Rapists right to anonymity

[Snoopyseed]

The government plans to give rapists the right to anonymity, if it were granted then were would we draw the line?
Peadophiles would want it too, also if they were not convicted cos and they got this right the public would never know then that a dangerous peadophile is in their community, also isnt the law already set up to protect the defendant already? with rape trials designed to question the victim rather than the defendant isnt this another way of helping the defendant rather than the victim? will this stop a lot of people from now reporting it?
What do you think? should they have this right?
is it an outrage?
or do you think it is fair?
let me know what you think.

[Survivor]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@Jul 12 2004, 09:02 PM
The government plans to give rapists the right to anonymity

No they dont, they plan to give ppl accused of rape anonymity as anyone even accused of the crime is still assumed guilty by a sizeable proportion of the general public. Those convicted would still be named.

[PJ]

Speaking as someone who is about to be questioned and possibly charged for a rape and child abuse that is a complete and total fantasy story - I know that if I am charged and have to face a public trial for disugusting criems that I am completely innocent of, I can never face my children again, will lose my job, and I am better off dead than having everyone look at me for ever after - even if I was acquitted - thinking "but maybe he did do it, maybe he is a pervert".

Think about that when you argue against defendants' anonimity - some women tell lies, some men are innocent victims of this and face public ruin just through being accsued. Some men get as far as killing themselves - I'm considering it.

[Mark Fairpo]

I am not happy about blanket anonymity for *all* rapists (and certainly not CSA). People are acquitted of other crimes with equal potential for internalised and external trauma, so why exclusively rape? This seems a twisted idea of Equal Ops motivated by a male inferiority complex and totem from this unique and justified instance of (largely) female anonymity. I recall similar media calls to revoke anonymity and this seems a politically spinned rehash. It also surfaces from a popular prosecution-focused naivity of why rapists get too often acquitted, and overlooks victims who already do not approach the police. The laws re. perverting the course of justice and wasting Police time are well-known and not under used.

Glad to see the Home Office overturned this Lord's measure.

Edit from webmaster: The following was posted as a separate message as as addendum but I have combined the two messages for completeness.

A quick addendum to my last message. Having looked again at the research provided by Snoopy, I think that both my emotive language and the Lord's (with an objective outlook) in the narrow 109-105 rebellion were both equally misguided.

[Snoopyseed]

Here is one of the articles on the new law, that people decided to go ahead with,
to be honest i dont know if it will make a difference anymore if thye are anonymous or not, as to a rape survivor such as myself one more thing in their favour is not going to make that much of a difference, im just worried that future victims will be more put off about reporting it, as it looks as if the law is once again siding with the defendant.heres the article about the new law anyway.



Peers urge rape case anonymity


The Hamiltons were accused in a blaze of publicity
Peers have defeated the government by voting for people accused of rape to be granted anonymity.
Monday's vote came after peers had been debating the government's far-reaching attempt to reform sexual offences legislation.

They voted by 109 to 105 in favour of giving anonymity to people accused of rape.

But the government said justice depended on openness and vowed to overturn the defeat.

Under current laws, the complainant is entitled to anonymity but it has been possible to name the accused since 1988, including some high-profile personalities.

Former Conservative MP Neil Hamilton and his wife Christine were accused of rape but the case later collapsed.

Their accuser, Nadine Milroy-Sloan, was convicted of perverting the course of justice and described as a "fantasist" in court.

The Hamiltons called for a change in the law to preserve the anonymity of people in their position.

Introducing anonymity for defendants in these category of cases could reduce our chances of bringing more offenders to justice

Lord Falconer
Home Office Minister

But following the defeat, a Home Office spokesman said: "We appreciate the very great distress that is often experienced by those wrongly accused or charged with a sexual offence after having been publicly identified.

"However the criminal justice system operates on a principle of openness which is a vital ingredient in maintaining public confidence and encouraging witnesses to come forward.

"We do not believe there is any justification for those charged with sexual offences to be singled out for special protection while other defendants including those accused of murder could be identified."

Suicide

Former lord justice of appeal, Lord Ackner, led the rebellion and cited the case of a GP who was arrested in front of his family but subsequently had all charges against him dropped.

Tory peer Baroness Blatch said the publicity surrounding such cases could drive a man to suicide.

"I can't think of anything more dreadful than someone who is completely innocent and is vexatiously charged, having to live through the kind of publicity that goes with that."


Mr Kelly's case was mentioned by peers
But Home Office Minister Lord Falconer said granting anonymity to people accused of rape would put some women off from approaching the police with their complaint.

"Introducing anonymity for defendants in these category of cases could reduce our chances of bringing more offenders to justice and might well impact on public confidence in the system."

In the course of a House of Lords debate, the case of television presenter Matthew Kelly was also raised.

He was questioned over child sex abuse offences but following a police investigation it was found there was no case for the entertainer to answer.

But Mr Kelly had come under intense media scrutiny as the complaint was investigated.

[lj]

The proposed bill was to give the accused the same rights as the complainant, this was rejected by the government. The Home Affairs Committee last year proposed again that anonymity should be extended to the accused only for the period from allegation to charge, not from charge to conviction. This is a good idea, why is it that the complainant should reserve the priviledge of anonymity and the defendant be forced to give it up. The argument is not whether naming the accused or not naming the accused affects the out come of the case but about protection of the innocent and it is not always the "alledged" victim who is the innocent party. If this is still a democratic society who believes in justice, then we should also advocate a fair and equal trial and whats fair about being found guilty by a media controlled society before you are even charged.

[Survivor]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@Jul 12 2004, 09:10 PM
it looks as if the law is once again siding with the defendant.

Not sure where u come from but in the UK they change the laws to get more convictions anytime the number of cases go up and the number of convictions doesnt.

