'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?

No one gives a shit about the tens of thousands of women, men and children that are raped every year in this country alone. If every single rape went to trial the country would grind to a halt. Where’s your thread op about the 1000s of men that walk away Scot free after raping someone? Where’s your indignation about that?

Avasarala I see, I would hope in these that the CPS are trying very hard to prosecute because not only is this a crime but they also have wasted precious resources of our police and legal system.

I think a man should only be named when the police are practically 100% sure that he's guilty, but they need more evidence to get it to trial. Or when they know he's a danger and want to put his name out to protect other women.

The police also need to be tougher on prosecuting women who make false accusations. An estimated 1 in 20 rape accusations are false. It's not a huge number, but neither is it tiny, minuscule or insignificant. And despite what people on here say, it can be devastating for men who are falsely accused and/or convicted of rape.

More concerned about the fact that about 95% of rape cases don’t lead to a conviction, to be honest.

Exactly. False accusations are so vanishingly rare. Of course it's awful when it happens and I'm in favour to those who do lie facing consequences, but the number of false accusations is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of rapists who get away with it and continue to rape.

I'm far more concerned with the thousands of women, children and men who are raped and never report or do report only to then see their attackers walk free than the relatively small number of men who are genuinely falsely accused of rape.

An estimated 1 in 20 rape accusations are false.

Source?

Avasarala but you are mixing up two separate issues. One is the failure of the police to investigate properly in the first instance and then the police/CPS failure to charge someone who has made a false accusation. The whole thing would have been avoided if the police had done their job as the cases would not have met the charging criteria.
Tbh I really wonder why people are not fucking outraged about men raping and assaulting women with impunity and those who are charged and found guilty being given parole insultingly quickly rather than spending all their time worrying about the tiny number of false rape allegations.
Stockholm syndrome is what springs to mind.

It depends where you read your estimates - in the tabloids or from actual CPS figures.

The study released on Wednesday by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) reveals that during the 17-month test period – when all false allegation cases were referred to the DPP – there were 5,651 prosecutions for rape and 111,891 for domestic violence in England and Wales.

By comparison, over the same timespan, there were only 35 prosecutions for making false allegations of rape, six for false allegations of domestic violence and three that involved false allegations of both rape and domestic violence.

www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/13/rape-investigations-belief-false-accusations

No. Doesn't happen for other crimes, why should (potential) rapists get special treatment?

Well some people (not me, I hasten to add) might argue the same about women or men who make an accusation of rape. Why should they get 'special treatment' by being given automatic lifelong anonymity, when this doesn't happen for other crimes?

A lot of women wouldn't come forward to report crimes of rape if they weren't guaranteed anonymity. I wouldn't have. Because of the possible impact on the rest of our family if the media had been able to record our names.

It's not something women want people to know about.

They get anonymity as they were so appallingly treated in the past, that it put people off reporting, so it had to be done.

I think if you’re going to argue something, you should read up on it.

With the way rape convictions are it is so depressing to see a thread about men’s rights to anonymity as if this is the issues at all especially on a day like today. Don’t worry about their anonymity so much op worry about the facts that the conviction rate is appallingly low and the legal system is set up to favour men and make conviction for this appalling crime so difficult. The texts you were referring about a previous case to did not prove the victim was lying. They did no such thing, personally I think he was guilty, the text messages just made it harder to convict as you need to be seen as whiter than white to even get a sniff at a conviction. Sad to see this poor menz stuff trotted out.

Have you read the account of the rugby player trial? It is very, very uncomfortable reading. If they were anonymous do you think they would be ‘regretting their actions that night’?

There's a stigma to being a rape victim, even if the rapist is found to be guilty without a doubt.

Im with those who say until the person is found guilty of a sexual offence they should remain anonamous unles they pose a risk to the general public - ie serial rapist on bail who has gone missing.

I get that a large percentage of rapes go unreported and there are few successful convictions compared to rapes, however sexual offence accustaions DO ruin lives for the innocent.

Would you stay with someone accused of rape but not found guilty in court and everyone whispering behind your backs? They have then lost their job because of hte press and are unable to support your family and you have to go into a shelter. Shit tends to stick regardless of how factual it is and it sticks for a long time. Very few people in reality would cope with all of this depite the keyboard warriorism.

For those saying that you should protect all alledged offenders, sexual offences are a difference class of offence compared to burglary and murder. Would you want to work with a burglar, maybe not but you would at a push, a person charged with rape but the case dropped as it turned out to be a lie - you would always have hte niggle of did they and be very uneasy.

