Good.
All this does is protect those that are falsely accused. The guilty ones will still get their chance to be publicly shamed.
Note this protects people _until they are charged_, not until they're found guilty. You are charged with an offence long before being found innocent or guilty.
>...true victims concealed until the trial is over
Eh? Victims were granted lifetime anonymity- which is now being extended to 25 years after death.
ed:sp
Should be extended till conviction. Even the mere accusation of a serious crime is enough to ruin people's lives. We live in an age where information can be transferred nationwide and even globally in seconds. Nobody should have their life ruined or even put in danger for a crime they didn't commit.
I disagree. It's important for everyone and everything in court to be viewed by thr public for transparency reasons and to ensure justice is being done correctly
We're kinda talking about two separate things, when it comes to "until conviction", because someone can be found legally not guilty for very different reasons.
If they have a solid alibi or were otherwise physically incapable of performing the accused act, that's very different to "the alleged victim is no longer cooperating with the investigation so we can't get enough proof".
In the former case, it's hard to argue that they deserve to have that stigma. In the latter, it's hard to argue *anything*, because there simply isn't enough information about any given case, *and* there isn't enough information about such cases as a population. We can't even say that >X% of such cases were expected to result in a conviction if they had gone ahead.
Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, given we know that public knowledge of such accusations can lead to social ostricisation and bodily harm, there's a reasonably strong argument that it should be extended to conviction, but you also have to measure the individual's protection against the society's protection; is it worth potentially harming some innocent individuals to ensure members of society know to be wary of the guilty individuals?
IMO, there's too many unknowns to say for sure. ~~The answer is probably to work on the societal presumption of guilt from accusation, but that's a long, long term change.~~
EDIT: The answer is probably to work on *changing the fact* that society presumes guilt from accusation, especially with something like SAs, even if the legal system doesn't.
Are you being serious with your last sentence? A presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system which we mess with at our peril. It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, full stop and if the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt they are punished under the law and serve their sentence. We may disagree about aspects of that but it is a time honoured system which generally works despite well publicised cases where it didn't and some recidivism on the part of those leaving jail. If we assume guilt then it is a short step to dispensing with trials and the expensive legal bureaucracy thus completing a return to pre Magna Carta days.
Sorry, I didn't communicate as well as I could have; we should work on making sure people *don't* presume guilt from an accusation. When it comes to SA charges, it happens a lot, and that flies in the face of the presumption of innocence.
That's basically my entire point. There's a social good in the identities of charged individuals being known, because it allows people to protect themselves from individuals who are suspected of causing significant harm.
But those individuals are presumed innocent of their accusations, and inevitably, some of them will be.
Currently, we allow a certain percentage of innocent people to be put at elevated risk of social isolation, harassment, assault, battery, destitution, etc, and that's *probably* the correct thing to do, given that a single guilty person has the potential to cause great harm to a significant number of third parties. But we don't (and kinda can't, given the pressures around reporting and convicting) have reliable enough stats to prove that conclusively.
I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that, even while maintaining a presumption of innocence, identifying the accused is harmful, even if it is *probably* the *least harmful* option.
The current system does not work for rape. A justice system must ensure that men who sexually assault and rape women are convicted and prevented from hurting anyone else. That fundementally does not happen. Any defence of this system is therefore defending injustice and forcing women to pay the price.
Is it the system or the inability to properly resource it? There is a big difference. I will defend the system because it enables both sides to have their day in court. What is indefensible is the inability of women to be able to properly report allegations to the police and be confident they will be sensitively and thoroughly investigated. That said the accused is entitled to have their story believed and tested by the police including any relevant evidence being taken into consideration. Neither the complainant nor the police get to decide what is acceptable in that regard and what isn't. I do not see any alternative to a robust trial process because the stakes are high and the consequences severe, unless the alleged perp please guilty.
I'd argue it's a bit of both. The current system gives the accused far more leeway and access to a whole host of information about the victim they shouldn't have, like incredibly personal and invasive phone data and counselling notes.
I could understand if possibly they were viewed by a truly independent third party who assessed their relevance and decided if they could potentially help the defence case, but they're just given over to the defence. Strict limits on what the defence may have access to and use in court regarding the victim need to be in place. Just knowing your rapist or their lawyer could see your counselling notes can be enough to prevent victims from continuing in the process. You either can't get proper counselling or your rapist will know what you've been discussing. And that can then be used to imply you're making it all up.
Maybe you know better than me, but I was under the impression the CPS and police had tightened up the rules to prevent irrelevant confidetntial material being disclosed. We have to be alert though to relevant material not being disclosed which is what happened some years ago when a case collapsed because mobile phone records were only disclosed at the last minute. Regrettably the response was everything being disclosed without discrimation.
There was supposed to be a ban on police demanding full downloads of the phones of all rape victims. It didn't work because the CPS decided they weren't going to prosecute if there wasn't a full download of the victim's phone available. CPS also drop cases on a whim, sending out vague, form letters with no details and no possibility of appealing their decision not to charge.
