Accused rape anonymity

[SSY]

Has some of you know, the UK has a new government, which has been cranking out policy announcements at a fevered rate, I thought I would start this topic, so we could discuss one of them.

This gist of this new policy, would be not publish the names of people accused of rape, until they are proven guilty, in a court of law, as I understand it, the motivation behind this was to avoid a trial in the media and also, to limit damage to a persons reputation should they be turn out to be innocent, or the trial be inconclusive.There is an article which appears in the Telegraphhere, detailing the initial proposal, and some people who aren't too happy about it.

Recently, Mr Cameron, appears to have climbed down a little, from the original idea, I was wondering whether this is in part, due to the objections. When I first heard this proposed, I was very glad that it seems this government is moving away from the deplorable attitudes of the last one, but this toning down of the policy does not bode well, it could suggest not only a much less progressive attitude on crime sof this nature, but also weakness when harangued by a vocal minority. As far as I can comprehend, the objections seem to centre around the assertion, that granting people who have been accused of rape will send a message about the prevalence of false rape claims. To me, this seems completely without merit, but I thought I would through open the floor to HAF, to discuss the proposal, and the merit or not, of any objections.

As I see it, someone accused of a crime (any crime by the way, not just rape) should be innocent, until proven guilty, publishing the names of people accused of rape will not only possibly prejudice the jury but leaves a lasting legacy for the accused, any google of the persons name will immediately bring up the result, and unfortunately, people still have a "no smoke without fire" mentality about some things. I think the most important thing to consider is protecting the innocent from the damage of an unproven rape claim, and the objections raised seem to ignore this, with very flimsy justification.

Comments, critiques etc?

[Will]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

If the burden of proof is not on the accuser, the accused who are innocent are required to prove a negative (something atheists are obviously familiar with). It's a fundamental tenant of many justice systems all around the world... but I don't think the UK is one of them. You guys really should get cracking on a constitution.

[Tank]

Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies.

If the burden of proof is not on the accuser, the accused who are innocent are required to prove a negative (something atheists are obviously familiar with). It's a fundamental tenant of many justice systems all around the world... but I don't think the UK is one of them. You guys really should get cracking on a constitution.

While technically accurate in RL 'shit sticks'. I know I've been falsely accused and it took two years of unmitigated hell to get the case thrown out. Being accused of a crime that one has not committed is bad enough but when the 'target driven' mentality of the UK police force gets going you're nothing but a piece of flesh to be processed. The Crowns Prosecution Service (CPS) are unbelievably incompetent!

Having been through this sort of thing I can state with 100% conviction that the anonymity of the defendant be protected until the point when they are found guilty.

Having said that I think that serial rapists probably account for the majority of 'out of family' or 'booze fuelled' rapes. Police records of rape and sexual assault allegations should be coordinated as much as possible. I know this could be dangerous but on the balance of good it's a risk I think our society should take. The trouble here would be 'the no smoke without fire' mentality that if a guy had 3 accusations they'd effectively have been tried before the trial. A very difficult balance as this crime is both horrendous and emotive, never conditions where cool heads are found in abundance.

[SSY]

That is awful Tank, I am glad you got through it without too much damage.

The point about serial rapists is an interesting one, it raises interesting questions, if someone has been tried for the crime and found guilty for it, should that fact be admissible in court, what if they were not found guilty? Is being accused three times enough for you to lose anonymity?

The point about the police is also an thorny one (to preface, I am deeply cynical, and do not trust that all police are "good guys"), because I would not think they are exempt from the NSWF attitude we mentioned before, could a previous accusation on someone's record be enough to prejudice the polices investigation? Possibly goad them into doing a less that upstanding job?

If you would like to share any more of your story Tank, I would be very interested to hear it, though if you would rather not discuss it, I of course understand.

[Tank]

Personally I think a person should walk into a court innocent and with no 'baggage' and be tried in that way on the simple precept that that is the way I would wish to be treated.

