MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Recent appeals suggest that naming the accused but preserving anonymity of the accuser is not right.
The latest case where the accusation was proved to be false or the conviction was wrong.... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-42453405
Third one in a week.
Three men whose lives have been permanently affected and whose reputations have been comprehensively *ed.
Rape - and any form of sexual assault - is wrong and should be punished with the full force of the law and to the maximum extent of the sentencing guidelines.
I have no answer to my own question but am concerned that one party can have their life and reputation ruined whilst the party making the accusation appears to be able to act with 'relative' impunity.
I accept that most convictions are sound but there are too many where CPS/police incompetence misleads juries and judges.
First Find the * Facts.
Consider also 'nick' who has made a whole catalogue of accusations against named public figures whilst his identity has been protected; some of the accused - ted heath, harvey proctor, leon brittain, general bramhall; as individuals the politicos were definitely unlikeable. I have no knowledge of bramhall.
All investigations have failed to turn up any evidence so the accused have been humiliated publicly while the accuser remains anonymous.
There has been some noise about possibly investigating/prosecuting 'nick'.
That should happen but I won't be holding my breath in anticipation.
This thread has no festive cheer.
Yes. Very, very few women make false claims of rape compared to how many men commit rape. Conviction rates are abysmally low. The victims need to be protected.
Do accusers of any other crime have anonymity?
I'm somewhat on the fence with this stuff...
I myself have been falsely accused of horrible things I didn't do which amounted to nothing In the end as obviously there was no truth in the accusations from a spiteful ex...
On the other side a member of my family works for the CPS in a specialist team trying to prosecute sexual assault/rape cases and they are very hard to win. When one (and I stress this is very much a minority) lady was found to be lying, as in 100% lying there were messages she sent admitting she was making false allegations to get someone in trouble it was decided that they would not prosecute her as not to offput other victims from coming forward.
So I find it hard to know what is right, yes the people who really do commit these terrible crimes deserve as severe punishment as possible under the law it also seems there is little consequence to someone making false allegations with some even doing it to more than one person
Yes.
However if the accusation proves beyond reasonable doubt to be both false and mischievous then the full force of the law should be applied including libel/slander, perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.
MartynS - what about the trashed reputations of those who have been falsely named and shamed; careers derailed; personal life stuffed up; time spent in prison for wrongful conviction?
I don't see that financial compensation and/or public apologies are adequate.
Incompetent policing and poor CPS decisions; no naming of or impact on the careers of the faceless individuals behind the scenes who fail to perform to an appropriate professional standard.
Either both parties retain anonymity until conclusion of court case or both parties named at same time.
I have no experience of this but seems to be patently unbalanced.
One of the recent cases involved the accuser deleting her message history in an effort to remove evidence. This should be an offence and prosecuted accordingly.Yes.
However if the accusation proves beyond reasonable doubt to be both false and mischievous then the full force of the law should be applied including libel/slander, perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.
Should rape accusers have 'protected' anonymity?
Yes, of course they should.
I think your real question is, "Should people who make false complaints be charged and publicly identified?" That is not the same question.
What's hols2 said you've asked the wrong question.
To answer your question. Yes.
The more tricky question is should the accused be anonymous.
The more tricky question is should the accused be anonymous.
I think they should until found guilty. Up until that point they are innocent but once their name is public for a crime they are at that point innocent of it has already done a lot of damage.
Realise this is impossible to control with police leaks to press, social media spreading it etc,.
I think the accused should remain anonymous, until proven guilty.
In a perfect world, it wouldn't be required.
However the ubiquity of sexual harassment, assaults and raped linked with their low reporting and further low conviction rate means that positive action needs to be taken - the system is stacked against women.
The small unfairness on men is outweighed by the much higher unfairness to women.
Far more women don't report rape than make false accusations.
The small unfairness on men is outweighed by the much higher unfairness to women
you realise men get raped too and its on the increase.
I think the accused should remain anonymous, until proven guilty.
For all crimes?
If the accuser is subsequently convicted of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, their anonymity should removed at the discretion of the sentencing judge.