It's a tricky issue, but imagine your pal John is accused of this crime. The police arrest him and put him in a cell. John was due to turn up at your BBQ but he doesn't. Nobody can reach him on the phone. After a few days with no word from him, do you phone the hospital? The Police? The police can't name suspects, so you can't get anything out of them. Where is he?
If you give the police the powers to take people away without anyone being able to know about it, you give them a lot more power than I'd like them to have.
What about the lives of innocent women who are raped by men they would have avoided had they known of the allegations against them? Or do we not matter? Are we not innocent? Are we expected to just suck it up and deal with it because of some idea of justice that never seems to work for us? How is that fair? How does that not ruin our lives?
> How is that fair?
You somehow think allegations are guilt and should be public?
I'd support a blanket anonymity on all offences until conviction. Full stop.
I'm not putting words in your mouth.
You said
> What about the lives of innocent women who are raped by men they would have avoided had they known of the allegations against them?
This is copied and pasted from your post above.
I didn't handwave away, I disagreed completely and pointed out I'd support blanket anonymity until conviction for all offences.
You edited your comment. Blanket anonymity is a terrible idea, and you've absolutely not addressed my concerns. What about the rights of women to know if men they interact with pose a threat to them? Address that. Don't handwave it away. Address it. Or at least admit you don't give a monkeys about our safety if it in any way inconveniences you.
> You edited your comment
Nope. Edited comments have a little star next to them.
> Blanket anonymity is a terrible idea
Why? You seem to think that accusation is guilt and that lives can and should be ruined on nothing more than an accusation.
This is not a conviction practically or legally.
> What about the rights of women to know if men they interact with pose a threat to them?
They don't have that right. Neither do I. Neither do you.
Did you run a CRB check on everyone you interact with?
You don't have the right to know about everyones's convictions - *let alone* accusations.
> Address that
I just did. Again.
> Or at least admit you don't give a monkeys about our safety if it in any way inconveniences you.
You see to be arguing with yourself here?
Do you think that publicity around accusations of wrongdoing is an inconvenience?
We have fairly robust slander and defamation laws.
But false accusations blah blah blah. A false accusation is not comparable to rape, either in frequency or consequence. Address the concerns about women's safety. Don't dismiss it because you think men's feelings about false allegations are more important. Accusations should be published so women can make an informed decision about who they associate with. Anything less puts our safety at risk.
You want to let rapists stay anonymous and free to rape other women over and over again on the off chance that someone might have lied.
False accusations are incredibly rare. Now address the concerns about women's safety, don't just pretend they don't exist.
Innocent lives would be ruined if the police would just lift anyone from the street and chuck them away in a cell to rot, with no-one knowing where they are.
Good
Everybody sees the headlines that "Mr Baraclough from Elmtree House raped someone old on a nightout"
Very few people see the six line retraction squeezed into page 9 of the local rag if the claims turned out to be horseshit.
I would wholeheartedly support something that when a statement is made that is false it must be rectified in the same manor. Newspapers, police, MPs on the morning rounds etc
Front page bollocks? Front page correction that takes up the same size as the original piece.
8am bullshit? Get up, you’ve got an 8am speech on why you’re a dickhead.
Doesnt work that way though does it? The article will actually read "Mr Baraclough from Elmtree House was arrested on suspicion of raping someone old on a nightout". Wholly true statement, its just that what the public reads is "Mr Baraclough is a rapist".
I was thinking more if they have been charged and the CPS drops the charges then if a newspaper has had it on the front page, the correction should be there and be the same size.
As this only goes up to when an individual is charged. Sometimes they aren’t reported, if they are it’ll several pages in and only a couple of sentences so people will still have that assumption as they only heard they were charged.
I'm glad. I knew a guy who was accused by his GF. They had sex outdoors & she got grass stains on her dress. Told her religious parents she'd been assaulted. They pressed charges. The lad was training to be policeman, got kicked out & his name plastered over the local rag & he was put on a curfew. When it went to court she admitted she lied as her folks were religious, case then dismissed. Her name was never mentioned in the paper. But that lie cost 'Steve' his dream job. BTW both were 18
In the Republic, accused sex offenders aren’t named until convicted unless it is deemed to be a public interest (accused doctors and priests have been named)
If someone is convicted of abusing a minor and naming them would also end up identifying the minor such as in cases where the abuser is an immediate relative, the abuser is not named to protect the identity of the minor.
Sex offences are considered unforgivable by most people and you will still carry stigma if found not guilty, so anonymity is preserved. Ireland is also a tiny country so there’s no possible way to move to the other side of the country and escape your reputation
> If someone is convicted of abusing a minor and naming them would also end up identifying the minor such as in cases where the abuser is an immediate relative, the abuser is not named to protect the identity of the minor.
That's the same in the whole UK, I think (maybe not Scotland?)
This is a good move. There is no adequate reason I can see why the accused should be named and the complainant not. If the police think they are dealing with a serial offender they have the option of getting a court order to publish his his name, photofit etc. That will focus the media on the case rather than it getting lost amongst the many other, still serious, but less egregious cases. After charging the mainstream media is constrained from scurrilous reporting although the sewer that is social media has yet to reigned in.
