Why are people so defensive towards alleged rapists?

[PinkyofPie]

If you're charged with a crime that goes to court, unless there's a reason to retain anonymity (such as it involves your child therefore naming you effectively names them) the press can name you if they wish to do so. Be it burglary, assault, theft or rape.

So why, every time a rapist is on trial, do people hop about saying "innocent until proven guilty" "they shouldn't be named they're tarred for life now" etc. But literally NO other crime.

A few days ago my local paper posted a picture on their FB newsfeed of 2 men on trial accused of raping a 18yo in the park. The above comments were there and even calls to "name and shame" the victim and also "will she get sentenced if they're found not guilty". Perhaps because "not guilty" does not mean innocent and if the law worked that way even fewer women would report rape than there is now

One of the men accused also posted mocking both the trial and people who actually had sensible comments. I looked at his profile, which is public, and there's lots of people saying "good luck mate" for today (verdict) and memes about liars getting their comeuppance.

Today both men were unanimously found guilty by the jury in just 7 hours.

No comments so far on the post about their guilt.

Can anyone offer an explanation as to why people take this attitude with rape, and only rape? The poor survivor has had to read all that sympathy for them

but the stigma or rape is far higher

You keep saying that but you still haven't given me any evidence that being accused of rape carries a bigger stigma.

So I'm going to ask you yet again - What evidence do you have that being accused of rape is more damaging and carries a bigger stigma than being accused of murder/child abuse/assaulting the elderly/arson/GBH/torturing animals etc?

Sorry my mistake - separate postings

Evidence please?

I have stated the I personally think anonymity for a broader spectrum of crimes needs looking at. Our laws are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - but that isn't the case.

gone

Thanks for understanding re joke

And i belive that our justice system is very good and gives fair trials to those accused of any crimes

I know you are understanding it differently but my intention was to say that i think our system is very good and gives fair trials to the accused, maybe i should have said because

I dunno, i am struggling to read it anyway other than the way i intended...might be a bit tired though (or stupid )

Anyway i am still not retracting

Why arent you fussed about anonymity for those accused of other crimes?

Anonymity for other crimes (until found guilty) is worth exploring

Right but you can't single out one crime as being somehow special and grant anonymity to people accused of that crime only.

If you're going to grant anonymity you have to treat all crimes the same and allow everyone to have anonymity.

However you can't pick and choose which crimes you think are more deserving of anonymity for the accused and only give it to that crime(s) and that crime(s) only.

Either everyone accused has anonymity or nobody does.

This post is about rape, therefore that is what I am referring to.

Our laws are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty - but that isn't the case.

Naming suspects before trial has nothing to do with innocent until proven guilty.

People are still innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether they're named or not.

toady If the legal system changes (as it might do) to protect the anonymity of those accused of crimes such as child abuse and rape, what evidence will you provide that being accused of these crimes is no more damaging than the average damage incurred as a result of being accused of other crimes?

It would be interested to have survey data from employers and people on dating websites, finding out if they have a position on people who have been accused of rape/tried for rape but found innocent, and if that position is different to other crimes.

I'm not presenting this as 'evidence' at all but one thing which does occur to me is that child abuse and rape (and assault of the elderly) are all crimes against groups in our society who are perceived as particularly vulnerable, and employers have a duty of care to take any association with such crimes very seriously. Even if there is technically no association (as when an innocent verdict is reached), there is still the possibility that employers will feel compromised and open to bad publicity by having anything to do with the person in question. So perhaps the anonymity of people accused of crimes of that nature should be protect until found guilty. May I stress that I am all for throwing the book at people who are found guilty.

People are still innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether they're named or not.

Very disingenuous. No they're not. Not by society, and you know it.

This post is about rape, therefore that is what I am referring to.

Yet just a second a go you were talking about burglary.

Strange.

OK so we're extending the list of deserving crimes now.

So it's rape, child abuse and assaulting the elderly that are all somehow special crimes and deserving of special treatment.

Any others you would like to add to the list?

