Should people accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity?

tritium

I posted this separate to the Ken Barlow link, as it goes to a wider question, even though recent events have given It airtime!

What are people's views on this? Should someone accused of sexual offences have a right to anonymity? On the one hand I think that the stigma associated with an accusation, combined with the "no smoke without fire" mindset means once named you can never be fully considered innocent in the court of public opinion.

Equally I know that our legal system means that for any crime a large number if guilty people will be acquitted (that the nature of innocent till proven guilty). Many people would also argue that conviction rates for sexual crimes don't even come close to reflecting the underlying incidence.

On balance however I'm inclined to argue for anonymity until proven guilty (throw the book at them afterwards)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/exclusive-three-in-four-believe-those-accused-of-sexual-assaults-should-be-granted-anonymity-8599788.html

"Three out of four people believe that people accused of rape and other sexual assaults should have their identities protected until they are convicted.
A ComRes survey for The Independent found strong public support for the controversial view expressed by Maura McGowan, chairman of the Bar Council, who argued that suspects in sex cases should enjoy the same right to anonymity as defendants.  Some 76 per cent of people agree with the statement that “people accused of sexual assault should be given anonymity until they are proven guilty”, while 18 per cent disagree and six per cent don't know.
Perhaps surprisingly, there is little difference between the two sexes on the issue. Some 74 per cent of women support  anonymity for such defendants,  compared to 78 per cent of men. Liberal Democrat supporters (95 per cent) are more likely to back anonymity than Conservative (76 per cent) and Labour supporters (75 per cent).  People in the top AB social group (80 per cent) are more likely to endorse anonymity than those in the bottom DE grade (67 per cent).
Jill Saward, who became the first UK rape victim to waive her right to anonymity after the Ealing Vicarage rape in 1990 and now campaigns for victims' rights,  said she was “incredibly sad” about the ComRes findings. “People do not understand the danger involved in sexual violence, and don't see the need to protect people from it,” she told The Independent. “People say 'innocent until guilty'. That is fine if you are not the person who has been assaulted.”
Ms Saward added: “It is not about naming and shaming people. I want to name and protect people. I am very sad that people seem to think that protecting men is often more important than protecting those who for whatever reason end up as victims.”
She said such a change in the law would amount to “victim blaming.” She insisted that the number of false claims for sexual assaults was in line with that for other offences, saying that anonymity was not needed to protect men from such allegations. She said such a change in the law would amount to “victim blaming.” She insisted that the number of false claims for sexual assaults was in line with that for other offences, saying that anonymity was not needed to protect men from such allegations.
Ms Saward  argued that protecting the identities of people accused of sex crimes might stop other victims coming forward in high-profile cases like that of Jimmy Savile, while allowing names to become public would give them the confidence to go the police. “There is a danger of repeat offenders constantly getting away with it,” she said. 
Anonymity was given to defendants in rape cases by the 1976 Sexual Offences Act but removed 12 years later.  Plans to restore it were included in the original Coalition Agreement after the 2010 general election but later dropped.  Publicly, ministers said there was not enough evidence to justify such a change. Privately, Conservative and Liberal Democrat politicians said they were under the impression that the other party supported the move, when neither did.
Ms McGowan said in February: “Until they have been proven to have done something as awful as this, I think there is a strong argument in cases of this sort - because they carry such stigma with them - to maintain the defendant's anonymity. But once the defendant is convicted then of course everything should be open to scrutiny and to the public.”
The Bar Council chairman admitted there was an argument for the present system.  She said that when anonymity had been given to defendants,  “there was a sense that perhaps it was affording too much protection to people. There is obviously a public interest in open justice - people would say they're entitled to know not simply who's convicted, but who's been accused.”
Her call was rejected by Terry Harrison, who considered suicide after being falsely accused of rape five years ago. “If a person has done such a heinous crime then they should be named and shamed, I agree - but not until they have been done for it,” he said.“I was guilty until I was proven innocent and even when I was proven innocent I'm still getting judged.”
ComRes interviewed 1,001 GB adults by telephone between April 26-28. Data were weighted to be demographically representative of all GB adults. Data were also weighted by past vote recall. ComRes is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules."

bluto63

I'd bring it further, not just sexual offences, but every offence.

