Anonymity of Alleged Rapists = Few rape victims coming forward?

[IDrinkaRum]

Anonymity for alleged rapists would mean fewer victims coming forward

I know in another thread it was mentioned that both alleged rapists and alleged victims should be anonymous until the conviction so no man or woman's lives are ruined due to a false accusation of rape. According to The Telegraph, Maura McGowan QC, chairwoman for the Bar Council wants to make this a policy for rape cases. However, there is some resistance.

However, John Cooper QC, a leading criminal defence barrister, said that no matter how much stress and trauma innocent defendants may be put through, those accused of rape must be named to encourage other potential victims to come forward.

What do you think about that?

[Greenday]

How does naming the defendants regardless of innocence encourage other people to come forward about rape?

Bringing someone to court should be about putting them in jail and keeping them from society, not just tarnishing someone's name.

[BlaqueKatt]

How does naming the defendants regardless of innocence encourage other people to come forward about rape?

I believe the thought process behind that one is "some other victims may think they were the only one, and for whatever reason, never said anything, but may say something now that they know they weren't the only victim." Not exactly sure how that holds up, especially as there would be little to no evidence at that point.

Then again, it could go the other way, "I did nothing and it happened again, I can't deal with the shame/guilt."

[SongsOfDragons]

I don't like it. Housemate and I were talking about this on Friday when we heard about that guy from Coronation Street who has been accused of it. His career is over, regardless of whether he's found not guilty or not. If he is found guilty, well then yes fair enough; but if not, his name seems to be forever tarred regardless. I have serious doubts he'll ever be on TV again.

Similar thoughts of mine are following the Pistorius case. He'll never race again.

I've never had a case like this affect me personally, but the overarching emotion I have with this topic is sadness. It is a very sad situation.

[Duelist925]

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much: Publish the fuckers names to high heaven after the trial. But our legal system is innocent until proven guilty--and the public mind is, far too often, guilty until forever by association.

[bara]

My thoughts on the matter are pretty much: Publish the fuckers names to high heaven after the trial. But our legal system is innocent until proven guilty--and the public mind is, far too often, guilty until forever by association.

They should also publish the names of people who accused falsely. Im not talking about overturned evidence, but flat out admit they lied about it.

[HYHYBT]

The only way I can think of to make the titular claim plausible would be if it weren't just the name withheld, but the whole existence of the case. And who's proposing that?

[s_stabeler]

publish names after the trial, but not during. people found innocent of rape are frequently punished by the stigma of the accusation for the rest of their lives ( the thought being that "they got away with it" not "they didn't do it) and that is unfair.

[siead_lietrathua]

i think the mentality behind publishing a potential rapist's name is not so that more victims in general will feel safer in disclosing, but to put out the feeler for any other victims of the specific potential rapist named. which i agree does make sense to some degree. however it does make it harder for innocents accused.
what would help is if they published the outcome of a case where tha accused was innocent as thoroughly as they would cover it if they were guilty. i mean, guilty convictions are close to front page. man shown innocent and let free tends to get more buried.

[Pixilated]

That was the philosophy at the community paper I worked on for a decade. We were entering uncharted territory with our court coverage and the publisher asked -- not demanded -- that we not publish names until a conviction was entered. "It's a small town; everybody remembers you were accused and nobody remembers you were acquitted." None of us had a problem with that. This applied to all crimes, by the way.

On the other hand, the last newspaper I worked for was quite happy to print the names of people arrested, which were provided by the police, but of course had no staff to cover court so the results of the accuseds' court appearances were never reported. Why did they do this? "Well, everybody else is." Spineless much?

[Akasa]

When my best friend was raped and pressed charges when it hit the news many other girls who were raped by the same guy came forward thinking they were the only one. The guy had a total of 18 counts of rape and 21 counts of indecency with a minor. If they kept his name secret these girls would never have come forward.

[kibbles]

Nothing should be published until after a conviction. You can't ruin a possibly innocent person's life on the hope that more people will come forward.

[AmbrosiaWriter]

When my best friend was raped and pressed charges when it hit the news many other girls who were raped by the same guy came forward thinking they were the only one. The guy had a total of 18 counts of rape and 21 counts of indecency with a minor. If they kept his name secret these girls would never have come forward.

What if she had the wrong guy though? What if he had been completely innocent, and publishing his name ruined his reputation?

This happens all the time. There are plenty of (mostly) men who have had their lives and careers ruined because they were accused of rape, the newspapers plastered his name everywhere, the girl recants/says she lies/he is proven innocent, and yet everyone thinks "He just got away with it" rather than "Oh he didn't do it."

Oh, and then nothing happens to the accuser. At all.

The accused and the accuser should be kept secret until the court case is decided. If the rapist is convicted, then plaster his name everywhere. All those other girls would've still come forward, especially after he was convicted.

[draco664]

When my best friend was raped and pressed charges when it hit the news many other girls who were raped by the same guy came forward thinking they were the only one. The guy had a total of 18 counts of rape and 21 counts of indecency with a minor. If they kept his name secret these girls would never have come forward.

So what would the difference be if he was named *after* he was convicted for that first count of rape? The other women would then still come forward and he could be tried for those.

[HYHYBT]

The difference is that even if he's guilty, he might not be convicted and therefore the other accusers would never come forward. Whereas if they *do* come forward, either one or more of their cases might be easier to prove or the extra information might be helpful in some way.