However if a person has been accused of robbery a number of times I see no reason why the police should not make an effort to coordinate their investigations down through the 'backstory' of the defendant each time a new accusation is made. Now in the UK the Police are the investigatory element and the CPS is the prosecutory body. The Police should only approach the CPS when they believe they have a viable case and the CPS should only prosecute if they not think they can succeed in the prosecution and that the prosecution itself is 'in the public interest' and there are a number of criteria to determine 'in the public interest.' If one has a serial offender of any kind where they actually are offending I would think that the case against a serial offender could be made water tight. However if there was an apparent series of events that were no related then hopefully the backstory would show inconsistencies reducing the credibility of a potential prosecution. The trouble is 'confirmation bias' most coppers I have spoken to tend to believe the worst of people simply because they tend to be surrounded by them all day every day and they become cynical of the human condition.

I'd tell you more but I'd have to spell it all out in great detail and I'm just really not that far away from it yet. If I gave 'edited highlights' the wrong conclusions could be (and were) drawn. It was only when the Judge got his hands on the 'abuse of process' argument before the case started, I'd still had to sit locked in the dock but never entered a plea, that he put it all together. The result was the case was never started, the Judge gave the CPS and the investigating officers a serious bollocking and advised that the accuser 'urgently seek psychiatric advise'.

The problem is society tends to see the police and CPS as somehow 'calm, cool, collected and professional'. Trouble is they're just a bunch of people doing their best under difficult and intensely stressful conditions which no longer revolve around simply solving crimes, they have to solve sufficient crimes in certain categories. Note SOLVE crimes, not PREVENT crimes. You can't measure prevented crimes so you can't set a target for prevention and with the measure obsessed Labour government we had it was just F***ing insane!

The police are now obliged to investigate ALL complaints. That sounds like a good thing, I would not want to go to the police and have my accusation summarily dismissed but the desk Sargent.  The trouble is the police are being swamped with so many cases that they simply can't deal with any of them effectively. Another recent change to the law in the UK is that you can't get legal aid if you stay in the magistrates court, you have to request your case be heard in the Crown Court. This has two effects it costs the tax payer more money and takes months to do. So removing legal aid for magistrates level hearings has INCREASED the total costs of legal aid!!

Sorry running a bit off topic there. The one bright part of the whole thing was getting a brilliant solicitor, Sophie, who found the perfect barrister. They were absolutly bloody fantastic, I can't say a bad word about them. My barrister Marion, a bulldog of a woman, 25 years at the bar was just brilliant to behold. I think the moment I saw the light at the end of the tunnel was when I was in court listening to her deliver the 'abuse of process argument'. About half way through the judge started positively finishing her points for her. I could see the prosecutions barrister's (also a lady) shoulders begin to drop. But to SOB ran out of time so he sent us all home for the night because his ruling 'would be substantial' and he would 'need extra time' to deliver it. Well we all came back the next day and he delivered his ruling and put a 'permanent stay' on the prosecution.

Marion was delighted. She'd kept telling me that the 'abuse of process' was very unlikely to stop the prosecution and that I should expect the trial to go ahead. After we'd won she told me it was the first time that and 'abuse of process' argument held before a trial (they are normally held in the middle of the trial between the end of the prosecutions case and before the defence starts) had succeed since 1977! My case went to court in Dec' '09.

All in all not something I would wish to go through again. It gave me an insight into the UK legal system I would rather not have, thank you very much!

[Dretlin]

SSY, does this law apply to only England and Wales?

[SSY]

Sorry Dretlin, I couldn't tell you, as far as I know, it is just a proposal at this point anyway.

Thanks for sharing Tank, at least it ended well (enough). When prosecuting someone who has been serial accusedr, I think it is important to make a distinction, between convicting them of 10 counts of burglary, or, convicting them of one count of burglary, but using evidence from previous accusations that they are not being charged with, obviously one is fine, and the other not (imo).

In general I agree with you about the poor state labour left almost every public body in, if they had heard of Goodheart's Law, things would have been so different. Maybe it will be renamed Blair's Law, or Brown's Law?

