If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Rape Defendants granted anonymity
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story.
Does anyone else wonder whether there'd be the same popular support if we were talking about allegations of child abuse, which arguably ruins someone's life a lot more than rape accusations? I don't really get the charity's complaints about this tbh. Apparently, the police will be able to apply for this rule to be waived in the case of suspected serial rapists. But the fact that 94% of rapes don't currently lead to a conviction doesn't seem to be evidence that anonymity harms this likelihood. They can (and are) named in the paper now, and it doesn't seem to be helping matters at all.
People accused of rape in England and Wales are to be granted anonymity under proposals announced by the coalition government.
The proposal was not in the Liberal Democrat or Conservative manifesto, but has been a Lib-Dem policy.
But the plan angered anti-rape campaigners who said it would do nothing to improve the conviction rate.
At present, there are no restrictions on naming defendants who are over 18 years old.
The government's proposal for anonymity would only affect England and Wales. There is no anonymity for rape defendants in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Does anyone else wonder whether there'd be the same popular support if we were talking about allegations of child abuse, which arguably ruins someone's life a lot more than rape accusations? I don't really get the charity's complaints about this tbh. Apparently, the police will be able to apply for this rule to be waived in the case of suspected serial rapists. But the fact that 94% of rapes don't currently lead to a conviction doesn't seem to be evidence that anonymity harms this likelihood. They can (and are) named in the paper now, and it doesn't seem to be helping matters at all.
0
Comments
Woman said he had raped her, proven that it was impossible for him to have done it, yet even the allegation meant he had moved out of the area. Admittedly the problem is down to narrow minded persons, yet there still would have been no conviction whether or not he was anonymous, and he may still have had his life.
According to a report in the Mail, which also noted the Baroness told Harriet Harman to stop lying about the conviction rate, said "The six per cent figure relates to reported cases. The conviction rate for those actually charged with rape is nearly two out of three, higher than comparable figures for other violent crime.".
And in case anyone wants to accuse me of having an agenda, The Grauniad said much the same thing.
So in actual fact, the statement that I'm With Stupid made - "94% of rapes don't currently lead to a conviction" - is likely to be wrong in that it's probably actually even more than 94% of rapes that don't result in conviction, since we can expect the number of actual rapes to be higher than the number of reported rapes. But basically, he was correct since he didn't say "94% of rape trials don't end in conviction". So why are you so quick to jump on on that score? What is your agenda there?
Overall I think giving people accused of rape anonymity is a very good idea and I can't see why it hasn't happened before. Especially in the case of accusations of child abuse.
The current trial by media and public fears system does somewhat overcloud the innocent until proven guilty principle.
I don't see the connection with conviction rates, though. Surely having it all dragged through the media circus isn't a help anyway?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/21/anonymity-rape-defendants
Or more accurately, Julie Bindel does.
On her Wikipedia entry, she is described as "co-founder of the group Justice For Women, which opposes violence against women from a feminist viewpoint."
I have absolutely no idea how you can oppose violence against women from a feminist viewpoint, or what indeed that is meant to mean.
I wonder where they get these nutcases. It could be like Outsider Art, but Outsider Journalism.
Are you saying you agree with Julie on this then?
Nope, totally disagree, as you will see from my post here.
Naming the accused makes it possible for other witnesses/victims to come forward and there is evidence that this has helped secure convictions in the past.
Not naming means that we don't ruin the lives of innocent people.
Brilliant.