Time to give anonimity to rape suspects?

Police officers privately admit that, in their opinion, at least half of RAs are FRAs.

We have a FRA culture.

Reply 3

Nununu

OP

16

Original post by 41b

Police officers privately admit that, in their opinion, at least half of RAs are FRAs.

We have a FRA culture.

Half?!

Reply 4

anosmianAcrimony

20

Original post by 41b

Police officers privately admit that, in their opinion, at least half of RAs are FRAs.

We have a FRA culture.

I am dubious on both counts.

Reply 5

No I don't believe we should afford anonymity to anyone when it comes to justice. Justice should be as open and transparent as is possible (how else will will know if it's doing something wrong).

Reply 6

donutellme

18

The woman in question should be brought to the public eye.

Reply 7

Original post by Nununu

Half?!

The real crime seems to be a woman's feelings were hurt. The expansion of the definition of rape from actual rape to what couples often do consensually (and now they're pushing for affirmative consent) shows that what they want to do is not "protect women" but rather turn all men into potential RA targets.

Reply 8

Nununu

OP

16

Original post by limetang

No I don't believe we should afford anonymity to anyone when it comes to justice. Justice should be as open and transparent as is possible (how else will will know if it's doing something wrong).

What about the wonen who make rape allegations? They might be less willing to come forward.

Reply 9

Original post by Nununu

What about the wonen who make raoe allegations? They might be less willing to come forward.

Yes, they might, but I value the integrity of our justice system more highly than that. It is up to them whether or not they come forward, what I want is a good and fair justice system to meet them if and when they do.

If I am accused of something it is only fair I know WHO is accusing me, justice needs to be open in order to function properly.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 10

thecatwithnohat

20

I'm split.

Suspects should be publicly stigmatised and shamed if and when they are found guilty, to deter them from committing such a crime again.

However, I do feel for those that are suspects but end up not having done anything wrong and this whole event may affect their employment prospects in the future, etc...

Reply 11

leinad2012

15

Original post by limetang

No I don't believe we should afford anonymity to anyone when it comes to justice. Justice should be as open and transparent as is possible (how else will will know if it's doing something wrong).

I completely disagree. For something as stigmatised as rape or any sexual offense, anonymity should be allowed to the suspect until they are proven guilty. As it stands there are so many examples of where a person will be still treated as a rapist even if falsely accused and found innocent.

Take the footballer Adam Johnson, ok it's an underage sex charge but it is the same principle. He has effectively been "found guilty" by society without evidence or trial. Every football match he plays opposition fans will chant about him being a rapist/ peadophile etc. He'll be called Adam "Nonceson" online. He'll be the punchline of every child sex joke there is within the footballing community. He already has had to accept that. All of this is CURRENTLY happening to him. And his case hasn't even gone to court yet. We have NO CLUE if he is guilty or not, but society has already deemed him to be regardless of the result due to lack of anonymity. His name will forever be associated with the act of having sex with an underage girl.

So to answer op's question YES, suspects MUST be protected from their identity being known until they are proven guo5lty, although realistically with most cases friends and family and eveyone important in these people's lives will know anyway so it isn't really going to have that much effect anyway.

Reply 12

thegodofgod

I think accused anonymity is essential until proven guilty - as they say, 'innocent until proven guilty'. At the point of conviction, that's when the convict's name should be publicly released.

Reply 13

Original post by thecatwithnohat

I'm split.

Suspects should be publicly stigmatised and shamed if and when they are found guilty, to deter them from committing such a crime again.

However, I do feel for those that are suspects but end up not having done anything wrong and this whole event may affect their employment prospects in the future, etc...

Shame is not the penalty someone gets for committing a crime. Prison is. If they come to feel ashamed while in prison and rehabilitate themselves, good for them. If not, they served their time.

It's not "society's" job to shame them. Society here means, with tabloids and the internet, pretty much the whole country. Gone are the days where a man could serve his time, pay his dues, go to another town and start afresh. Now something someone does when they are 18 will haunt them forever.

Reply 14

Plagioclase

21

I think anonymity should be granted to suspects for all crimes, not just sex crimes. I understand the ideology behind keeping justice 'transparent and open' but unfortunately this ideal only works in a world with a totally fair mass-media and population that behaves completely rationally and sensitively. In reality, if someone is accused of a crime - particularly something that will get a lot of public attention such as, but not limited, to sex crimes - then this accusation will remain with them forever, regardless of whether they're found guilty or not. I don't think enforcing anonymity before a guilty verdict would cause a lot of harm and in return, it would stop innocent lives from being completely destroyed.

