Rape anonymity
Discussion
So, the coalition has decided to drop their recently made pledge that men accused of rape should have their anonymity preserved until they are convicted. Apparently female MPs of all parties had objected
BBC website said:
Speaking last month, acting Labour leader Harriet Harman said: "To single out rape defendants sends a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the rape victim is not to be believed. It sends a devastating message to rape victims that uniquely of all victims they are not to be believed."
So, no protection for those men who's lives are devastated by false accusations.... Whilst any right minded individual must abhor rape, is it not the case that an accusation of rape against a man falls into that small category of crimes where even just the accusation/charge carries life long consequences for the innocent, and therefore anonymity should be granted till found guilty?
BBC website said:
Speaking last month, acting Labour leader Harriet Harman said: "To single out rape defendants sends a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the rape victim is not to be believed. It sends a devastating message to rape victims that uniquely of all victims they are not to be believed."
Just thinking about this line of logic makes me very uneasy. Could that not equally read
"we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed, and that uniquely, of all accused, those accused of rape are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent"
Slippery slope
andymadmak said:
Just thinking about this line of logic makes me very uneasy.
Could that not equally read
"we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed, and that uniquely, of all accused, those accused of rape are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent"
I don't think so, since the status quo is that no-one gets anonymity for anything (AFAIK). There can't be something unique about rape cases if they're subject to the same rules.Could that not equally read
"we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed, and that uniquely, of all accused, those accused of rape are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent"
I'm not too clear about why a rape accusation is considered more serious (reputation wise) than a murder accusation. At the risk of offending almost everyone, rape is a less serious crime.
Okay to humour the objecting MPs, what was the real idea? That anonynmity would get in the way of other alleged victims coming forward? That's the only possible idea I can think of.
But then of course if the alleged victim is kept anonymous it would prevent others who have been accused falsely perhaps by the same woman coming forward as well.
Thinking about it, why would a female MP want a system that discriminates against either sex. It makes no sense.
But then of course if the alleged victim is kept anonymous it would prevent others who have been accused falsely perhaps by the same woman coming forward as well.
Thinking about it, why would a female MP want a system that discriminates against either sex. It makes no sense.
HundredthIdiot said:
I'm not too clear about why a rape accusation is considered more serious (reputation wise) than a murder accusation. At the risk of offending almost everyone, rape is a less serious crime.
Murder accusations don't come from the alleged victim. We read about spurious rape accusations all the time I can't recall very many false murder accusations. HundredthIdiot said:
andymadmak said:
Just thinking about this line of logic makes me very uneasy.
Could that not equally read
"we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed, and that uniquely, of all accused, those accused of rape are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent"
I don't think so, since the status quo is that no-one gets anonymity for anything (AFAIK). There can't be something unique about rape cases if they're subject to the same rules.Could that not equally read
"we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed, and that uniquely, of all accused, those accused of rape are to be assumed guilty until proven innocent"
I'm not too clear about why a rape accusation is considered more serious (reputation wise) than a murder accusation. At the risk of offending almost everyone, rape is a less serious crime.
In the case of rape, or alleged rape, there is frequently no evidence that anything other than consensual sex took place, aside from the woman saying under oath such things as " I said no and he didn't stop" or "I was too drunk to say no" or " I wasn't awake to give positive consent" etc. Yet, in these cases, where he says it was a shag and she says it was rape, it effectively becomes the responsibility of the defendant to proove his innocence. That seems to the the undercurrent of what Harmann is saying. - "we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed"
This means that the press/public opinion is being pulled in the direction of a presumption of guilt for the defendant, and yet when, as has happened, it all turns out to be a wicked fabrication on her part, the damage to his life is already done.
It must be incredibly difficult to rebuild your life after that. Knowing that a significant number of people are always going to be wondering..... Being named and then found not guilty of robbery is one thing. Rape has such a poisin attached to it that anonymity has to be the right thing IMHO
andymadmak said:
Rape may be the less serious crime,(although not all will agree with that) but in the case of a murder, there is at least a dead body that proves someone is dead. The whodunnit is the focus there. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
In the case of rape, or alleged rape, there is frequently no evidence that anything other than consensual sex took place, aside from the woman saying under oath such things as " I said no and he didn't stop" or "I was too drunk to say no" or " I wasn't awake to give positive consent" etc. Yet, in these cases, where he says it was a shag and she says it was rape, it effectively becomes the responsibility of the defendant to proove his innocence. That seems to the the undercurrent of what Harmann is saying. - "we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed"
This means that the press/public opinion is being pulled in the direction of a presumption of guilt for the defendant, and yet when, as has happened, it all turns out to be a wicked fabrication on her part, the damage to his life is already done.
