What will happen if the law is changed regarding people accused of rape?

[ToadsJustFellFromTheSky]

This isn't a TAAT but rather a thread inspired by a different thread.

With what has happened to Cliff Richards I have a very horrible feeling that the law will be changed soon so that people accused of rape will be granted anonymity. I'm trying to tell myself that I'm being illogical and the law won't be changed just because people are pushing for it to be changed but I can't help but think it will be.

So what will happen if it is changed? My understanding is that a lot of rape convictions are secured only because other women have come forward after the suspects identity has been revealed. If more than one woman are saying x has raped them then it makes it more likely that a conviction will be secured than if it was only just one person saying he did it.

So if you can't name suspects then what? Will the conviction rate drop? Do you think John Worboys and other serial rapists would have been convicted if they were allowed to remain anonymous?

Being accused of rape is going to destroy someone's life.

Really? The evidence quite simply shows that this isn't true? Was Craig Charles'life destroyed, for example?

I am against anonymity for the accused for two reasons:

1. Police forces have stated time and again that naming suspects enables other victims yo come forwards and make conviction more likely. Many of John Worbouys victims wouldn't have come forward if he'd been protected in this way. It is therefore in the interests on justice.

2. Suspects in many types of investigation get name. Why make rape a special case? The only justification for making an exception for rape would be if you think that either (a) rape suspects are more likely to be innocent because women are likely to lie about rape (untrue) or (b) rape is a more damaging thing to be accused of than other serious crimes like child abuse or murder (untrue).

In my view, people who argue for this do so because they believe that rape accusations are more likely to be false than other accusations. They simply don't believe or trust women, and think it is more important to protect a handful of falsely accused men than to support the 80,000 women raped every year.

(Please excuse typos!)

Woman - great post.

The change would be terrible for women imo.
Due to the conviction rate being so low we would almost never hear about this crime! It's already considered taboo and women feel they can't talk about it and won't be believed this would make it much, much worse.

There are clear examples (which you have already quoted) of times when a change in the law would lead to a reduction in the number of convictions which, given the woeful conviction rate, would be a bad thing in itself.

I think that just as bad would be the message that it sends out to victims though. It suggests that the default assumption is that they must be lying and that the poor rapists need protecting from the terrible lies that women tell about them.

The fact is, the number of false rape accusations is minuscule, particularly in comparison to the number of rapes that go unreported and that never make it to the CPS, let alone result in a conviction. That's what the conversation focus on. The legal system is still fundamentally set up to make it incredibly difficult to secure a rape conviction, anything that makes that harder is just so damaging.

In my case, my rapist wasn't named. In fact, there was no coverage at all until after conviction.

That is the norm - rape is to common to be interesting. So for most victims this will make little difference.

However, for those victims whose cases do generate coverage, I think naming suspects does often lead to other victims coming forward. Most rapists are repeat offenders, after all.

This has the practical effect of potentially making conviction a bit more likely, but it also has less tangible effects. For a woman who is facing the prospect of testifying against her rapist, knowing that she isn't doing so alone and that there are other women standing alongside her could be a significant source of comfort and support, making it less likely that she will drop out of the trial process. (Victims refusing to testify due to the stress and trauma of the process is common.)

I'm not a misogynist. Are you an idiot?
I am just suggesting that it could be that in some cases, men are not named until trial, and it could be something that the judge makes a call on - like other reporting restrictions.

Why only for rape? Why not for murder?

I'm not a misogynist.

I never said you were.

A man's risk of being raped by a man is higher than his risk of being wrongly accused of rape by a woman. (Or accused at all, I would imagine, what with only so few rapists ever seeing a judge)

Even if you prioritize men over women, you should be on the side of the victim.

But patriarchy is not about the wellbeing of all men, it is about the oppression of all women, first and foremost.

And of course, this "false accusations ruin a man's life" is bullshit. There are men who have been accused of rape and everyone knows they are guilty and they still get to do everything they want.

First off my lean is to keep it as it is I'd like the opportunity for serial rapists facing justice.

I can only think of one reason to grant anonymity is for women's sake. I recall a case a few years back where a man was accused, the case against him fell apart so he undertook to pursue a case of false accusation against his accuser, as the cps was reluctant to do so. Once his team had progressed the case the cps had no choice but to take over and the night before the woman was to be cross examined she killed herself.

One would have thought in that case if he had no reputation to repair (thanks to anonymity) no need for his case and she would still be alive...

There is a higher chance that a man is a rapist than being wrongly accused of rape. There are 10s of thousands of rapes a year and they aren't all done by one bloke! There are a miniscule amount of false accusations, in comparison. Do the maths.

I think in that particular case Dervel the man would have pursued the woman whether he'd been anonymous or not.