To think that most people who think men accused of rape should be granted anonymity don't understand what it actually means?

[PlantsArePeopleToo]

Anonymity simply refers to press anonymity. It has nothing to do with not being named during the course of the police investigation.

Even if those accused of rape and other sex crimes were granted anonymity it wouldn't stop allegations of those things needing to be investigated which would mean the suspect/accused would need to be named when speaking to potential witnesses and when building the case. Anonymity wouldn't stop those witnesses from then telling people who he is and it certainly wouldn't stop people walking into a rape trial and finding out who he is that way. Anonymity wouldn't stop bail conditions been set. It wouldn't stop people gossiping and making their own judgments.

I have seen it a lot, even on here, where people argue that they should be given anonymity because they know someone who was accused (falsely or otherwise) who had their lives torn apart as a result of the investigation or bail conditions despite the fact that those things have bugger all to do with anonymity and would still happen even if anonymity was in place.

I've even seen cases where a minor was accused and people still used them as examples as to why anonymity is important despite the fact that minors are automatically anonymous .

Not to mention the fact that the majority of men accused of rape are not named in the press anyway. Generally men only tend to be named if they are high profile or if there is an unusual or interesting element to the case (e.g serial rapist). The majority of men accused of rape already are anonymous.

I've been quite surprised by how many people seem confused by this why I've explained to them what it means or just flat out don't believe me.

AIBU to think that a lot of people arguing for anonymity for the accused think that it means that they won't be named or identified at all during the investigation? AIBU to think most people misunderstand what anonymity means?

I am afraid sometimes women do make false allegations

Nobody said they didn't.

They don't simply because it's not practicable to do so. If the news reported on every single rape allegation they would never get anything else reported.

That's clearly not what we meant. Nobody is saying that every name is released but it is bloody stupid to think that people are not named, sometimes if it goes to trial sometimes beforehand.

The reason people would prefer the names not to be reported is because every time the name of someone who did not commit rape is reported, even if it is to say they are a suspect that persons life is ruined. Even if this happened just once (it's happened blooming tons but that's beside the point) that is once too many.

Why not wait until they are proven guilty before saying or printing something, it is impossible to take it back once it is out there. So all people are asking for is for the press to wait until they have been charged, it's not rocket science.

I am afraid sometimes women do make false allegations

Some people also go naked fell walking, but it's rare, and therefore pretty irrelevant to the bigger picture. Much like false allegations.

I believe you're referring to Christopher Jeffries who was not accused of rape, and his case started a reform in the way the press can report

Heads it's rare innocent men are convicted of or even charged with rape.

Do you think the same anonymity should be reserved for all crimes or just rape? And if so why just rape?

it is bloody stupid to think that people are not named

Nobody on this thread has claimed that they are never named, simply that most of them aren't. And that poster I quoted clearly said that they are always named:

The press ALWAYS release the names.

Hmm, I am autistic and I wonder if that makes me rub people the wrong way. Somehow I doubt people would have reacted this way if it was someone else who started this thread.*

Why would it be different if another poster started this thread?

I still think yabu ( and i would if it was another poster) and yes i know what anonymity You’re talking about.

Why would it be different if another poster started this thread?

Because it's happened before.

I start a thread wanting to start a discussion and then get yelled yet, called names, ridiculed and have people misunderstand me. Then a few weeks/months/whatever someone else will start a similar thread wanting to discuss the same issue and everybody is a lot more respectful to them even if they disagree with them.

Same old same old.

Do you think it's my wording or something?

Yes, it has rubbed people up the wrong way ( though i can appreciate you may not have meant to!)

I think people who have cases going to court should be granted full anonymity.

It won't stop gossips, but it will stop papers where thousands of people read telling everyone the name and personal details of someone who may be innocent.
I also think it needs to extend to social media.

Innocent until proven guilty but we can spread all your details for all and sundry to read.

Yes, it has rubbed people up the wrong way

But how and why?

What do other people have that I don't?

I think it was just some of your wording.
I wouldn’t stress, i’ve had my ass handed to my on here for a one liner i came out

I think people who have cases going to court should be granted full anonymity.

I would agree with that if it was for all crimes (or at least all serious crimes.)

Not just for rape or sex crimes though.

Came out with*

It won't stop gossips, but it will stop papers where thousands of people read telling everyone the name and personal details of someone who may be innocent.
also think it needs to extend to social media.

Do you understand why no criminals are given anonymity (unless instructed by a judge)? Do you appreciate that Jon Worboys would still be drugging and raping women in his taxi if anonymity was automatically granted? And do you understand that cases going to court only go if they have an excellent chance of prosecution so actually innocence is unlikely?

I honestly cant6see how you hsve rubbed anyone up the wrong way OP, don't worry about it. I've learnt not to start many threads on here, particularly on AIBU.

I always tell myself the same thing @AspieHere but I never learn

Shame this thread got derailed though.

I would genuinely like to see a good explanation of why rape or sex crimes should be anonymised, without having a negative impact on other potential victims or the justice system in general. I am 100% convinced this explanation does not exist.

I don't see how you've rubbed people up the wrong way OP, but I've learnt that the subject of men raping makes people on MN (and IRL) extremely uncomfortable

I think all crimes should be anonymous yes until found guilty.

I would genuinely like to see a good explanation of why rape or sex crimes should be anonymised, without having a negative impact on other potential victims or the justice system in general. I am 100% convinced this explanation does not exist.

One is that there is a significant number of people who believe in the "no smoke without fire" syndrome, the UK should have a Scottish style sentencing to stop the "it doesn't mean they are innocent, just not enough evidence" brigade.

The CPS has had to look into a lot rape cases this year due in part to wanting to drive up convictions so much so that evidence was withheld.

But it depends on where you are on the line of believing in innocent until proven guilty, with a large section of society still believing the no smoke without fire its a knife edge situation that needs addressing, hence why anonymity is being muted.

Why Defrack? Would you be happy knowing that people like Jon Worboys would be more likely to get away with rape and still be raping today? Look up Tony Brunskill. He was a headteacher of a boys School who raped dozens of his students. It was only when one came forward in adulthood that others felt able to. Those men would have gone without that justice and Brunskill might be walking amongst them to this day. Is that sacrifice worth the few people who may be innocent?

That doesn't really explain why they should be anonymised Just. How does that help victims? Especially when rape convictions are woefully low already

Mumsnet is of the opinion that some high profile case men are fine that they all are. Or that who cares about a small numbe rof men that lives are ruined, its better that their lives are ruined in the off chance that it might help convict a rapist.

Yet woman who do make false claims is NEVER allowed to be brought up in court ever or proven cases were they have been dishonest aka committed fraud so they are not as trustworthy as they appear.

The defense is not even allowed to test the credibility of the "victim" yet the defendants entire life history is open too the court. Which in a he said she said case is so lopsided its unreal.

Peoples credibility should be tested by the court especially in cases were they need to make judgements on whom to believe.

I have similar views to just in regards to that once a person has been accused of a crime, some people will always think that person is guilty, even if they are found not guilty or if ( even if they are rare) completely innocent of any crime.
Yes there are a small amount of men that are accused of rape that did not do it, but this can destroy lives.
I don’t know what the answer is that is the best for everyone.