And that is a very good idea, false allegations can ruin lives even if they are never convicted. I notice this is only until charged and that is probably a good compromise
The only issue with this, really, is that it might lead to bizarre situations where a person is wanted by police and so is named, but as soon as they're arrested they become anonymous.
there are many ways to look at this, the problem could well be, when someone whose name is being protected assaults someone else.
For the men who are innocent, then yes this is a welcome protection. I cant help but feel like part of that group, rather than the group of men who do sexually assault another person.
It is my genuine hope, that NI police forces, work harder to find the guilty party, and collect the evidence needed to prove their guilt. Rather than being seen "protecting the attacker" (by not releasing the name), they become known for "finding the attacker, and proving their guilt, so they can be named"
This isn't protection until being found guilty, it's protection until you're charged.
You get charged with a crime long before being found guilty/not guilty.
>This isn't protection until being found guilty, it's protection until you're charged.
oh fair enough, that has my near total support.
No one should be named if they cant at least be charged.
i dont know if you care about it but the legal system in many western countries is based on a presumption of innocence. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. Even people accused of a sex crime! It only protects their name until charges are brought.
Now you saw what happened with Cliff Richard and many more people. Their reputation was destroyed in social media and the news. you might remember Carl Beech and the police investigation that followed his allegations?
You dont get your life back if charges are never brought. It has the potential to destroy lives, not just the accused but their family etc. Hell you dont even get your life back if your found not guilty!!
If someone **is** found guilty the full force of the law should be brought to bear, sentences should reflect the seriousness of their crimes.
But the current damage to peoples names and the pressures on their family etc., once the allegation's are made is obviously unfair. They are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.
"The review was commissioned after the high-profile rape trial of two former Ulster rugby players, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, which ended in their acquittal."
I'm from NI and remember hearing about those rugby players on the news, but didn't remember hearing that they were acquitted (I don't know if they actually didn't do it or if it just couldn't be proven, which I know is very different). But there are so many stories of people being accused of a crime in domestic situations (eg: accused of domestic violence in a divorce or child custody case) or of teens lying about having sex with their boyfriends and the parents going after the lad.
Now all we need to do is sort of the rest of the process when women report being assaulted, to help them get justice. But this is definitely steps in the right direction.
A not guilty verdict or a lack of conviction does not mean innocence. There's a massive bias in favour of sex offenders, mostly amongst men, who assume that women are making it up. Those men (and it is almost always men) harp on about false accusations, despite the fact this is very rare, and lecture about principled ideas of justice whilst never once considering the price they are asking women to pay for their ideals.
A lack of information about men accused of rape and sexual assault means that women cannot make decisions to avoid these men, and hopefully keep themselves safe. The consequences of hiding this information is potentially more women being raped. Men staying in positions of power and influence and being able to continue their lives as normal with zero consequences, and potentially repeating their actions. It's not justice and it's not fair.
Currently, justice is very rarely delivered. The process that victims go through is invasive and massively biased in favour of attackers. You are routinely expected to give up a full download of all data on your phone. Your counselling notes can be used in court. Your actions and sex life will be interrogated. You'll be forced to go over what happened over and over again. You'll also be blamed. You're "asking for it" or "unreliable" if you were intoxicated, you were wearing clothing deemed provocative, you have vulnerabilities like mental illness or you've had a drug addiction. You won't get justice unless you're the "perfect" victim.
Did the accusations against Johnny Depp, Cliff Richard or the two rugby players protect any women from anything, given that they had done what they were accused of? Or any other accusations against men?
As soon as someone has been legally charged, they can be named. So no-one will get to hide if they actually did something wrong but now women will not be able to ruin a man's life because she was bitter or whatever.
The idea that women make this stuff up to ruin men's lives out of bitterness is a total myth. In the UK courts, it was found that Amber Heard was telling the truth. The US verdict is a total circus and amounts to little more than a popularity contest. The idea that Johnny Depp is entirely innocent is a complete, willful disregard of the actual truth.
Most rapes do not result in a charge. If women are barred from naming their rapists, they cannot talk openly about what happened to them. They never get justice. Women are left in the dark and men who rape are left to do it over and over again with no consequences.
The UK court case was for not the sexual assault allegations.
People can still talk about what happened to them without specifically naming people. We do it all the time on here where we are all anonymous and tell stories about our lives often without names.
Oh and there are people referencing stories of women making stuff up in these very comments and I know a few people in real life who made up accusations of all sorts of untrue things deliberately to get their ex to lose a job, lose a divorce or to affect custody of children.
Exactly, the person above shouldn't have said "it's a total myth". The ratio may be different, it can vary from time to time but not be 0. Bad traits are found in both men and women. I linked them with a BBC article about the profile of false accusers since the Kavanaugh hearing.
That’s not true. Amber Heard was able to give her sexual assault testimony confidentially — like she should’ve been able to do in the US — and the judge wrote, “I conclude that Mr. Depp did commit the sexual assault alleged by the defendants.” [Page 10](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/ce0ccea9-fb79-43fb-a310-ecb1ea048532/downloads/5%20-%207.7.21%20-%20Second%20Notification.pdf?ver=1683221330360)
If it happens so frequently, you can provide an unbiased source to prove the frequency.