In light of this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people wouldn't support anonymity before a guilty verdict.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 15

Original post by leinad2012

I completely disagree. For something as stigmatised as rape or any sexual offense, anonymity should be allowed to the suspect until they are proven guilty. As it stands there are so many examples of where a person will be still treated as a rapist even if falsely accused and found innocent.

Take the footballer Adam Johnson, ok it's an underage sex charge but it is the same principle. He has effectively been "found guilty" by society without evidence or trial. Every football match he plays opposition fans will chant about him being a rapist/ peadophile etc. He'll be called Adam "Nonceson" online. He'll be the punchline of every child sex joke there is within the footballing community. He already has had to accept that. All of this is CURRENTLY happening to him. And his case hasn't even gone to court yet. We have NO CLUE if he is guilty or not, but society has already deemed him to be regardless of the result due to lack of anonymity. His name will forever be associated with the act of having sex with an underage girl.

So to answer op's question YES, suspects MUST be protected from their identity being known until they are proven guo5lty, although realistically with most cases friends and family and eveyone important in these people's lives will know anyway so it isn't really going to have that much effect anyway.

I completely understand where you are coming from, especially with regards to rape where there is a massive stigma attached to it and perhaps I'm being to idealistic but what I want is completely open justice along with a culture that doesn't engage in trial by media, that doesn't demonise people without proof that they've done what they're accused of etc.

I will say that I think that providing anonymity to rape suspects is a good stop-gap for a culture that has this 'no smoke without fire' view of criminal accusations, but ideally what I want is open and fair justice and a society that understands and respects that.

The difficulty OF COURSE lies in the fact that rape suspects receive a trial by media, and punishment from the society they live in (guilty or not). This is in my opinion wrong. As citizens of the society we live in, we surrender any ability to punish criminals to the state, we do NOT have the right to punish people for their crimes. And of course the worry with rape in particular is that this, seemingly above all other crimes, attracts people who want to engage in what is essentially vigilante justice, which is abhorrent, which is damnably wrong. I'm just presenting my idealised situation.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 16

Plagioclase

21

Original post by limetang

I completely understand where you are coming from, especially with regards to rape where there is a massive stigma attached to it and perhaps I'm being to idealistic but what I want is completely open justice along with a culture that doesn't engage in trial by media, that doesn't demonise people without proof that they've done what they're accused of etc.

I will say that I think that providing anonymity to rape suspects is a good stop-gap for a culture that has this 'no smoke without fire' view of criminal accusations, but ideally what I want is open and fair justice and a society that understands and respects that.

But that culture you're describing doesn't exist and as long as the internet remains free and open, and prejudice remains in the world, that culture is never going to exist. As much as I appreciate why you'd like a totally open justice system to work (it's a lovely idea in theory), it's not working in the world we're living in. Would you really put ideology in front of a reality which is ruining the lives of innocent people?

If we one day achieve the world you're talking about, sure, we can go back to no anonymity. But for the time being, these people need protection.

Reply 17

Original post by thegodofgod

I think accused anonymity is essential until proven guilty - as they say, 'innocent until proven guilty'. At the point of conviction, that's when the convict's name should be publicly released.

Why? If the victim is anonymous, why should the criminal be public? It adds a double punishment to the criminal - more than jail itself.

In my opinion, in the age of the internet, making crimes public means that a person can never achieve rehabilitation and will be more likely to fall into recidivism.

If the goal is to minimise future crimes, and minimise depression for the victim, then both criminals and victims should remain anonymous, to give them a chance at a future life. If they do it repeatedly after being given a chance, then fair enough, let their name out.

But as it stands, even a minor sentence these days is basically a death sentence. The legal system was put in place when records were local and the ability of people to "check on someone" fairly limited. People could move around and get a fresh start. Considering the vast drop in criminal activity in recent decades, I think a softer approach would not do any harm.

Reply 18

Aj12

18

Original post by Plagioclase

I think anonymity should be granted to suspects for all crimes, not just sex crimes. I understand the ideology behind keeping justice 'transparent and open' but unfortunately this ideal only works in a world with a totally fair mass-media and population that behaves completely rationally and sensitively. In reality, if someone is accused of a crime - particularly something that will get a lot of public attention such as, but not limited, to sex crimes - then this accusation will remain with them forever, regardless of whether they're found guilty or not. I don't think enforcing anonymity before a guilty verdict would cause a lot of harm and in return, it would stop innocent lives from being completely destroyed.

In light of this, I'm genuinely curious as to why people wouldn't support anonymity before a guilty verdict.

What about the argument that by making an arrest public you can get other victims to come forward?

Reply 19