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:
Lizzie48 · 31/03/2018 13:32

It's very insulting actually for you to say that, @lostjanni for those of us who have never had our day in court, because of there not being a 'realistic prospect of conviction', which is common with historical abuse cases. The police and the CPS believed us, and the police were convinced they had their man.

But based on what you're saying, he obviously wasn't guilty. And do you seriously think that 95% of rape allegations are false? Of course not, a lot of women don't report it in the first place.

LanguidLobster · 31/03/2018 13:37

Given what most women go through with trying to report I think it's understandable that they wouldn't come forward unless it was intensely clear cut

DeleteOrDecay · 31/03/2018 13:39

How ridiculous to suggest that being found not guilty means the crime didn't happen. People walk free from crimes they committed all the time. Thought this was common knowledge.

Thousands of women, children and men are raped every year. Only a tiny amount of those cases even make it to court, an even tinier amount of those cases result in a conviction.

Are you saying that those thousands of cases that get thrown out every year do so because no crime took place? By that logic women, children and men are making false accusations in their droves.

Which they are not.

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 13:41

Lizzie. Well he wasn't found guilty so isn't. No i dont think they're false, but i think the accused should remain annonymous like the victim does. Why does the victim getto remain annonymous in this crime but not in others. so why shouldn't the accused be?

OP posts:
Avasarala · 31/03/2018 13:43

I thinknthia thread is officially dead.
You can't debate someone who is so out of touch with the realities of the situation.

LanguidLobster · 31/03/2018 13:44

Avas yes

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 13:48

avasarala, aimed at me?

OP posts:
Lizzie48 · 31/03/2018 13:51

Well, the attack certainly happened, the flashbacks have been horrendous, from that and other SA we went through. But obviously because no one has been convicted that means it didn't happen. Angry

Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 13:52

It seems that some people think that every case with a not guilty verdict means that a crime happened but the prosecution couldn’t prove it. That’s as ridiculous a notion as every not guilty verdict means acrime didn’t happen. Its some of each, just as there are some innocent people in jail. The legal system isn't perfect but we need to make it better, and we could start by acknowledging that from a leal standpoint, everyone has the right to be believed, and the police have a duty to investigate everyone impartially and without bias. Everyone saying ‘I believe her’ (whoever she might be’ - on what basis? Because she’s a woman? Because she’s claiming assault or rape? If you don’t know her personally and have never met her, (whover she is), you can’t possibly know if she’s telling the truth. Blind solidarity based on nothing is insulting to all concerned.

Avasarala · 31/03/2018 13:53

Yes.

Just because someone is acquitted, it does not make them innocent.

I think we are very luck to be able to Google a new partner, or someone who we may employ to take care of our children, and find out if they've been charged with a crime. Then we can also see all the evidence against them, read the transcripts if we want and make up our own mind. Because people get off for all sorts of reasons - not always due to innocence.

Remember, the people deciding are not experts in law, body language, logical thinking, comprehension. They are just the general public with their own prejudices and misconceptions. So, along with all the technicalities that let people off, you also have the human side of it.

We need to be able to make the choice of whether someone is safe to be around for ourselves.

A lot of people will automatically think "they just have done something" and that might be unfair but most educated and fair people will read the evidence for themselves and make an informed decision.

Original poster
lostjanni · 31/03/2018 14:00

Megs, i agree.
I never said that cause they're not guilty they didnt do it. i'm saying if found not guilty they should remain annonymous, as it isn't fair to ruin a life if you can't prove it.
Lizzie, never said/ but sorry for what happened to you

OP posts:
gluteustothemaximus · 31/03/2018 14:01

Blind solidarity based on nothing is insulting to all concerned.

I didn't base #Ibelieveher on blind solidarity.

I based it on her internal injuries, and the blood loss she suffered. Because that is what happened to me.

It is highly probably that she was raped. But no one can ever say beyond reasonable doubt. Ever. So the criminal justice system does not work for rape, and never will.

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

Well i'm going toleave this debate now, as i think the question has been answered.

OP posts:
DeleteOrDecay · 31/03/2018 14:11

Everyone saying ‘I believe her’ (whoever she might be’ - on what basis?

Her injuries and blood loss - I've had rough sex. Never have I been left with cuts, bruises and bleeding
Witness reports of her appearing distressed and noticing blood on her clothes
Blood on the bed sheets
The total disregard for her as a person by the defendants as demonstrated in those whatsapp messages
The conflicting stories from the defendants
The reliance from the defence on rape myths and character assassination to back themselves up
The fact that the odds are heavily stacked against victims in rape cases.
The fact that she endured invasive examinations, 8 days of being cross examined in the stand, videos of her vulva being shown to random doctors, handing her underwear over for it to be passed around the court room, her reluctance to report at first because she knew she wouldn't be believed.