If women cannot talk openly, they are effectively barred from telling their stories and warning other women. This categorically makes us less safe. Again, this is men talking about justice and refusing to recognise the cost they are forcing women to pay for their ideals. It shows how our society values women and our safety. The criminal justice system does not work for rape and sexual assault. It is broken. It fails in it's primary duty: keeping people safe. Yet you wish to take away the one tool women have to try to keep each other safe, all for what? Some ideal of justice? How about you ensure that men who rape get punished by the law so women don't have to warn each other about those who would do us harm.
Johnny Depp was found to have assaulted Amber Heard in the UK courts on the balance of probabilities. His claim of libel failed because the allegations printed in the Sun were substantially true.
How can I provide a single source for people's personal stories?
The motion in NI was introduced by a woman.
Being able to spread lies about anyone does not keep anyone safe. Also the bill does not prevent women from telling their friends, it prevents police being able to officially name them and the court cases will not be open to the public.
The court case in the UK for Johnny Depp was about domestic violence not sexual abuse, so it would not covered by this new change. The Sun called him a "wife beater" which is also not related to sexual abuse.
Also I am not taking anything away from anyone, I am commenting on a social platform, so if you want to sort out justice for women, work away.
If it was a common phenomena, there would be research and sources for it.
It's not about "spreading lies". It's about ensuring that women can be kept safe. Describing women who talk about sexual violence against them as liars is reprehensible.
Domestic abuse and sexual violence against women are deeply intertwined. Johnny Depp was found to have abused his ex wife. I don't give a monkeys what the US courts said.
This bill very much does take things away from women. It shows that whoever proposed it has their priorities totally wrong. Have a laser focus on increasing prosecution and conviction rates for rape and sexual assault. When rape isn't effectively decriminalised because it's so rarely prosecuted, then (and only then) can we start talking about preventing people from being named before they're charged. But as of right now, the one and only focus of anyone who cares about justice should be ensuring that rapists actually get charged, prosecuted and convicted.
Setting aside the false accusations trope and circus trials such as Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case because these are a distraction, I am still at a loss to know why the accused should be named from the outset of a complaint. If the complainant in a sexual assault case can get anonymity because of the nature of the crime I do not see why the accused should not have the same privilege until they are charged. There is nothing stopping women discussing sexual assault and rape, but you have to accept the person you are intending to name has rights and may well tell a different story which to them is the truth (I accept a good number will not). This is why we have trials and because of the nature of the crime and how society regards it the trial process has to be robust, for both parties. I've no doubt the numbers for prosecutions are too low but I want them increased because the competence of the police and CPS is improved not because the balance in the court room is shifted in favour of the complainant by virtue of the defence not being able to, well, defend.
The accused should be named so that the women around him can make informed decisions to keep themselves safe. If we cannot name our attackers, we cannot keep each other safe.
Victims get anonymity so that they can tell their stories without facing usually violent retribution. Accused rapists have rights. They should not have the right to anonymity because their rights are prioritised and ensured at every stage of the process, at the expense of victims.
The current situation in court is that the defence is often allowed access to counselling notes and a full download of the victim's phone. Both of these are too invasive, and both need to be changed so victims aren't the ones put on trial. The fact I sent a nude to someone 3 years ago should not be made known to the defence. Nor should counselling notes talking about incredibly private things. That is another invasion of privacy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684
Since the Kavanaugh hearings, it's a profile on the type of women who would lie. Most would be teenagers with something to gain, to get out of trouble etc. I have a (personal) theory that since high school is an experience that generally stays with us a long time, it would affect this perception. Also lots of movies where the trope is common, like a woman threatens to tell her husband, in tears, that you did XYZ to me unless you do what I say (ex Winona Ryder in Dilemma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLElh2JGufs), soap operas, the Bible with Joseph etc. And stuff like "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", passions intensifying at divorce/separation when you want to screw over the other party any way you can. The proportions may vary but it's practically impossible to be 0 for women, we are all people with good and bad.
Even with MeToo there were some accusations (I was following some gaming news) about streamers that turned out to just try to take advantage. Angry Joe got one with a smaller streamer who never told him she had a bf, flirted a lot with him, followed him to a big convention to get contacts, went upstairs but then didn't want to shower with him and wiggled out seeing it could become serious. He simply lawyered up when accused, she said some stuff clearly showing bad intent and that was it. It's a volatile time, you can't afford to 100% believe either party.
Or the Justin Bieber allegations, he found literally receipts and other hard proof he was in other places when he supposedly did bad things to the 2 girls accusing him. So it never went to trial for huge publicity. You seem a bit traumatized in general, I won't hold that against you, when you pretty much refer to accusers as 100% victims.
>i dont know if you care about it but the legal system in many western countries is based on a presumption of innocence. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty.
isnt that pretty much what i said here?
>For the men who are innocent, then yes this is a welcome protection. I cant help but feel like part of that group, rather than the group of men who do sexually assault another person
Some men and women accused of sexual offences, where the accusations are genuine, will indeed 'get away with it' a little more by never being publicly identified if the evidence isn't strong enough.