FatherLen

I think that until proven guilty, the accused should have anonymity.
Even if proven innocent an accusation like sexual assault will stay with you.

Tombo2001

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

*Michael Jackson settled out of court

mathie

FatherLen wrote: »

Even if proven innocent an accusation like sexual assault will stay with you.

Amen Father.

Ilik Urgee

FatherLen wrote: »

I think that until proven guilty, the accused should have anonymity.
Even if proven innocent an accusation like sexual assault will stay with you.

I hear you're a racist now Father.

Merkin

Yes I think they should. Not doing so just fuels vigilante behaviour like that unruly mob of yokels who went after the pediatrician in England because they though paediatrics and paedophilia was one in the same.....I pity the fools :rolleyes:

If the accused is innocent, disclosure of their identity will potentially ruin their lives.

laoch na mona

FatherLen wrote: »

I think that until proven guilty, the accused should have anonymity.
Even if proven innocent an accusation like sexual assault will stay with you.

+1 look at any tabloid and you see what they think of innocent until proven guilty. the presumption of innocence is key to the legal system and should be protected.
once they're convicted name and shame them

Duckworth_Luas

Guy gets accused of sexual offence = front page news
Accusation proven false = page six

laoch na mona

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

closed session?

Shenshen

I'm originally from a country where even once convicted, the press do not have the right to name neither the offender nor the victim.
As such, I still find it rather shocking that here, that right doesn't exist.

But despite that, I find that "innocent until proven guilty" is the single most important principle in law. And even there, we often seem to settle more on "innocent until convicted", as I can think of more than one legal case where the prove didn't honestly satisfy me personally.

I find it's paramount to not take away anybody's rights simply on the basis of an accusation.

kupus

Duckworth_Luas wrote: »

Guy gets accused of sexual offence = front page news
Accusation proven false = page six

page six, it'll be lucky if it makes the news again.

Yea definitely. No argument.

tritium

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

*Michael Jackson settled out of court

Craig Charles, Matthew Kelly,......

(shall I find a few more? Btw I you can find the video of Matthew Kelly being interviewed by Frank Skinner after he was acquitted it's priceless- sad and bittersweet in some ways, but he shreads Skinner for the laughs he got at his expense while the charges were still active

Death and Taxes

Of course they should have anonimity until proven guilty.
Too many assholes with the old "no smoke without fire" even after an acquittal.

VinLieger

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

*Michael Jackson settled out of court

Because the media never reports on the story once its not exciting anymore.
Conviction = exciting and media taking a bow for being right all along.
But proven innocent = boring and media looking like filth for printing factless accusations and tainting the publics opinion.

An accusation like that even if you are proven innocent is unfortunately something that stays with you for life

SEPT 23 1989

Borrow money from a bank that you can't pay back = name published

Death and Taxes

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Borrow money from a bank that you can't wont pay back = name published

What has that to do with being "accused" of a sexual offence?

Ray Palmer

It is funny they class the proposal as controversial but roughly 2 thirds of the people asked think it is right. That has got to be the low on the controversial list with so many thinking it reasonable.

If the charge can turn into a punishment in itself then anonymity should be given. Louis Walsh was lucky it came out so quickly he was not guilty but at the same time the guy involved will actually suffer quite a lot probably well outside the level of justice

tritium

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Borrow money from a bank that you can't pay back = name published

Bit of a leap if you're linking a civil matter with some of the most serious types of criminal offences.

mike65

Of course and a false accuser should be named (I would not allow it if an unwitting third party or a child was involved).

hatrickpatrick

Ms Saward added: “It is not about naming and shaming people. I want to name and protect people. I am very sad that people seem to think that protecting men is often more important than protecting those who for whatever reason end up as victims.”