Why would she endure all that if she was making it up? Not to mention the vilification of her on social media and certain individuals disclosing her identity, leaving her at significant risk of physical and mental harm.

FairfaxAikman · 31/03/2018 14:14

You do it for all cases or you do it for none.
As UK justice is based on being done and being seen to be done anonymity would go against that.
Also as anyone can go and sit in on court cases the names would leak out anyway.

Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 14:39

I wasn't referring to any particular case but to the ‘I believe her’ movement where people seem to apply little critical thought, just saying that everyone deserves to be believed but no man does. The focus of this thread has narrowed and any individual case was not the original topic.

I understand what you said @lostjanni and agree with all that you have said too.

I’m leaving this thread now too. It’s another day when I’m ashamed to be a woman and rue the day that I ever considered myself to be a feminist. The world has gone mad and I fear for all the men in my family. I’ve been on the receiving end of sexual crime and on the wrong side of false reporting. I wouldn’t wish either on anyone and this kind of thread leaves me feeling helpless and hopeless. Back to the original topic - all you posters with fathers, brothers or sons need to look out for your menfolk. You are tarring them with a terrible brush. But I get it - what the zealots mean is that all men or boys accused are guilty, until it’s someone they know and love.

Well, you can forget that shit!!!

LanguidLobster · 31/03/2018 14:40

I'm completely astounded that some people think it's as easy as a woman saying 'it was that one over there, officer' and the police dragging him off by the ear. It's really not like that.

No to anonymity.

QueenOfTheAndals · 31/03/2018 15:01

all you posters with fathers, brothers or sons need to look out for your menfolk.

No. All our "menfolk" need to do is ensure they know what consent is and that they always have it before a sexual encounter. And that if a woman is so drunk that she doesn't know what's happening then she can't consent.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 31/03/2018 15:01

Both should have anonymity. Justice should not require one persons life ruined to make it easier to punish twenty other people.

Otherwise why bother with a trial, you could just lock up all men accused of rape because most of them are guilty and it doesn't matter about the few who are innocent.

Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 15:03

@LanguidLobster - I couldn’t let that pass.

Read factuk.org/2017/05/09/why-it-is-too-easy-for-innocent-people-to-be-wrongly-accused-of-sexual-abuse/

The issue is much wider than women being raped by their peers. The MAIN reason for teachers leaving the profession is fear of a false accusation. People get arrested on the basis of a phone call, which is even less than finger pointing. Please do some research. No individuals personal experience is the whole story of how the system works or doesn’t.

MrsTerryPratchett · 31/03/2018 15:11

You could, if you actually wanted the justice system to produce anything approaching justice, have an investigative rather than accusative basis system. Specially trained judges, even a trial by panel of judges rather than jury of peers. You could have a 'not proven' verdict, rather than guilty or not guilty.

You could do a whole lot of things that aren't either acquitting most of the tiny proportion of rapists that make it to court while allowing thousands of women to be raped every year without seeing justice OR locking up all the accused men.

peacheachpearplum · 31/03/2018 15:18

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

peacheachpearplum · 31/03/2018 15:20

No. All our "menfolk" need to do is ensure they know what consent is and that they always have it before a sexual encounter. And that if a woman is so drunk that she doesn't know what's happening then she can't consent. How does that protect them from a false allegation?

Megs4x3 · 31/03/2018 15:21

@QueenoftheAndals how does that help men and boys accused of events that never actually happened, or victims of ‘regret sex’, or an angry parent won't accept that their darling daughter is sexually active but barely over the age of consent, or accusations made by an angry teenager who resents her Dad’s discipline and decides to get back at him, or the ‘therapist’ who is more of a danger than a help to their client, or the troubled foster child who uses accusations as an attention-seeking or deflection strategy or any one of the miriad reasons why false accusations are made. Are you blind to all the different trials that have fallen apart lately where consent wasn’t the issue so much as poor investigation? Knowing about consent is only a tiny part of the problem. Like I said, this is not just a peer on peer issue.

Tunnel vision helps no-one.

Rufustherenegadereindeer1 · 31/03/2018 15:33

They're not rapists if they're not convicted!!!

Of course they can be

That makes no sense