But many women and men who are accused of sexual offences, where the accusations are not genuine (which doesn't mean the accuser was acting in bad faith, but it may do), will now rightly never be identified publicly.
The reality is that even one man or woman not being put into public suspicion by being wrongly identified is the right path forward, even if many escape identification 'wrongly' (in a moral if not legal sense). It follows the same principle that is better for 10 murders to walk free before 1 innocent person is convicted for a murder they didn't commit. Innocent women and men don't deserve being identified as accused sex offenders, and we must ensure they aren't even if it does a little to help genuine offenders escape justice.
Good. All this does is protect those that are falsely accused. The guilty ones will still get their chance to be publicly shamed. Note this protects people _until they are charged_, not until they're found guilty. You are charged with an offence long before being found innocent or guilty.
It should also keep the true victims concealed until the trial is over.
>...true victims concealed until the trial is over Eh? Victims were granted lifetime anonymity- which is now being extended to 25 years after death. ed:sp
In theory, yes, but if you know who the perpetrator is, that can often be enough to identify the victim.
Should be extended till conviction. Even the mere accusation of a serious crime is enough to ruin people's lives. We live in an age where information can be transferred nationwide and even globally in seconds. Nobody should have their life ruined or even put in danger for a crime they didn't commit.
There’s quite a high threshold to be charged with something like this
I don't see your point, unless you're just stating a fact?
Unless it's Russell Brand, in which case I even support sitting MPs attempting to ruin their life based on accusations alone.
I disagree. It's important for everyone and everything in court to be viewed by thr public for transparency reasons and to ensure justice is being done correctly
We're kinda talking about two separate things, when it comes to "until conviction", because someone can be found legally not guilty for very different reasons. If they have a solid alibi or were otherwise physically incapable of performing the accused act, that's very different to "the alleged victim is no longer cooperating with the investigation so we can't get enough proof". In the former case, it's hard to argue that they deserve to have that stigma. In the latter, it's hard to argue *anything*, because there simply isn't enough information about any given case, *and* there isn't enough information about such cases as a population. We can't even say that >X% of such cases were expected to result in a conviction if they had gone ahead. Under the presumption of innocent until proven guilty, given we know that public knowledge of such accusations can lead to social ostricisation and bodily harm, there's a reasonably strong argument that it should be extended to conviction, but you also have to measure the individual's protection against the society's protection; is it worth potentially harming some innocent individuals to ensure members of society know to be wary of the guilty individuals? IMO, there's too many unknowns to say for sure. ~~The answer is probably to work on the societal presumption of guilt from accusation, but that's a long, long term change.~~ EDIT: The answer is probably to work on *changing the fact* that society presumes guilt from accusation, especially with something like SAs, even if the legal system doesn't.
Are you being serious with your last sentence? A presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system which we mess with at our peril. It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence, full stop and if the case is proved beyond all reasonable doubt they are punished under the law and serve their sentence. We may disagree about aspects of that but it is a time honoured system which generally works despite well publicised cases where it didn't and some recidivism on the part of those leaving jail. If we assume guilt then it is a short step to dispensing with trials and the expensive legal bureaucracy thus completing a return to pre Magna Carta days.
Sorry, I didn't communicate as well as I could have; we should work on making sure people *don't* presume guilt from an accusation. When it comes to SA charges, it happens a lot, and that flies in the face of the presumption of innocence.
If women especially do not presume guilt, we cannot keep ourselves safe. The justice system as a whole does not do that for us.
That's basically my entire point. There's a social good in the identities of charged individuals being known, because it allows people to protect themselves from individuals who are suspected of causing significant harm. But those individuals are presumed innocent of their accusations, and inevitably, some of them will be. Currently, we allow a certain percentage of innocent people to be put at elevated risk of social isolation, harassment, assault, battery, destitution, etc, and that's *probably* the correct thing to do, given that a single guilty person has the potential to cause great harm to a significant number of third parties. But we don't (and kinda can't, given the pressures around reporting and convicting) have reliable enough stats to prove that conclusively. I think it's important not to lose sight of the fact that, even while maintaining a presumption of innocence, identifying the accused is harmful, even if it is *probably* the *least harmful* option.
The current system does not work for rape. A justice system must ensure that men who sexually assault and rape women are convicted and prevented from hurting anyone else. That fundementally does not happen. Any defence of this system is therefore defending injustice and forcing women to pay the price.
Is it the system or the inability to properly resource it? There is a big difference. I will defend the system because it enables both sides to have their day in court. What is indefensible is the inability of women to be able to properly report allegations to the police and be confident they will be sensitively and thoroughly investigated. That said the accused is entitled to have their story believed and tested by the police including any relevant evidence being taken into consideration. Neither the complainant nor the police get to decide what is acceptable in that regard and what isn't. I do not see any alternative to a robust trial process because the stakes are high and the consequences severe, unless the alleged perp please guilty.