Until the accused is found guilty, the allegation is unproven. Therefore using the word "victim" in itself betrays your bias - it's alleged victim.

tritium

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Until the accused is found guilty, the allegation is unproven. Therefore using the word "victim" in itself betrays your bias - it's alleged victim.

I actually found her comments quite sad.
Id suggest clearly been badly damaged by the awful thing that happened to her and hasn't been able to regain a more general objectivity. Hopefully she'll be able to get thesupports she needs to move away from the dark place she appears to be in

--Kaiser--

FatherLen wrote: »

I think that until proven guilty, the accused should have anonymity.
Even if proven innocent an accusation like sexual assault will stay with you.

This

laugh

You have to be suffering from some kind mental incapacitation to think that someone accused of any offence should be publicly outed.

osarusan

How do supporters of the idea of anonymity (and i'm one, tentatively) get around the fact that courts are open to the public?

Holding cases related to alleged sexual crimes behind closed doors? Surely a person accused of any other crime is entitled to the same anonymity?

Do we make all courtrooms private?

As an aside, I have seen in the past that some reports on cases involving sexual abuse/rape have carried the line that the defendant's name is being withheld to protect the identity of the (allged) victim. I've always imagined this is because the defendant is a family member. But how does this work in the actual courtroom?

Ray Palmer

osarusan wrote: »

How do supporters of the idea of anonymity (and i'm one, tentatively) get around the fact that courts are open to the public?

Holding cases related to alleged sexual crimes behind closed doors? Surely a person accused of any other crime is entitled to the same anonymity?

Do we make all courtrooms private?

As an aside, I have seen in the past that some reports on cases involving sexual abuse/rape have carried the line that the defendant's name is being withheld to protect the identity of the (allged) victim. I've always imagined this is because the defendant is a family member. But how does this work in the actual courtroom?

You can simply make it illegal to report on it. The same way the accuser doesn't get their name printed. You can give the details of a case without naming the people to the general public.

--Kaiser--

laugh wrote: »

You have to be suffering from some kind mental incapacitation to think that someone accused of any offence should be publicly outed.

These are the type of people who would have been brandishing pitchforks and firebrands back in the middle ages

osarusan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

You can simply make it illegal to report on it. The same way the accuser doesn't get their name printed. You can give the details of a case without naming the people to the general public.

Basically anonymity regarding the media, while not in the courtroom?

Ray Palmer

osarusan wrote: »

Basically anonymity regarding the media, while not in the courtroom?

Pretty much how I believe it is done at the moment. I don't think the hide the identity of the people in court just don't publish the information or allow it to be reported.

If they can do it for one side they can do it for both.

RainMaker

I think most people would support it, but there are some possible consequences....

What's to stop the accused from sitting down with a local friendly journalist (a la Michael Lowry ) and portraying himself as the falsely accused victim in the whole case...

Then again it wasn't so long ago that some wonderful people in Listowel showed their approval for a convicted rapist while vilifying the victim in that case!

VinLieger

RainMaker wrote: »

I think most people would support it, but there are some possible consequences....

What's to stop the accused from sitting down with a local friendly journalist (a la Michael Lowry ) and portraying himself as the falsely accused victim in the whole case...

Then again it wasn't so long ago that some wonderful people in Listowel showed their approval for a convicted rapist while vilifying the victim in that case!

Surely it would be the law as in cases involving children that journalists wouldnt be allowed report the names of the people involved?

techdiver

Tombo2001 wrote: »

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

Amanda Knox, is definitely one in recent memory.

Holsten

Yes, this should be the case for ALL crimes.

If you really want to be nosy about it you can go sit in the court room yourself.

Steve O

Absolutely.

I think trial by media has and will continue to ruin lives. If they're proven guilty, plaster them over as many papers as you want.

Holsten

Steve O wrote: »

If they're proven guilty, plaster them over as many papers as you want.