Although false accusers are a small minority, the damage they can do to the falsely accused is more than a ‘small unfairness’. Of course the accuser should remain anonymous. Why can’t the accused remain anonymous until the verdict has been reached? (And then, if they are innocent, they can remain anonymous)
Yes to the original question.
Also, the accused should remain anonymous until proven guilty.
AND, after seeing what a false accusation did to someone’s life, I think that anyone found guilty of a maliciously false accusation should receive the same sentence as what the falsely accused would have received.
Why can’t the accused remain anonymous until the verdict has been reached? (And then, if they are innocent, they can remain anonymous)
Because trials in secret are incompatible with open justice.
Because publicity is why many notorious criminals were convicted.
If the accuser is subsequently convicted of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, their anonymity should removed at the discretion of the sentencing judge.
That's already standard practice.
This is a real tricky one, and I can see both sides of the argument.
Any sexual assault should be prosecuted and victims supported in whatever way is required.
Naming the accused can bring forward other victims.
But innocent men need to be protected somehow too. I don't know how you square that circle. And innocent is not the same as there not being enough evidence to get a conviction as well.
Deliberately falsely accusing someone has to be charged with a loss of anonymity and libel as well though, such cases need to demonstrate you can't screw up someone's life for spite or to cover your own error of judgement.
But people need to take responsibility for their actions. Men need to learn to keep their dicks in their pants,
On my 1st day as a staff member at HMP Frankland I was shown around by someone who pointed out a prisoner on the phone, she said, 'he's in for rape but he's innocent', & me being cynical said, 'aren't they all?'
Transpired that he was innocent & that his accuser had claimed rape on 3 other occasions, all ending with imprisonment for her 'victims'. This all came to light after new evidence was shown/found.
I'm sure she'd have been named after she was shown a cell door!
I think the accused should remain anonymous, until proven guilty.
The feeling is by publishing the accused name other victims will come forward. It's probably true that rapists will have more than one victim.
The small unfairness on men is outweighed by the much higher unfairness to women.
It's not a small unfairness it's a huge injustice that is greater than the hope of bringing forward new evidence IMHO.
people that rape should be locked up for a very long time. people that maliciously falsely accuse other people of rape and there is evidence (txts etc) should be locked up for a very long time.
Reciprocal sentences for those who make false accusations or attempt to pervert the course of justice. + actively prosecution.
Protection t for accusers should be maintained.
I doubt people would make repeated false accusations is they’d received the same prison tariffs as their potential victims
Why is it so important that a rape accuser has anonymity [u]by default[/u]? Most rape accusations don’t hit the newspaper headlines. I would imagine that the network of friends and family of the two parties will know all too well who is making the accusations.
Anonymity should be at the discretion of a judge. And that should be the same for both parties.
The small unfairness on men is outweighed by the much higher unfairness to women
No, unfairness is unfairness irrespective. Anonymity for both parties unless a judge should decide otherwise. The excuse for publicity and raking up more 'evidence' is just poor investigation on the part of the police. I have met a lot of police officers in the course of my work and a substantial number are lazy ****s as the shambles in the collapsed rape trials this week demonstrates.
[quote=esselgruntfuttock said]On my 1st day as a staff member at HMP Frankland
A quick google shows that place is holding some bad dudes!
A quick google shows that place is holding some bad dudes!
Yep, one of only 7 Cat A jails in the country. One of the 1st people I saw was Harold (Fred) Shipman.
It had four VP wings when I was there with lots of very guilty sex offenders on them.
No.
Unless all crimes are treated the same way.
[quote=perditus ]No, unfairness is unfairness irrespective.
You know what is even more unfair? Being raped and too scared/tired/downtrodden to report it to the authorities because you won't be taken seriously or have your character dragged through the mud in public and court when only 3% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.
Someone I know closely has been raped and never reported it to the police for those very same reasons.
yourguitarhero - Member
perditus » No, unfairness is unfairness irrespective.
