'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 the point re consent, and sorry if my post was not clear, is that a rape victim can feel they have been raped while the legal offence of rape did not occur because the accused did reasonably believe in consent. That cannot happen in a paedophilia case because consent is not at issue. It is the action that needs to be proven and not the mental state of the accused.

That's why I don't think child sexual abuse is comparable.

Tatiana it's unlikely he would have brought the prosecution. That's my only point in relation to that case.

Can you explain what you would change about the justice system to secure more convictions?

I think the difficulty comes with cases of historical abuse. Because then you have an adult accusing another adult, and it does become a case of he said/she said, though not about consent.

I suppose it's confusing when you're a survivor like I am, because you've been made to feel that you 'led him on'.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty and so, yes, anonymity should be preserved. It's not ideal but until a better solution can be found that is my stance.

Wild speculation cushions we can’t possibly know if would have or not. Given his taste for vengeance and his online pursuit of de Freitas and her father, I think it quite likely he would have done so even if anonymous. The people around him would have known of the investigation anyway.

I don’t think the issue is simply about the conviction rate, but to make sex offence trials for adults and children more humane.

But to answer your question:

First, one would have to change the mentality of rank and file police, they would also need to given much better training and more money to investigate sex offences thoroughly.

Second one would have to change the mentality of the judiciary wrt sex offences and improve the quality and quantity of specialist training, which is fairly poor.

I could comment on issues wrt defence barristers - who are happy to trade on rape myths, some of whom go out of their way to shame and humiliate the complainant or look for ways to include the complainant’s sexual history despite the rules round it, for example. But ultimately they are simply doing their job which is to discredit the complainant - fairly easy to do given the myths around rape and female behaviour.

The real problem is that the adversial system does not work well for adult and child sex offences.

I’d rather see a panel of specialist assessors, sitting alongside a judge or panel of judges.

How would the decision making process of specialist assessors be different to that of a judge and jury and why would that be better in your view?

I don't disagree with your points re the attitudes of police and juries - have made similar comments myself upthread. I thought when you said that the current system upholds the existing balance of power that you were saying in your view more convictions could be achieved but for the patriarchal attitudes of the judiciary etc but I may have misunderstood what you were saying there.

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

It pretty hard to falsely accuse someone of murder.

I'm not sure on this one. I can see arguments for and against. Those rugby players won't ever recover from this and their names will be forever smeared. Because people have their opinions no matter what the verdict was. They should have been charged with gross indecency IMHO.

It pretty hard to falsely accuse someone of murder.

It's really not.

I don’t mean to downplay the seriousness of false accusations, but the media have been found to consistently make up
Things are about people in the public eye and no one would suggest they go to prison. Is it because it’s a poor member of the public or because it’s usually a woman that you think they should Be so severely punished?

If you're talking to me, then neither reason. Honestly, what is wrong with you?

Falsely accusing someone of rape, having them hauled into a police station, interviewed, name released to the public, possible job loss, family being shamed, losing places at university etc etc. All of that happens as a result of false rape allegations.

Then there's the cost to the taxpayer - the investigation, the legal aid if any is involved, the court costs, police time - all of it.

That's why someone should be very severely punished for making false allegations.

Not for being a woman, not for being a member of the public but for causing so much distress and financial cost.

I can't believe you need that explained to you. I'm at a loss.

Oh, and also - every time someone makes a false allegations, it makes it harder and harder for real victims to be believed.

That alone is reason enough to punish them.

Really, what is wrong with you that you can't work that out.

You have a ridiculous attitude if you think that someone being punished for a disgusting lie is actually only being punished because they're a woman.

Not everything is 'because it's a woman'. I'm sick of hearing that when it has nothing to do with the point,

Avasarala. Here here

Avasalara.
Well said.

@Avasarala

Do you think people who file false burglary reports make it harder for genuine victims of burglary to be believed?

@PleaseDontGoadTheToad

Completely ridiculous and incomparable. What utter nonsense.

The struggle for rape victims to be heard and believed is very widely documented and understood. It's not something you can try and pretend doesn't exist or diminish by comparing it to burglary. And when people lie about it, it validates everyone who's ever said "well, she sleeps with other guys, she gets drunk, she lead him on, a man can't rape his wife". Trying to make out that this isn't a problem is just stupid.

You can try to nullify anything by doing this sort of "but what about..." argument over and over, but it doesn't logically make any sense.

There is no preconceived notion to not believe someone has been burgled. There is a huge problem with people still not believe women. They have nothing to do with each other and you've made yourself sound like an idiot.

You didn't answer the question.

But why do people disbelieve women who say they've been raped?

Think.

You're question isn't worth answering because it's ridiculous, has nothing to do with this topic and the answer is pretty bloody obvious.

You also aren't worth speaking to about this if you can be so ill informed.

Somebody's a bit tetchy tonight...

It's actually very relevant.

Why does a false rape accusation (or even juat a perceived false accusation) make it harder for genuine rape victims to be believed but a false burglary report doesn't make it harder for genuine burglary reports to be believed?

As a rape survivor myself I find the whole thing about false rape accusations making it harder for us ridiculous and quite frankly, fucking offensive.