[Dretlin]

I will do something research to check. As you probably know, Law in England/Wales and Scotland is different.

It would be interesting to see if we have, or considered something similar.

[zerofivetwoseven]

The argument advanced is that it will encourage other women who have been raped by the same man to come forward. Firstly, not all rapists have multiple victims. Secondly, the accused may be innocent. Thirdly, even acquitted men may feel that they are perceived as being guilty. So for all these reasons, it is a bad law and as such should be repealed immediatedly.

A significant proportion of the population of the United Kingdom believe a woman is partially or wholly responsible for being raped. They should all without exception, be banned from serving on juries in rape trials until they have a change their mind on this. What is rather sad is that some who express this are women. I as a man, shouldn't have to explain to them that the only one responsible for rape is the perpertrator, not the victim. Reputation, demeanour or attire have absolutely nothing to do with it. All  young women should be able to walk around stark naked without fear of assualt - that is how high the bar should be - that should be the standard, the absolute minimum - and on this I bow to no one - I don't care who you are. If you have difficulty in comprehending this, then there is something wrong. It's that simple.

On a more general level, misogyny seems to be tolerated in a way that racism or homophobia aren't. That is sad. Women receive less than men for doing the same job, even though The Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. They are still regared as inferior to men. I once read about a female architect who was ignored on a building site purely because of her gender. On another, a man was sacked for wolf-whistling after a written instruction from management not to engage in such activity was circulated, since it makes women uncomfortable. They are our equals and as such should be treated likewise. Again, this is the standard, the absolute minimum that should be. We get that and the number of rapes will very quickly dimish. Sad to say I won't be holding my breath though.

[SSY]

The argument advanced is that it will encourage other women who have been raped by the same man to come forward. Firstly, not all rapists have multiple victims. Secondly, the accused may be innocent. Thirdly, even acquitted men may feel that they are perceived as being guilty. So for all these reasons, it is a bad law and as such should be repealed immediatedly.

A significant proportion of the population of the United Kingdom believe a woman is partially or wholly responsible for being raped. They should all without exception, be banned from serving on juries in rape trials until they have a change their mind on this. What is rather sad is that some who express this are women. I as a man, shouldn't have to explain to them that the only one responsible for rape is the perpertrator, not the victim. Reputation, demeanour or attire have absolutely nothing to do with it. All  young women should be able to walk around stark naked without fear of assualt - that is how high the bar should be - that should be the standard, the absolute minimum - and on this I bow to no one - I don't care who you are. If you have difficulty in comprehending this, then there is something wrong. It's that simple.

On a more general level, misogyny seems to be tolerated in a way that racism or homophobia aren't. That is sad. Women receive less than men for doing the same job, even though The Sex Discrimination Act was passed in 1975. They are still regared as inferior to men. I once read about a female architect who was ignored on a building site purely because of her gender. On another, a man was sacked for wolf-whistling after a written instruction from management not to engage in such activity was circulated, since it makes women uncomfortable. They are our equals and as such should be treated likewise. Again, this is the standard, the absolute minimum that should be. We get that and the number of rapes will very quickly dimish. Sad to say I won't be holding my breath though.

I am not sure I quite understand your first paragraph, which law in particular are you talking about?

Your second paragraph, well, define significant, though I of course of agree with you about the allocation of blame is 100% on the rapist in cases where rapes occur.

I'm afraid I don't entirely agree wit your last paragraph, there a lot of generalizations and unsubstantiated claims going on there.

In any case, this discussion is now purely academic, the government dropped it's plan for this, it caved to female MPs on both benches. While of course, it was dropped due to opposition in the house, the reason most proffered is about sending a message of rape claims being more likely to be false, due to the anonymity (hypothetically) given to the accused. Of course this is nonsense, they completely disregard the fact that the accuser is granted anonymity in this case and this case alone, and what message that sends. One of the few things I thought this government would do properly, and the only surprise they delivered to me, and now abandoned, they made some noise about leaning on the PPC, but everyone knows that effectively means sweet FA.