Why?

Corkbah

Holsten wrote: »

Why?

would you prefer if the identities of convicted paedo's and rapists were protected ?

I think any sexual offender IF CONVICTED should have an image issued to the media - so members of the public are aware the person is a potential sexual predator.

laoch na mona

Corkbah wrote: »

would you prefer if the identities of convicted paedo's and rapists were protected ?

I think any sexual offender IF CONVICTED should have an image issued to the media - so members of the public are aware the person is a potential sexual predator.

what happened to the concept of rehabilitation and having done your time?

and with pedophilia we have to be careful because no one (that's sane) wants to see lynch mobs for what are clearly unwell people

ALiasEX

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

*Michael Jackson settled out of court

Michael Jackson was found innocent / not guilty in the second case. No criminal charges were made in the first case.

Henlars67

A woman who alleges sexual assault is as far as I know entitled to anonymity even if later found to be lying, yet the person who was falsely accused will have it hanging over them for the rest of their lives.

Arawn

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Dont see how it works in practice.

Courts are public places.

In addition........can we please give examples of people who had cases brought against them, were found innocent*, and are now tainted........I cant think of too many.....

*Michael Jackson settled out of court

An american guy was just coming out of college to go into the nfl draft was accused of rape, his lawyers convinced him to plead guilty or face 15+ years as they told him the jury would see a big black aggressive guy. He was given 15 mins to make up his mind and was not given a phonecall to talk to his family.


Skip forward 6 years and the girl came out and said she lied. Not only did he lose 6 years of his life but also millions of dollars. She didnt even get jail for admitting lying

kingcobra

Arawn wrote: »

An american guy was just coming out of college to go into the nfl draft was accused of rape, his lawyers convinced him to plead guilty or face 15+ years as they told him the jury would see a big black aggressive guy. He was given 15 mins to make up his mind and was not given a phonecall to talk to his family.


Skip forward 6 years and the girl came out and said she lied. Not only did he lose 6 years of his life but also millions of dollars. She didnt even get jail for admitting lying

Destroying someone's future like that most certainly deserves a few years behind bars. Pure and utter selfishness that is.

Gatling

Anybody remember John Leslie ( abi titmus got famous off this) the former ITV presenter was accused of multiple rapes after Ulrika Jonsson claimed she was raped by an unidentified male celeb at itv ,rumours went around it was john leslie who raped her she refused to say who it actually was several women later accused him of rape which went to full criminal trial where he was eventually cleared and found innocent ,
One of the women allegedly said after wards that she wanted to get justice for the women who had been raped by john Leslie which was absolutely crazy and yet no problems for the original complaint's to return to amonimity

hatrickpatrick

Actually we've had a very prominent example over the last few tears.
Dominic Strauss Khan was accused of rape. He lost his extremely high profile job at the IMF, his political career in France was decimated, and he suffered some very public humiliation.
His case was subsequently thrown out of court because the ALLEGED victim had a history of using such allegations to extort people.

Now whatever you think of DSK and whatever you think of the subsequent allegations against him, this was simply wrong. Before and until proven guilty, the man should not have lost any job and he should not have had any political ambitions damaged. The case was thrown out, but he never got his job back nor the opportunity to challenge Sarkozy in an election.

Do people not see how very obviously f*cked up this is? That you can utterly destroy a man merely by smearing him, and it automatically becomes "He probably did it, chuck him out"?

It's absolutely vile, to live in that kind of world. And let's call a spade a spade, there's pretty much no allegation a man can make against a woman which will instantly and totally destroy her entire world in such a manner.

I honestly don't understand how anyone could possibly defend it. If we've lost the principle of innocent unless proven guilty, we have no business calling ourselves a civilized or democratic society.

Fighting Irish

such a stupid question

Amalgam

There's a piece discussing anonymity in today's paper edition of the (Friday) Irish Examiner. It is on the back of a recent court case, concerning an accused male.

