Backdown over anonymity for rape defendants

[jake-the-peg]

So the government is to backdown (er sorry has clarified its position) over anonymity for men accused of rape.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10760239

Is this a sensible decision or another retreat in the face of the sightest opposition?

[123everton]

I've always viewed this problem as something of a curate's egg.
I can see the benefits of anonymity with regard to innocent until proven guilty, mud in such circumstances certainly sticks.
Then again, if it's a serial offender identifying him may save a lot of people.
The same is true of accusers, identifying them after the case may put some off reporting it.
The sad thing with rape, is that it's one of the few crimes were not guilty is met with grave suspicion.
This "Broke back" coalition's beginning to look weaker and weaker, and that Cameron's topping.

[jake-the-peg]

I understand the issue about serial offenders but I disagree the same imposition is the case in jeuvenile cases but that is considered OK

The really poor thing is that the government are trying to sit on the fence and say they'd issue the Press Complaints Commission guidance recommending the media do not identify people before they are charged with rape might be strengthened.

Right they'd recommend guidance?

They must be wetting themselves laughing at Wapping over that.

Or is that the point? Is Cameron that much in hock to Murdoch that he daren't say no to the press?

[Whickerman]

From the link
"Campaign group Women Against Rape said they were "glad the government has been forced to back down". A spokeswoman said: "Why should men accused of rape have special protection not offered to those facing charges of murder, terrorism or child abuse? People are no more likely to be falsely accused of rape than of other crimes. Why this attempt to further discredit and discriminate against rape survivors?""


See - here's the difference. If I was wrongly accused of say, shoplifting, I would be annoyed but eventually it would be forgotten. Being wrongly accused of rape though - and I don't mean a mistake, I'm talking about the cases that seem to pop up every couple of weeks of vindictive false accusations - that would most likely lose you your family, friends, spouse, kids, job and eventually your home. Mud sticks.

[wolf63]

As a woman I would like to know if the guy in the supermarket has been charged with rape and awaiting trial.

However as a reasonable human being I think that they men should be remain anonymous until the are found innocent or guilty.

So - what is the solution? Do any other countries have a some other way f dealing with this difficult situation?

[birdie1971]

I am firmly in the “anonymous” camp.

In much the same way as we have the 'innocent until proven guilty' presumption in our legal system, it seems peculiar that someone who has simply been accused of some crime - as yet unproven - should have their name in the press.

And I don't care if it's a rape case, a terrorism case, a theft case, etc. It's of no difference. No one's name should be in the public domain until such time as a court has made a decision. Both the accuser and accused should remain anonymous until after the verdict. If the accused is found guilty then splash their name all over the media. The accuser should have the right to remain anonymous is they so chose. If the accused is found innocent and there is no impropriety on behalf of the accuser then all parties should remain anonymous. If the accused is found innocent and there is impropriety on behalf of the accuser (ie. it is proven to be an entirely false and vexatious allegation) then the accuser’s identity should become public knowledge and the accused should remain anonymous.

I realise that my above idea is not ideal in the real world – not least for the reason that 123everton has suggested - but I think it's the best of a bad bunch, so to speak.

I think the acid test is to ask yourself this – How would I feel and what would happen to me personally if I were wrongly accused of rape?