Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

'Rapists' anonymity

311 replies

lostjanni · 29/03/2018 16:15

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?

OP posts:
Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:20

I like the Irish version.
I don't understand how a rapist being named helps anyone come forward.

OP posts:
Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:22

@Jewelofthenile. Thank the lord. You get it! Smile.

OP posts:
Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 11:30

@Jewelofthenile - great post!!! :-) Couldnt agree more.

TwittleBee · 31/03/2018 11:38

Feel sickened by that post Jewelofthenile

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:40

@TwittleBee. Why? Think it hits the nail on the head.

OP posts:
TwittleBee · 31/03/2018 11:43

hippy crack of the bleeding heart masses
is a vile misunderstanding of how much trauma this causes and how this is an issue of the masses

TwittleBee · 31/03/2018 11:44

men's behaviour should held to higher standards than their own

No one's is asking this

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:45

Oh so you have a problem with one little statement got you.
I agree with the majority if nit all she says.
We're shouting for equality but we think as soon as someone is accused is guilty.
We want to be anonymous but they can't be. Ducking double standards if I've ever seen it.

OP posts:
TwittleBee · 31/03/2018 11:45

demanding that an accusation of something should be enough to convict a man
Actually just wanting to be taken seriously, have a chance to be heard in court to begin with and allow all evidence (including admittance of the rapist) to be taken into account and used

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:46

@TwittleBee it already does happen

OP posts:
Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 11:47

But as soon as the women is questioned in court it is apparently disgusting behaviour.
ALL other cases allow the person's character to be questioned so why can't the 'victim's be.

OP posts:
Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 11:51

@Twittlebee - yes they are. Women who flirt or ‘come on strong’ are not being villified in the way men currently are. Women who drink alcohol and get drunk expect the rest of the world to excuse their behaviour, even if they behave in a sexually predatory manner, while men similarly drunk are expected to be responsible for their own. There are plenty of double standards in both directions.

TwittleBee · 31/03/2018 11:52

Also with the vast majority of rapists not being convicted due to it never getting to court , having their names out there will allow future potential victims to be careful. It will mean those rapists will potentially reconsider their future behaviour as they will now be watched. And allowing other victims to come foward means that the 1st person who came forward now has others supporting the accusation.

I went to the police about my rapist and it didn't get to court but if he rapes again or anything else it means my accusation will be used to help convict him next time round because he has a history and it can be used as a character reference.

When rapes are often one person's word against another, having other victims come forward gives weight to the accusations.

I need to come off this now as it's causing me so much anxiety and I'm trying hard nor to relive it all over.

Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 11:54

@TwittleBee Not every case deserves a day in court just because a woman says so. That’s not how the law should work.

Jewelofthenile · 31/03/2018 11:56

Twittle

You obviously havent been watching the news or reading the placards held aloft by the women protesting, because thats exactly what they say. Word for word.

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 12:14

They're not rapists if they're not convicted!!!
Having their name out there as a rapist if they're not found guilty is not fair.

OP posts:
Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 12:15

Megs4x3. Couldn't agree more.

OP posts:
NeedsAsockamnesty · 31/03/2018 12:34

Lost.

Would you fancy being alone in a room with the blokes from the Irish trial?

iheartmichellemallon · 31/03/2018 12:37

YABU - they definitely should not be given anonymity. We need to have an open & transparent justice system.

ScruffleCake · 31/03/2018 12:46

lostjanni is that the same for other crinimals? They're not murderers or thieves unless they get convicted?

DeleteOrDecay · 31/03/2018 12:53

Seems to me our men and boys need protecting and honestly

Men and boys are protected by a system that currently allows thousands of rapists to walk free whilst treating victims like criminals.

For example 17 people have been stabbed to death on the streets of london in the past three months. Any protest marches for that? And I'm not minimising rape or sexual assault by the way. It is a terrible crime, but it's not the only serious crime taking place.

We are all well aware of other serious crimes but this thread is about rape. If you want to discuss other crimes in detail then start a new thread.

Besides, There's nothing stopping YOU from raising awareness and organising protest marches. You seem very passionate about those awful stabbings in London, what's stopping you?

LanguidLobster · 31/03/2018 12:54

Oh FGS - not being convicted doesn't mean they're not guilty.

To convict means there has to be a lot of corroborating evidence such as DNA, eye witnesses, CCTV.

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 13:03

To convict means there has to be evidence they did it. Oh wait....

OP posts:
Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 13:04

Scruffle. Yes it is. Didn't do it if not guilty.

OP posts:
Avasarala · 31/03/2018 13:17

@lostjanni

So OJ didn't do it?
So, all those who get off on a technicality (bad search, contaminated lab). They all didn't do it?

An acquittal doesn't mean innocence. In the court system, they 'didn't do It' but that doesn't mean they actually didn't do it.

Unfortunately, that's just what happens in a legal system with robust defence - we'd rather 10 guilty go free than 1 innocent goes to prison. But that does not mean that all people found not guilty or not proven are actually innocent. And it's really quite horrifying that you think that.

Even our courts and government accept that guilty people go free and it's a fair exchange for a legal system that champions "everyone is entitled to a robust defence".