you act like a scumbag, you run the risk of getting accused, just as I run a risk of getting robbed if I leave the front door open.

Out of interest, how many women on here would report rape or sexual assault?

I was abused as a child, assaulted at 18 and raped in my twenties. I have only recently told my partner about these incidents. My partner has told me to go to the police, I just laughed at him. If I was raped or assaulted tomorrow I most likely would not report it.

What Maryz and Susan said. Or in short, women suffer far more from men than men do from women.

I've had experience of police volunteers before. One of them chose to tell half my hometown I was lying about an assault, despite evidence to the contrary. So take your 'the poor man's family suffers which isn't fair even if he did do it' and shove it.

And no way would I report to the police again.

@DeleteOrDecay

Your misunderstood that statement entirely.

Right beforehand, I was talking about the culture of people not believing woman and because there is a culture of it (people not believe women) then false allegations give them the opportunity to say "told you so".

Take more time over your comprehension.

Can we focus on the question, if the accuser gets to remain anonymous why shouldn't the accused

It will make little difference to the accused if he were anonymous. I think you would be very disappointed if it were enforced. Anonymity can be granted to vulnerable witnesses, not just the complainant in a rape case. I would potentially be in favour of an application having to be made to keep the complainant's name anonymous rather than blanket anonymity.

I think you are seeing it in a very strange/simplistic way though. The complainant is not on trial. They have not been accused of a crime. It is a very odd logic to want witnesses and defendants to be treated the same. Your reason for wanting to lift anonymity seems to be based on wanting to shame them if the defendant is acquitted, even though an acquittal does not mean that the complainant lied. There is already a procedure whereby charges can be brought for perjury, at which stage she would be named. But apparently that is not enough because the CPS rarely prosecutes. Welcome to the world of rape victims- the CPS rarely prosecutes allegations either.

Could you explain why naming the complainant would improve the justice process?

Fair enough I stand corrected. No need for the snark about my comprehension.

I highly doubt he lost his job based on one apparently false allegation....