It must be incredibly difficult to rebuild your life after that. Knowing that a significant number of people are always going to be wondering..... Being named and then found not guilty of robbery is one thing. Rape has such a poisin attached to it that anonymity has to be the right thing IMHO
I don't know what the numbers of fabricated rape cases are, but it must also be incredibly hard for people who have genuinely been raped to go to the justice system with the accusation and risk being branded a liar. Although that perhaps reinforces the case for anonymity so...maybe I agree with you.In the case of rape, or alleged rape, there is frequently no evidence that anything other than consensual sex took place, aside from the woman saying under oath such things as " I said no and he didn't stop" or "I was too drunk to say no" or " I wasn't awake to give positive consent" etc. Yet, in these cases, where he says it was a shag and she says it was rape, it effectively becomes the responsibility of the defendant to proove his innocence. That seems to the the undercurrent of what Harmann is saying. - "we want to send out a very powerful message to juries in rape cases that the alleged rape victim is always to be believed"
This means that the press/public opinion is being pulled in the direction of a presumption of guilt for the defendant, and yet when, as has happened, it all turns out to be a wicked fabrication on her part, the damage to his life is already done.
It must be incredibly difficult to rebuild your life after that. Knowing that a significant number of people are always going to be wondering..... Being named and then found not guilty of robbery is one thing. Rape has such a poisin attached to it that anonymity has to be the right thing IMHO
Perhaps anonymity combined with some appropriate judicial direction is the best course...
The thing is, there are at least some people (myself I would hope) for whom "innocent until proven guilty" means exactly that. The case for anonymity hinges upon correcting for the idiocy of the media and general public who believe "there is no smoke without fire".
Anyway, who'd want Harman on their side?
Einion Yrth said:
HundredthIdiot said:
Einion Yrth said:
Simple answer, guarantee anonymity for the accused in ALL criminal cases.
Might be a bit tricky in practice. What about public figures?It does annoy me when an "innocent young lady" goes back to a footballer's hotel room, claims she has been raped, & the footballer's name is published/leaked. The "victim" remains annonomous, despite later being found to be a willing party.
Shaw Tarse said:
Einion Yrth said:
HundredthIdiot said:
Einion Yrth said:
Simple answer, guarantee anonymity for the accused in ALL criminal cases.
Might be a bit tricky in practice. What about public figures?It does annoy me when an "innocent young lady" goes back to a footballer's hotel room, claims she has been raped, & the footballer's name is published/leaked. The "victim" remains annonomous, despite later being found to be a willing party.
h who is just after the Fame
Fortune
All of the above
having said that I once witnessed a soap star trying to convince a rather undecided/reluctant girl into his limo and back to his hotel room.
His mates were in the car and had already pulled but she was unsure,
he was a t
t IMHO as if she decided in the morning that she shouldn't have, who knows what she could have claimed and said.I think that if you're not yet proven guilty of a crime, why should your name be dragged through the papers at the merest whiff of an allegation? Why should someone who is subsequently proven innocent have their name tarnished? As others have said, even the allegation of rape is bad enough; the rumours start and the truth isn't as interesting. The name of the accused should be withheld until proven guilty.
If they're not prepared to keep the accused anonymous, then they should also name the person alleging rape. That may well be enough to weed out the 'cry-wolfers', and I think that there should be severe punishments for those who cry rape falsely.
Let's also not forget that we're not talking about just women here either; I wonder how many male-on-male rapes go unreported by men?
If they're not prepared to keep the accused anonymous, then they should also name the person alleging rape. That may well be enough to weed out the 'cry-wolfers', and I think that there should be severe punishments for those who cry rape falsely.
Let's also not forget that we're not talking about just women here either; I wonder how many male-on-male rapes go unreported by men?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff