Should suspects in rape and sex abuse cases should be granted anonymity?

[Hibbyradge]

On balance, I think so. I think.

The main argument against is that publicity of an accused's name often encourages further victims to come forward.

Unfortunately, disclosure can make an innocent person a victim.

How often have we heard people say things like "hangings too good for him" or similar, when someone gets arrested for a crime.

Joanna Yeates’s landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was the victim of the most vicious character assassination after it emerged he had been arrested for her murder. He appeared a bit dotty, but he was entirely innocent and received huge compensation for the defamation.

Michael Le Vell, cleared of several sexual assault and rape charges today, must have gone through hell for the past 2 years.

That's not fair.

[Peevemor]

Definitely. There have been too many occasions where people have been falsely accused with devastating consequences on their personal and professional life.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Most definitely. There is a stigma attached to people in this situation for the rest of their lives.

[Hibrandenburg]

Horrible as rape/child abuse is, it should not be different to any other crime in court with maybe the exception of allowing video evidence.

Maybe anonymity should only be granted until an accused is found innocent?

[Peevemor]

Horrible as rape/child abuse is, it should not be different to any other crime in court with maybe the exception of allowing video evidence.

Maybe anonymity should only be granted until an accused is found innocent?

Guilty even? Again - definitely.

[Beefster]

No. As horrible as it must be for a wrongly accused person, the lack of anonymity allows other folk to come forward if they've also been abused.

Part of the reason for Savile, priests, teachers and thousands of others getting away with abusing lots of kids, women and more is because each victim thought they were an isolated case who would never be believed over the abuser.

[Hibrandenburg]

Guilty even? Again - definitely.

I disagree. If the accused is found guilty then anonymity should be kept to protect the victim from further degradation. On the other hand then if a court of law finds the accused innocent then surely the true victim is he/she who was wrongly accused and the perpetrator is the accuser?

[Hibbyradge]

Horrible as rape/child abuse is, it should not be different to any other crime in court with maybe the exception of allowing video evidence.

Maybe anonymity should only be granted until an accused is found innocent?


Guilty even? Again - definitely.


I disagree. If the accused is found guilty then anonymity should be kept to protect the victim from further degradation. On the other hand then if a court of law finds the accused innocent then surely the true victim is he/she who was wrongly accused and the perpetrator is the accuser?

We've got ourselves in a muddle, I think.

I am discussing anonymity for the accused. The victim's identity is already hidden.

[Hibrandenburg]

We've got ourselves in a muddle, I think.

I am discussing anonymity for the accused. The victim's identity is already hidden.

Doh! My fault, now I've got you. Sounds sensible.

[CropleyWasGod]

Most definitely. There is a stigma attached to people in this situation for the rest of their lives.

Agreed.

I have often thought about this over the years. Craig Charles was the first I can remember raising the issue; people will still wonder about whether he only "got off" because rape is such a difficult crime to prove. Rightly or wrongly, as you say, that will follow him around forever now.

One point that does bother me. At what point would the anonymity be lifted? Should we wait until the appeals process has been exhausted?

I also sometimes wonder whether that anonymity should be extended to all crimes until guilt is proven. I'd be happy to start with the nastier accusations first, though.

[Hibs Class]

One of the consequences of naming the accused has been magnified more recently with all the celebrity cases. Someone famous being accused makes the news, and that individual then gets extensive opportunity ahead of their trial to protest their innocence, to "look forward to their day in court" etc. Stuart Hall is an obvious example where the truth eventually came out but not before he was able to use the media in what can only have been an attempt to gain sympathy and get public opinion onside. Whatever the pros and cons of anonymity, it would increase the chances that a verdict would be based solely, or at least primarily, on the evidence presented in court.

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

One of the consequences of naming the accused has been magnified more recently with all the celebrity cases. Someone famous being accused makes the news, and that individual then gets extensive opportunity ahead of their trial to protest their innocence, to "look forward to their day in court" etc. Stuart Hall is an obvious example where the truth eventually came out but not before he was able to use the media in what can only have been an attempt to gain sympathy and get public opinion onside. Whatever the pros and cons of anonymity, it would increase the chances that a verdict would be based solely, or at least primarily, on the evidence presented in court.

Yup. And surely that is all that people should be reasonably allowed to expect.

[heretoday]

"How often have we heard people say things like "hangings too good for him" or similar, when someone gets arrested for a crime.

Joanna Yeates’s landlord, Christopher Jefferies, was the victim of the most vicious character assassination after it emerged he had been arrested for her murder. He appeared a bit dotty, but he was entirely innocent and received huge compensation for the defamation."


I remember the revulsion in the popular press towards this guy at the time. He looked perfect for the role of killer - a loner, bachelor schoolmaster, odd looking etc - all the sort of things that the press like to categorise as worthy of suspicion.

My feelings were that he was smart enough to know during his ordeal that he just had to bide his time and everything would fall into his lap. How right he was.

[Steve-O]

Rather than suppressing names, all it really requires is for the 'great' British public to engage their brains for a minute. Alas they seem to prefer knee-jerk reactions, frothing at the mouth and declaring what punishment they think appropriate (usually involving death, 5 minutes in room with victims family, getting attacked in prison etc etc).