030513irishexaminer.jpg

Link to .jpg of cover.

Doc

I believe that if the accusation is reported by any media they should be forced to report in every way equally if the person if found Innocent of the charge. For example say if the Sun reports a full front page story on a celebrity being accused of rape they should be forced to print a full front page story proclaiming their innocence. If they did any further stories about the accusations or whatever they should be forced to give equal coverage about how the person is innocent.

hatrickpatrick

Mr Power, a 35-year-old from Limerick, was unanimously found not guilty of sexually assaulting a teenage girl after two hours of deliberation.

Crying openly after the verdict, Mr Power said his life had been hell since the allegations surfaced three years ago. He could not get work and his health suffered.

“People have been coming up to me and calling me a scumbag. My name is on the paper, which it should not be. I think it was completely wrong and they should be able to do something about that. I have no previous convictions ever. I have nothing ever against me.

“At least it’s over now.”

Jesus, this is absolutely heartbreaking

Seriously, how the f*ck are there people who believe this is ok?

Shenshen

Corkbah wrote: »

would you prefer if the identities of convicted paedo's and rapists were protected ?

I think any sexual offender IF CONVICTED should have an image issued to the media - so members of the public are aware the person is a potential sexual predator.

I'm honestly not sure that this would serve much purpose.

First of all, names of sexual offenders are currently legally published, with faces and addresses. How many would you recognise if you met them in the street?
I know I would not be able to identify any of them (possibly with the exception of Joseph Fritzl, but he's dead now anyway).

Secondly, "sexual offender" is a very broad term indeed. Leaving aside the possibility that a person could be innocent even when convicted, there are the by now notorious cases of people being convicted of indecent exposure, marked as a paedophile and put on the sex offenders lists for having a drunk pee against a wall somewhere and a child seeing them. Would you honestly think that this crime would warrant a life-long punishment by the public?

And that's my third issue. In the legal system, an offender once convicted is sentenced by the judge and punished accordingly. By publishing names, however, the legal sentence will by no means be the only punishment. If the media chooses to, the public will go after the offender for an indeterminate amount of time. It's neither fair nor just, it's simply throwing someone to the mob to keep the mob happy and quiet.

Corkbah

Shenshen wrote: »

I'm honestly not sure that this would serve much purpose.

First of all, names of sexual offenders are currently legally published, with faces and addresses. How many would you recognise if you met them in the street?
I know I would not be able to identify any of them (possibly with the exception of Joseph Fritzl, but he's dead now anyway).

Secondly, "sexual offender" is a very broad term indeed. Leaving aside the possibility that a person could be innocent even when convicted, there are the by now notorious cases of people being convicted of indecent exposure, marked as a paedophile and put on the sex offenders lists for having a drunk pee against a wall somewhere and a child seeing them. Would you honestly think that this crime would warrant a life-long punishment by the public?

And that's my third issue. In the legal system, an offender once convicted is sentenced by the judge and punished accordingly. By publishing names, however, the legal sentence will by no means be the only punishment. If the media chooses to, the public will go after the offender for an indeterminate amount of time. It's neither fair nor just, it's simply throwing someone to the mob to keep the mob happy and quiet.

please re-read my post !!

and if you have look at any of the papers in the past few months/years .... any convicted criminal who is in custody is not available to be photographed so there are plenty of paedo's, child porn merchants, rapists etc who's image is not available to the papers and who can move into a house near you or near schools etc, the post prison system in this country is very lax.

the courts system protects criminals - hiding them so the public do not know who they are, I know I would much rather know the identity of a rapist or paedo in my area (even if they have served their sentence), rather than ask a friendly neighbour to mind the kids - only to find out he started abusing them..... for the inconvenience of the criminal I think the public should know who they are and where they are and what they did - as you said - if it was someone pee-ing near a school or observed by a child, if the public knew the offence they would not be likely to raise the pitchforks etc.

Shenshen

Corkbah wrote: »

please re-read my post !!

I have... why?