You know what is even more unfair? Being raped and too scared/tired/downtrodden to report it to the authorities because you won't be taken seriously or have your character dragged through the mud in public and court when only 3% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.Someone I know closely has been raped and never reported it to the police for those very same reasons.
And someone I know took their own life due to a malicious untrue rape accusation, which the accuser retracted when she found out he went for a swing. Your point is what?
Your point is what?
It happens about twice a month. Meanwhile, rape cases meeting the evidentiary standard total over 300 per month.
Evidentiary standard? You mean an accusation? Which is the evidentiary standard and that alone has taken many case to trial. It's like being in the dark ages, just scream witch at the bitch you grows bigger turnips than you, she'll be burned at the stake in no time.
The small unfairness on men is outweighed by the much higher unfairness to women
It's not a competition. All should remain absolutely anonymous until a decision is reached. Regardless of the numbers, lives are being ruined, sometimes on the say so of one individual. Saying that it's more unfair to others is completely irrelevant.
People making false accusations is also unfair on those who have genuinely been raped. All the more reason that suitable punishment should be applied.
Good thread for spotting stealth MRAs.
Evidentiary standard? You mean an accusation? Which is the evidentiary standard and that alone has taken many case to trial.
If I meant accusation, that is what I would've said. As for your second sentence, I can see that I may as well try educating pork.
It's not a competition. All should remain absolutely anonymous until a decision is reached. Regardless of the numbers, lives are being ruined, sometimes on the say so of one individual. Saying that it's more unfair to others is completely irrelevant.
It is completely relevant. Many convictions result from publicity. If you want anonymity then fewer rapists will be convicted. I guess you think that's a price worth paying.
I'm not sure there should be any anonymity on either side to be honest.
3% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.
I've seen figures of between 3-8% of rape accusations actually being false. I presume thats proven to be false as if it was in court. But how many of the 97% were falsely accused but it couldn't be proved either way. I don't belive all of the accused who "escaped" justice were actually guilty. I guess we'll never know.
And I have seen first hand the impact of rape and false accusations. Both can have a terrible impact on the victim 🙁
Should all parties not be kept anonymous till the verdict?
[quote=philxx1975 ]Should all parties not be kept anonymous till the verdict?
There are good reasons why accused rapists are identified; for one it often helps bring forward other victims.
The question is really - should those making false accusations be prosecuted (especially if they are found to have withheld or deleted evidence)? Maybe they sometimes are, but some recent cases have highlighted a lack of consistency in approach.
3% of reported rapes lead to a conviction.
- [i] https://rapecrisis.org.uk/statistics.php [/i]Conviction rates for rape are far lower than other crimes, with only 5.7% of reported rape cases ending in a conviction for the perpetrator.
Still low - just correcting for accuracy.
Although...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/myths-about-rape-conviction-rates
58% of cases brought to trial result in a conviction for the perpetrator. About the same as all other crimes.
I do in fact, very much so.I guess you think that's a price worth paying.
ransos - Member
Evidentiary standard? You mean an accusation? Which is the evidentiary standard and that alone has taken many case to trial.If I meant accusation, that is what I would've said. As for your second sentence, I can see that I may as well try educating pork.
Wow, that’s the second of your posts I’ve read in as many days and thought “he seems nice”.
Small man syndrome
wrecker - MemberSmall man syndrome
He makes Dennis Wise look like a giant he's so small! 😀
I think I've come to the conclusion that rape, and some other serious crimes, should default to anonymity for both parties. This should be discretionary, so that the judge can lift the anonymity in certain cases. Jimmy Saville, Rolf Harris are examples of cases I think there is a public interest (an objective one) and where it serves justice to release the name.
We also need to sort the police and CPS out. That probably means electing a government that isn't Tory.
Someone close to me deals with this for a living and sadly has found that lots of girls once questioned have done something they have later regretted rather than been assaulted or raped or made it up for other reasons (30% ish). On one or two occasions the accused have been able to produce video evidence...
Obviously that means that in the rest of the cases the victims have told the truth and sadly its often word on word and very hard to prove.
As for the answer to the question, maybe the press need to publish the court results as well as they publish the accusations.