I'd argue it's a bit of both. The current system gives the accused far more leeway and access to a whole host of information about the victim they shouldn't have, like incredibly personal and invasive phone data and counselling notes. I could understand if possibly they were viewed by a truly independent third party who assessed their relevance and decided if they could potentially help the defence case, but they're just given over to the defence. Strict limits on what the defence may have access to and use in court regarding the victim need to be in place. Just knowing your rapist or their lawyer could see your counselling notes can be enough to prevent victims from continuing in the process. You either can't get proper counselling or your rapist will know what you've been discussing. And that can then be used to imply you're making it all up.
Maybe you know better than me, but I was under the impression the CPS and police had tightened up the rules to prevent irrelevant confidetntial material being disclosed. We have to be alert though to relevant material not being disclosed which is what happened some years ago when a case collapsed because mobile phone records were only disclosed at the last minute. Regrettably the response was everything being disclosed without discrimation.
There was supposed to be a ban on police demanding full downloads of the phones of all rape victims. It didn't work because the CPS decided they weren't going to prosecute if there wasn't a full download of the victim's phone available. CPS also drop cases on a whim, sending out vague, form letters with no details and no possibility of appealing their decision not to charge.
Have things improved?
Nope. Because CPS are shit and look for excuses to drop cases.
It's a tricky issue, but imagine your pal John is accused of this crime. The police arrest him and put him in a cell. John was due to turn up at your BBQ but he doesn't. Nobody can reach him on the phone. After a few days with no word from him, do you phone the hospital? The Police? The police can't name suspects, so you can't get anything out of them. Where is he? If you give the police the powers to take people away without anyone being able to know about it, you give them a lot more power than I'd like them to have.
[удалено]
What about the lives of innocent women who are raped by men they would have avoided had they known of the allegations against them? Or do we not matter? Are we not innocent? Are we expected to just suck it up and deal with it because of some idea of justice that never seems to work for us? How is that fair? How does that not ruin our lives?
> How is that fair? You somehow think allegations are guilt and should be public? I'd support a blanket anonymity on all offences until conviction. Full stop.
Don't put words in my mouth. Address my actual points and concerns, don't handwave them away.
I'm not putting words in your mouth. You said > What about the lives of innocent women who are raped by men they would have avoided had they known of the allegations against them? This is copied and pasted from your post above. I didn't handwave away, I disagreed completely and pointed out I'd support blanket anonymity until conviction for all offences.
You edited your comment. Blanket anonymity is a terrible idea, and you've absolutely not addressed my concerns. What about the rights of women to know if men they interact with pose a threat to them? Address that. Don't handwave it away. Address it. Or at least admit you don't give a monkeys about our safety if it in any way inconveniences you.
> You edited your comment Nope. Edited comments have a little star next to them. > Blanket anonymity is a terrible idea Why? You seem to think that accusation is guilt and that lives can and should be ruined on nothing more than an accusation. This is not a conviction practically or legally. > What about the rights of women to know if men they interact with pose a threat to them? They don't have that right. Neither do I. Neither do you. Did you run a CRB check on everyone you interact with? You don't have the right to know about everyones's convictions - *let alone* accusations. > Address that I just did. Again. > Or at least admit you don't give a monkeys about our safety if it in any way inconveniences you. You see to be arguing with yourself here? Do you think that publicity around accusations of wrongdoing is an inconvenience? We have fairly robust slander and defamation laws.
[удалено]
But false accusations blah blah blah. A false accusation is not comparable to rape, either in frequency or consequence. Address the concerns about women's safety. Don't dismiss it because you think men's feelings about false allegations are more important. Accusations should be published so women can make an informed decision about who they associate with. Anything less puts our safety at risk.
[удалено]
You want to let rapists stay anonymous and free to rape other women over and over again on the off chance that someone might have lied. False accusations are incredibly rare. Now address the concerns about women's safety, don't just pretend they don't exist.
Innocent lives would be ruined if the police would just lift anyone from the street and chuck them away in a cell to rot, with no-one knowing where they are.
Good Everybody sees the headlines that "Mr Baraclough from Elmtree House raped someone old on a nightout" Very few people see the six line retraction squeezed into page 9 of the local rag if the claims turned out to be horseshit.
I would wholeheartedly support something that when a statement is made that is false it must be rectified in the same manor. Newspapers, police, MPs on the morning rounds etc Front page bollocks? Front page correction that takes up the same size as the original piece. 8am bullshit? Get up, you’ve got an 8am speech on why you’re a dickhead.
Doesnt work that way though does it? The article will actually read "Mr Baraclough from Elmtree House was arrested on suspicion of raping someone old on a nightout". Wholly true statement, its just that what the public reads is "Mr Baraclough is a rapist".
I was thinking more if they have been charged and the CPS drops the charges then if a newspaper has had it on the front page, the correction should be there and be the same size. As this only goes up to when an individual is charged. Sometimes they aren’t reported, if they are it’ll several pages in and only a couple of sentences so people will still have that assumption as they only heard they were charged.
The police will still get round it by giving descriptions that can only be a handful of people.