Thought this too today, as I read a story online, about a man who hung himself after being accused of a sex crime, the girl reported him, then withdrew the complaint, guessing she perhaps realised she didn't want to go through it all again in court or something

Then a year later his mum killed herself too

And there was so much hate accusing the girl of being a liar, it's just vile and weird and I really don't get it

I've nearly fallen out with my mil too, who think that there should be a time limit on reporting sex crimes
Wtf

In other crimes the victim is also named. That is the difference.

People are still innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether they're named or not.

In law they are but while people say things like this

Thought this too today, as I read a story online, about a man who hung himself after being accused of a sex crime, the girl reported him, then withdrew the complaint, guessing she perhaps realised she didn't want to go through it all again in court or something

then it isn't really so. Maybe she withdrew the accusation because he didn't do it? I don't know and neither do you but the fact is he wasn't convicted of anything.

Toad ffs if was in reply to different stigmas of crimes as you full well know, why you are spoiling to make arguments here I don't know.

Exactly grannie

Maybe she withdrew the accusation because he didn't do it? I don't know and neither do you but the fact is he wasn't convicted of anything.

Yes granny that is exactly the point I have made several times each time that case has been brought up on this thread.

We don't know what happened. That's the bloody point.

However people are just assuming (and have assumed) that because the accusation was withdrawn and he committed suicide then he was obviously falsely accused. Other people have pointed out that just because the accusation was withdrawn does not mean the accusation was false nor does the fact he killed himself.

If you're going to say that people are innocent until proven guilty then that should apply to everyone. And that includes people who you think have made a false accusation.

Anonymity for other crimes (until found guilty) is worth exploring

No it is not.

I am getting tired of saying this.

The fact is we don't know what happened.

All we know is that she accused him of rape but then withdrew the complaint a few weeks later. He later killed himself.

Neither of those things prove that the accusation was false.

He may well have raped her. Or maybe he didn't and she made the whole thing up.

The point is we don't bloody know.

How is suggesting that she may have withdrawn the complaint because she couldn't face going through with it any worse than people pointing their fingers at her and accusing her of being a liar?

In other crimes the victim is also named.

That's because there is a stigma attached to being a victim of rape that doesn't exist for other crimes.

People are still innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether they're named or not.

Very disingenuous. No they're not. Not by society, and you know it

Maybe you should examine your own prejudices. I certainly don't assume the fact a person is charged with a crime is guilty with the obvious exceptiions of the likes of Anders Brevik and the killers of Lee Rigby.

I mean could you imagine if the woman in the Ched Evans case wasn't allowed anonymity and everyone knew who she was. Have you seen the horrible vile things people have said about her online? If everyone knew who she was then I would have a serious fear for her safety.

Same with the woman in the Craig Charles case. He was found not guilty which apparently obviously automatically = a false accusation. Have you seen some of the venom aimed towards her online? Again if she wasn't allowed anonymity and everyone knew who she was then who knows what she could have to live with right now.

Another way of looking at 'We believe you' though, is that it means 'We think you are innocent of the crime of intentionally, or maliciously, making a false allegation of rape until you are proven guilty of having done so'.

That is not doing anything more for the complainant than for the accused who is always innocent until proven guilty. It at least gives the alleged victim a small chance for them to try to say what happened to them under extremely difficult circumstances. They have historically not been believed.

If you saw someone steal your bag, you are asked to describe the person, or name them if you know them, no one would say, 'We do not believe you' at that stage.

i can see that some people are saying the accused rapist always seems guilty forever even when they really are innocent. If the law were changed for the sake of those relatively few innocent accused, the accused of any other crime would have to remain anonymous too, wouldn't they? It couldn't be selective.

(85% of sexual crimes are never reported, of the 15% that are, only 5.7% end in conviction, so most rapists need not fear )

If this ever happens though, I think they should at least be named where children are concerned, so other similarly affected children (or those who were children when it happened) can come forward.

There is no reason to name rape victims/the person doing the accusing. However there are plenty of good reasons to name the suspect.

If we did away with anonymity for the accuser then I have no doubt that the number of rapes reported would plummet.

If I was ever raped again there is no way I would report it if I knew I was going to be "named and shamed" as one of those FB's delightfully termed it.