[TC]

Defendants should have anonymity until proven guilty. Men have rights too - why does it have to be a case of the fairytale princess vs the ogre man?
Print the story if guilty, if not print the story on the girl that cried "wolf". Trials shouldn't be done on hear-say; justice system is upside down. Its about EQUAL rights not WOMEN'S rights!

[Survivor]

Originally posted by TC@Jul 12 2004, 09:15 PM
Its about EQUAL rights not WOMEN'S rights!

Yes. Write to your MP and keep bugging him or her.

[Anne]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@Jul 12 2004, 09:02 PM
The government plans to give rapists the right to anonymity, if it were granted then were would we draw the line?
...
let me know what you think.

Would this anonymity affect the trial in any way other than not actaully knowing the name of the rapist?
if it actually changes the trial in any way so that the victim is at any more of a disadvantage then it would need to be reconsidered.
would this be a big problem?
also, wouldn't it mean that the press couldn't get involved until afterwards because they would have no names to include in the story?

[Rebecca Gare-Simmons]

I think that this is wrong. How will people be aware of who is the wrong person to be around. And yes i do think that it will affect the case.

[Oppressed guy]

Originally posted by Rebecca Gare-Simmons@Jul 12 2004, 09:21 PM
I think that this is wrong. How will people be aware of who is the wrong person to be around. And yes i do think that it will affect the case.

Press involvement before the trial would be limited to X accuses Y, not really anything that will sell newspapers.
Doubt it would change the outcome, the primary outcome is that the accused regains the basic right to "innocent until proven guilty". Also if found innocent, the accused is free go about there own life without having the "no smoke without fire" reaction following them around.

[diana_holbourn]

Originally posted by Snoopyseed@Jul 12 2004, 09:02 PM
The government plans to give rapists the right to anonymity, if it were granted then were would we draw the line?
Peadophiles would want it too, also if they were not convicted cos and they got this right the public would never know then that a dangerous peadophile is in their community, also isnt the law already set up to protect the defendant already? with rape trials designed to question the victim rather than the defendant isnt this another way of helping the defendant rather than the victim? will this stop a lot of people from now reporting it?
What do you think? should they have this right?
is it an outrage?
or do you think it is fair?
let me know what you think.

I think one problem with rapists not being anonymous is that they can sometimes sue victims for slander or try to clear their names by publicly slandering their victims. And people who genuinely are innocent could suffer. I don't know that much about it though. Actually, I thought they were already allowed anonymity until after their trial? Can you tell us a bit more about the proposed new law?

[Oppressed guy]

Originally posted by diana_holbourn@Jul 12 2004, 09:23 PM
I think one problem with rapists not being anonymous is that they can sometimes sue victims for slander

Its those accused of rape that are to be granted anonymity not rapists. Also, if the defendant is found to be innocent then they ARE the victim. There seems to be an illusion that the person making the rape allegation is automatically the victim. Remeber, until the court decides, you dont know who is telling the truth and who is full of hot air. If someone goes around making false allegations, then the person on the recieving end is entitled to sue the criminal making those alegations.

[val lavender]

I feel that there are several changes to the law required, and having gone through the hell of a false accusation of rape I feel qualified to speak on this subject.

1/ Either the anonymity of persons involved in a rape trial should be removed fron the accuser or it should be applied to the alledged perpetrator up until the point when they are found guilty. Why should someone who is the victimof a false allegation have to suffer at the hands of the media until they are found guilty?. Removing the anonymity of accusers would probably help to reduce the number of false allegations. Additionally, social Services should be prevented from issuing edicts to the accused until a verdict is returned.


2/ The "rape shield" laws should be revoked. The accused should have the right to see their accuser, it is all to easy to sit beheind a screen or look into a camera rather than have to face a court.


3/ Section 41 Judges Rulee of evidence should be revoked. If the accused's previous sexual history and conduct can be brought into a case then so can the behavior and habits of the accuser.

4/ The CICA compensation scheme should be expanded to include the mental damage caused to victims of false allegations. At present, whilst it acknowledges the concept of mental injury if associated with a physical act it does not recognise mental injury as a seperate issue.

5/ The UK is the only country in Europe that does not have a specific crime of making a false allegation - this should be rectified. At present we have to rely on the common law offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice, wastage of police time [ the Home Office currently suggest that this should be applied to cases that waste more than 20 hours of police time but many police forces refuse to use this charge as they maintain that it will deter other victims from coming forward] or perjury for false evidence given in court proceedings [1911 perury act]

6/ Penalties for false accusers should reflect the likely sentance that the accused might have recieved, ie a false allegation of rape should attract a sentance of 10 - 14 years. Recent penalties for false rape allegations have ranged from the 3 years that Nadine Milroy-Sloane was sentenced to to an ?80 fixed penalty ticket given to an Essex woman who made a similar allegation that proved to be false.

7/ A nationwide, public database should be established, giving the name and details of all persons found guilty of making a false allegation. This would enable the public to be made aware of their behavior and avoid the company of such individuals.This data base should include the names of personsmaking any allegation that results in a police enquiry, whether or not the matter goes to court.

8/ A time limit should be established for the making of allegations, I suggest that this should be one years for anyone over the age of 16. The current rash of allegatios from the dim and different past where the accused has to try to prove where he was 15 - 20 years ago are ridiculous and virtually impossible to asses fairly given the passage of time and the total lack of forensic evidence.

Whilst I anticipate that the above comments will attract a fair amount of flak from the "all men are rapists feminazi brigade" who are seemingly incaperable of looking at these matters in a logical and unemotional fashion it should be borne in mind that every false allegation [home office figure indicate that the rate could be as high as 35% and if the conviction rate is used as a yardstick this could be even higher] detracts from the creedance of genuine victims and wastes police resources that could be focused on genuine crimes.

Val