MPs committee strongly recommends anonymity for people accused of sex crimes

[PilchardPrincess]

This is back again:
here bbc

I am wholly of the opinion that this will go through, and handily just in time for when the investigations into historical sex offences by powerful people including many politicians gets underway.

It's just pathetically transparent.

Below the line commenters are all red hot keen, with many advocating for anon until found guilty. A few people saying that this should apply for all crimes (which is a far more logical standpoint unless you believe that women and children are inveterate liars when it comes to reporting abuse) and I haven't spotted anyone saying it might cause problems, although only skimmed top rated.

I think for me, the concept of not being allowed to report until charged, if it applied for all crimes would probably be reasonable and not interfere too much, although you'd need to try it to find out.

The idea that it's needed for sex crimes only as that ruins lives more is just such a load of shit. A person being accused of torturing animals or murder or conning old people out of money doesn't exactly get off scott free in terms of reputation. The reasoning is actually that many people like to think that women and children lie about this all the time for reasons that are never fully explained, and the evil bastards must be stopped.

So if they do this and make it for sex crimes only they are reinforcing the idea that many / most of these reports are lies and that will set things back years. Which will help though because actually people in authority don't want this stuff reported, it costs time and money to investigate, it makes things difficult with their friends, it makes them look bad when it turns out they didn't do it properly (rochdale, jimmy saville etc etc so many examples) and so on. Far better that people who are assaulted just put up and shut up which is what happens most of the time anyway but might push it back even further.

It's basically a large number of (low importance) victims being chucked under the bus to protect a tiny handful of powerful men, plus ca change.

So is this anonymity in terms of the press, or anonymity in terms of doing anything that might identify a suspect to anyone?

It's not clear from the article, if it's the second then I agree, I don't see how police can reasonably investigate at all if they are not allowed to do anything that might or would identify the suspect.

So the grey area about eg photofits that I mentioned earlier, or police releasing descriptions would not be grey at all, under the second interpretation.

I don't see how police can reasonably investigate at all if they are not allowed to do anything that might or would identify the suspect.

I suspect that might well be the point.

Thing is I don't imagine that most people supporting this are thinking in terms of the police not being able to eg release a photofit, or a description, or let the public know if someone is on the run.

I think they are thinking "oh that bloke off coronation street that was terrible".

I think if most people were asked if they thought it should be illegal to release photofits of suspected serial rapists, they would say yes... Probably?

I mean "no" there obv

Generally, I would think that the people who would prefer it to be illegal to release photofits or other information about crimes are those who have committed them or who are trying to protect someone who has.

That was the Joanna Yeates murder, Pilchard.

Came on here to post about this but saw there was already a thread. So pissed off about this! Agree with good points made above, it really is a backwards step. Many rapists are serial offenders and publicising who they are encourages other victims to come forward. When the John Worbuoys case was publicised over 70 women came forward to say they'd been victims too. Rape is massively under reported with a pitiful conviction rate and this will only make it worse.

< despairs >

No I quite understand, I wouldn't single out sex crimes. It's just that's what is under discussion here.

Also snark away this is an emotive subject, I don't think we bring emotional dimensions to discussions often enough.

Just to clarify its the principle of anonymity I agree with (in all criminal cases). I can't see this coming about currently without there being an overall net negative effect.

I do however think we may be able to take another look at it when fundamental improvements to the way we legally approach sex crimes have been identified, debated and successfully implemented.

there is really no end to the amount of energy people (men in power in particular) will put into protecting and/or excusing abusers

This is very wise -

www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/06/nigel-evans-and-ben-sullivan-are-wrong-rape-suspects-should-not-be-given-anonymity

"The only way rape rates will fall is if people stop committing rapes, and to do that, both victims and perpetrators have to be convinced that the justice system works. Would it be such a terrible world if (let's face it) white men in positions of power felt a little more chilled by the idea that if they aren’t 100 per cent sure the other person wants to have sex, they might be arrested for rape? Is not getting your cock out unless you have enthusiastic consent really a challenge? Ultimately, we need to foster a culture where the fear of raping someone is real."

Thanks for sharing slug, I'm sorry that happened to you.

Feeling powerless and very angry is a response lots of women and people who were victims as children end up feeling a lot of the time isn't it.

When these committees and people make these recommendations they don't seem seem to ever address this stuff? Why don't they say what it will mean in practical terms, how they would seek to mitigate any damage done by the change etc?

It seems really peculiar. Almost like they couldn't give a monkeys...

Just googling a bit and made the mistake of reading the comments on another article that was written a few months back.

Commenters saying:

Both parties should be anon until a guilty verdict at which point both should be named
The police should not warn the public about people who have not been found guilty being on the run, as it's not fair and women should be looking after themselves anyway
The police should not be allowed to identify potential suspects to anyone as it's not fair on them because of their reputation

I am continuously surprised that people hold these views. There is a lot to that comment that women are hated isn't there.

I've gone and got myself into a debate on Facebook about this. My 'friend' is claiming that the abysmally low conviction rates for rape suggest that many victims are in fact making false accusations. Can you point me to the source of the info that rape is no more falsely reported than other crimes? (I should probably just stop, I've been awake most of the night stressing about this.)

So if you murder someone the press can report, but if you rape them first, or have sex with the corpse the press can't?

Sashh, no, it's if you're arrested on suspicion, to 'help police with their enquiries' , but you've not yet been charged with an offence. Only when charged with rape would their name be released.

I think it would be really interesting to find out why so many people are so eager to believe that women and children are prone to making false reports, and especially to get someone to sit down with someone like the person you heard slug and talk to them about it with the stats and what has gone on with the police and stuff and try and get to the bottom of why they believe this.

I know many of the reasons that make sense but it would be so interesting to find out from someone who actually believes this, really why, and if they can be persuaded otherwise (working on the assumption they aren't an abuser themselves / close to one which of course a proportion will be).

"abysmally low conviction rates for rape"

When cases get to court, the % found guilty are broadly in line with other crimes of personal violence.

Thanks Buffy

Anonymity for "people accused of sex crimes" is only on the agenda because it is about protecting men who are suspected of rape. That is rape culture in action.

I heard on the radio that a YouGov survey on this proposal, for anonymity before charge for people suspected of sexual offences, showed 77% in favour of the proposal.

If this proposal does come before Parliament for MPs to change the law, I wonder whether it would be defeated in a similar way to how MPs reject capital punishment, by not reflecting the national mood of their constituents, most of whom favour capital punishment.

I think the success or failure of the anonymity proposal will depend on how many rape myths are believed by MPs. I hope feminists can make as many MPs as possible aware of rape myths and why they are myths.