'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?

Here is one although it is 2015

unlike other forces, GMP has never prosecuted a victim for making a false allegation.

amp.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/15/behind-the-scenes-at-a-police-rape-team-bbc-documentary

Thank you pink very interesting

I thought you meant that they had an actual policy though

So cross purposes there

Well, I can't argue with what you chose not to believe. I didn't imply any particular extent either.

Try searching for The Secret Barrister's blog, or for any information on Simon Warr, or Paul Gambaccini or Kato Harris or barristerblogger.com or for Anna Raccoon's blog or for Alexander Economou (the authorities were planning to prosecute the woman who accused him, but they got that wrong because she was so mentally fragile that she committed suicide), or look at the justicegap.com, or look for a website called daftmoo.com

Get and read a copy of The Secret Barrister: Stories of the Law and How It's Broken, just published in the last week or so.

Or get and read a copy of Wrongful Allegations of Sexual and Child Abuse, edited by Ros Burnett. The Oxford University has a whole Centre for Criminology.

Those are the possibilities that come to mind immediately.

Failure to disclose evidence is rife throughout the court system and not confined to sexual crime - if you believe a barrister that is.

You won't find things easily because most people falsely accused want nothing more than to hide away and rebuild their lives and their mental health and they don't go blasting their experiences all over the web for the most part and the authorities don't keep statistics on facts that they would rather didn't exist. Any failed trial is a 'failed conviction' in their book, they don't break down the reasons for the failure.

It's always officially 'there wasn't enough evidence for a conviction' never 'we found evidence of innocence'. If you approach this with an open mind, you may find that it's a big black hole that sucks you in and swallows you whole. The information is out there.

'I thought you meant that they had an actual policy though.'

You mean an actual written policy? They wouldn't be that stupid, they just come up with excuse after excuse why they won't be investigating a particular person for perverting the course of justice or wasting police time. Usually it's 'not in the public interest'.

meg

That's exactly why i used the words 'seem to be implying' rather than are ...

And yes

When pink said that some forces have a POLICY of not prosecuting i did indeed think...well thats a bit odd, why would they be dumb enough to do that

And that is indeed why i asked for a link to that policy...which didnt turn up, obviously

Also still interested in where people on this thread have said that false accusers shouldn't be prosecuted

As that is also a very dumb thing to say

Ive read the secret barrister blogs, very interesting at times

I dont tend to say on these threads what i agree with and have been known to nod sagely at all sorts of posts

But i dont like blanket statements, like 'the police have a policy of not prosecuting'

Or 'evidence has been found on text message that the women was lying' often the texts in the public domain say no such thing

And i should clarify...

When i said i didn't believe

I meant that in all the recent newspaper reposrts about the failure of the recent rape trials (two recents but im tired) i didnt believe that the women were false accusers

If anonymity were granted to the accused then the issue of action and prosecution of those making accusations would be less of an issue. That is not to say I believe that where someone was found not guilty the victim was at fault but at least the accused would be spared the media.

An estimated 1 in 20 rape accusations are false.

This is a lie
Research for the Home Office suggests that only 4% of cases of sexual violence reported to the UK police are found or suspected to be false. Studies carried out in Europe and in the US indicate rates of between 2% and 6%.

Cases where "it's clear the woman is making it up" don't get to trial along with thousands where it's patently obvious that he dunnit

The rate of false report of crimes is about the same throughout and yet the only crime that people seem concerned over false reports is rape.
You read on the news that a person faked an assault but there is no great outcry and wringing of hands over all these false assault reports.
Which are made at about the same rate as false reports of any other crime.