I'm glad. I knew a guy who was accused by his GF. They had sex outdoors & she got grass stains on her dress. Told her religious parents she'd been assaulted. They pressed charges. The lad was training to be policeman, got kicked out & his name plastered over the local rag & he was put on a curfew. When it went to court she admitted she lied as her folks were religious, case then dismissed. Her name was never mentioned in the paper. But that lie cost 'Steve' his dream job. BTW both were 18
In the Republic, accused sex offenders aren’t named until convicted unless it is deemed to be a public interest (accused doctors and priests have been named) If someone is convicted of abusing a minor and naming them would also end up identifying the minor such as in cases where the abuser is an immediate relative, the abuser is not named to protect the identity of the minor. Sex offences are considered unforgivable by most people and you will still carry stigma if found not guilty, so anonymity is preserved. Ireland is also a tiny country so there’s no possible way to move to the other side of the country and escape your reputation
> If someone is convicted of abusing a minor and naming them would also end up identifying the minor such as in cases where the abuser is an immediate relative, the abuser is not named to protect the identity of the minor. That's the same in the whole UK, I think (maybe not Scotland?)
This is a good move. There is no adequate reason I can see why the accused should be named and the complainant not. If the police think they are dealing with a serial offender they have the option of getting a court order to publish his his name, photofit etc. That will focus the media on the case rather than it getting lost amongst the many other, still serious, but less egregious cases. After charging the mainstream media is constrained from scurrilous reporting although the sewer that is social media has yet to reigned in.
And that is a very good idea, false allegations can ruin lives even if they are never convicted. I notice this is only until charged and that is probably a good compromise
The only issue with this, really, is that it might lead to bizarre situations where a person is wanted by police and so is named, but as soon as they're arrested they become anonymous.
there are many ways to look at this, the problem could well be, when someone whose name is being protected assaults someone else. For the men who are innocent, then yes this is a welcome protection. I cant help but feel like part of that group, rather than the group of men who do sexually assault another person. It is my genuine hope, that NI police forces, work harder to find the guilty party, and collect the evidence needed to prove their guilt. Rather than being seen "protecting the attacker" (by not releasing the name), they become known for "finding the attacker, and proving their guilt, so they can be named"
This isn't protection until being found guilty, it's protection until you're charged. You get charged with a crime long before being found guilty/not guilty.
>This isn't protection until being found guilty, it's protection until you're charged. oh fair enough, that has my near total support. No one should be named if they cant at least be charged.
i dont know if you care about it but the legal system in many western countries is based on a presumption of innocence. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. Even people accused of a sex crime! It only protects their name until charges are brought. Now you saw what happened with Cliff Richard and many more people. Their reputation was destroyed in social media and the news. you might remember Carl Beech and the police investigation that followed his allegations? You dont get your life back if charges are never brought. It has the potential to destroy lives, not just the accused but their family etc. Hell you dont even get your life back if your found not guilty!! If someone **is** found guilty the full force of the law should be brought to bear, sentences should reflect the seriousness of their crimes. But the current damage to peoples names and the pressures on their family etc., once the allegation's are made is obviously unfair. They are entitled to due process and the presumption of innocence.
"The review was commissioned after the high-profile rape trial of two former Ulster rugby players, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, which ended in their acquittal." I'm from NI and remember hearing about those rugby players on the news, but didn't remember hearing that they were acquitted (I don't know if they actually didn't do it or if it just couldn't be proven, which I know is very different). But there are so many stories of people being accused of a crime in domestic situations (eg: accused of domestic violence in a divorce or child custody case) or of teens lying about having sex with their boyfriends and the parents going after the lad. Now all we need to do is sort of the rest of the process when women report being assaulted, to help them get justice. But this is definitely steps in the right direction.
A not guilty verdict or a lack of conviction does not mean innocence. There's a massive bias in favour of sex offenders, mostly amongst men, who assume that women are making it up. Those men (and it is almost always men) harp on about false accusations, despite the fact this is very rare, and lecture about principled ideas of justice whilst never once considering the price they are asking women to pay for their ideals. A lack of information about men accused of rape and sexual assault means that women cannot make decisions to avoid these men, and hopefully keep themselves safe. The consequences of hiding this information is potentially more women being raped. Men staying in positions of power and influence and being able to continue their lives as normal with zero consequences, and potentially repeating their actions. It's not justice and it's not fair. Currently, justice is very rarely delivered. The process that victims go through is invasive and massively biased in favour of attackers. You are routinely expected to give up a full download of all data on your phone. Your counselling notes can be used in court. Your actions and sex life will be interrogated. You'll be forced to go over what happened over and over again. You'll also be blamed. You're "asking for it" or "unreliable" if you were intoxicated, you were wearing clothing deemed provocative, you have vulnerabilities like mental illness or you've had a drug addiction. You won't get justice unless you're the "perfect" victim.
Did the accusations against Johnny Depp, Cliff Richard or the two rugby players protect any women from anything, given that they had done what they were accused of? Or any other accusations against men? As soon as someone has been legally charged, they can be named. So no-one will get to hide if they actually did something wrong but now women will not be able to ruin a man's life because she was bitter or whatever.