When employing someone, googling their name to see what hits come up and theirs their picture and the word rapist, that poor lad who through no fault of his own is now unemployable forever.

Women who make obvious false claims should get a minimum sentence and hte courts need to impose it each and every time. Thats the only way to solve the currnet problem if the naming of suspected offenders is to continue.

It's not necessarily about the stigma. It's also about not wanting to be defined by what happened to me.

I can go about my life not having to explain myself to the other mums in the playground. My DDs don't know about it, obviously, and I can be confident that it won't be blurted out by another child in the playground.

The de Freitas case shows very clearly why anonymity would be a good thing in some cases. I think it would be a good thing in most cases actually and obviously waived once conviction is secured thus enabling other victims to come forward.

Names of defendants are not made public for any crimes until someone is charged (except in extenuating circumstances).

Rapists will only be charged if the CPS believe there is sufficient evidence to bring about a prosecution - which will require significantly more evidence than just what some woman says.

There is no evidence that false reporting of rape is any higher than false reporting of any other crime.

Only a small percentage of rape cases reported to police ends in a conviction (last figure I saw was 5.7%). That does not mean the women and girls reporting those rapes were lying. It means there was not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the men did not believe the sex was consensual. Many of those cases will never have made it as far as court.

Even when we have men who are accused of rape saying in their own statements that they were indifferent to or did not care whether the woman had consented, never having exchanged a word with her while she was conscious, juries can still decide that there is not enough evidence to convict them.

Do not tell me that being accused of rape causes a man to lose everything - not when we have Donald Trump in the White House. Not when Ched Evans is continuing to enjoy his family and his football career, while his victim has had to leave her country, her friends, and family to start over.

I am in awe of those women who having already been through the trauma of rape then go through the additional trauma of a court case where they (their personal life, their mental health history, their relationship history) will be put on trial. And even then to see their rapists go free, possibly to do it again to some other woman.

As Unilad joked, the odds of getting away with raping someone are pretty good. This is why mud sticks to anyone accused. This is why just because a bunch of jokers have been acquitted of rape in a court of law, I still say 'I believe her'.

Once I would have said never, no anonymity. But I'm conflicted now as I know of a case that collapsed a while ago, I'm as sure as I can be that the accused were guilty, it basically collapsed on a technicality and they gave a number of interviews tearing the victim apart. Complete character assassination. I know she's anonymous, but she read them, her family and friends read them, some people who knew her but knew only the vaguest details of the case figured out it was her.

If they'd not been named that would never have happened. Thankfully nobody named her, but a few people got dangerously close to identifying her on Twitter.

To all those saying that those falsely accused have lost friends and family, don't you think that would happen anyway? Friends and family would be likely to know after all, some may have to be interviewed. I'm sure in many cases that people locally will know who has been accused of what - and who has done the accusing.

@Flockoftreegulls.

Did I say I wasn't outraged? I am. I think if you're guilty of rape then that's it for you - you should never be allowed near freedom again. It's not a one time mistake, or something that happens by accident or desperation. If you rape someone, then that's the end for you - at least that's what I think it should be.

But I wasn't talking about the rapists - I was talking about the false accusers. They are not mutually exclusive and I can be outraged by both.

The accused shouldn't have anonymity. The alleged victim should. But if it comes out through trial or investigation that the accuser lied, and it's proven they lied, then throw the book at them.

It doesn't matter if the police find out during the initial investigation or during trial - they've lied, they've made it harder for real victims to be believed and they've wasted resources. Lock them up and release their name. But only if it is certain that they lied.

I think yes until it's a danger to the public .ie if you think the person is a serial rapist etc then I think it should be out there

The de Freitas case shows very clearly why anonymity would be a good thing in some cases

De Freitas should never have been charged in the first place. The officers who investigated the original rape case consistently refused to support prosecutors in bringing the case against her.

To be clear, false reporting of any crime should be met with harsh justice. But in this case, were discussing rape.

I wish people would stop trying to invalidate someone's point by saying "what about all the other crimes". It's nothing to do with the topic but the answer is also bloody obvious - if someone says false reporting of this which can be proven should be punished, then their viewpoint is clear.

If you falsely report and get caught, then off you go to jail.

Would you stay with someone accused of rape but not found guilty in court and everyone whispering behind your backs?

Being found not guilty in court does not mean that the person is innocent and that the alleged victim made it up. If that was the case then the majority of rape accusations would be untrue which clearly isn't the case.