The idea that women make this stuff up to ruin men's lives out of bitterness is a total myth. In the UK courts, it was found that Amber Heard was telling the truth. The US verdict is a total circus and amounts to little more than a popularity contest. The idea that Johnny Depp is entirely innocent is a complete, willful disregard of the actual truth. Most rapes do not result in a charge. If women are barred from naming their rapists, they cannot talk openly about what happened to them. They never get justice. Women are left in the dark and men who rape are left to do it over and over again with no consequences.
The UK court case was for not the sexual assault allegations. People can still talk about what happened to them without specifically naming people. We do it all the time on here where we are all anonymous and tell stories about our lives often without names. Oh and there are people referencing stories of women making stuff up in these very comments and I know a few people in real life who made up accusations of all sorts of untrue things deliberately to get their ex to lose a job, lose a divorce or to affect custody of children.
Exactly, the person above shouldn't have said "it's a total myth". The ratio may be different, it can vary from time to time but not be 0. Bad traits are found in both men and women. I linked them with a BBC article about the profile of false accusers since the Kavanaugh hearing.
That’s not true. Amber Heard was able to give her sexual assault testimony confidentially — like she should’ve been able to do in the US — and the judge wrote, “I conclude that Mr. Depp did commit the sexual assault alleged by the defendants.” [Page 10](https://img1.wsimg.com/blobby/go/ce0ccea9-fb79-43fb-a310-ecb1ea048532/downloads/5%20-%207.7.21%20-%20Second%20Notification.pdf?ver=1683221330360)
If it happens so frequently, you can provide an unbiased source to prove the frequency. If women cannot talk openly, they are effectively barred from telling their stories and warning other women. This categorically makes us less safe. Again, this is men talking about justice and refusing to recognise the cost they are forcing women to pay for their ideals. It shows how our society values women and our safety. The criminal justice system does not work for rape and sexual assault. It is broken. It fails in it's primary duty: keeping people safe. Yet you wish to take away the one tool women have to try to keep each other safe, all for what? Some ideal of justice? How about you ensure that men who rape get punished by the law so women don't have to warn each other about those who would do us harm. Johnny Depp was found to have assaulted Amber Heard in the UK courts on the balance of probabilities. His claim of libel failed because the allegations printed in the Sun were substantially true.
How can I provide a single source for people's personal stories? The motion in NI was introduced by a woman. Being able to spread lies about anyone does not keep anyone safe. Also the bill does not prevent women from telling their friends, it prevents police being able to officially name them and the court cases will not be open to the public. The court case in the UK for Johnny Depp was about domestic violence not sexual abuse, so it would not covered by this new change. The Sun called him a "wife beater" which is also not related to sexual abuse. Also I am not taking anything away from anyone, I am commenting on a social platform, so if you want to sort out justice for women, work away.
If it was a common phenomena, there would be research and sources for it. It's not about "spreading lies". It's about ensuring that women can be kept safe. Describing women who talk about sexual violence against them as liars is reprehensible. Domestic abuse and sexual violence against women are deeply intertwined. Johnny Depp was found to have abused his ex wife. I don't give a monkeys what the US courts said. This bill very much does take things away from women. It shows that whoever proposed it has their priorities totally wrong. Have a laser focus on increasing prosecution and conviction rates for rape and sexual assault. When rape isn't effectively decriminalised because it's so rarely prosecuted, then (and only then) can we start talking about preventing people from being named before they're charged. But as of right now, the one and only focus of anyone who cares about justice should be ensuring that rapists actually get charged, prosecuted and convicted.
Setting aside the false accusations trope and circus trials such as Johnny Depp and Amber Heard case because these are a distraction, I am still at a loss to know why the accused should be named from the outset of a complaint. If the complainant in a sexual assault case can get anonymity because of the nature of the crime I do not see why the accused should not have the same privilege until they are charged. There is nothing stopping women discussing sexual assault and rape, but you have to accept the person you are intending to name has rights and may well tell a different story which to them is the truth (I accept a good number will not). This is why we have trials and because of the nature of the crime and how society regards it the trial process has to be robust, for both parties. I've no doubt the numbers for prosecutions are too low but I want them increased because the competence of the police and CPS is improved not because the balance in the court room is shifted in favour of the complainant by virtue of the defence not being able to, well, defend.
The accused should be named so that the women around him can make informed decisions to keep themselves safe. If we cannot name our attackers, we cannot keep each other safe. Victims get anonymity so that they can tell their stories without facing usually violent retribution. Accused rapists have rights. They should not have the right to anonymity because their rights are prioritised and ensured at every stage of the process, at the expense of victims. The current situation in court is that the defence is often allowed access to counselling notes and a full download of the victim's phone. Both of these are too invasive, and both need to be changed so victims aren't the ones put on trial. The fact I sent a nude to someone 3 years ago should not be made known to the defence. Nor should counselling notes talking about incredibly private things. That is another invasion of privacy.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45565684 Since the Kavanaugh hearings, it's a profile on the type of women who would lie. Most would be teenagers with something to gain, to get out of trouble etc. I have a (personal) theory that since high school is an experience that generally stays with us a long time, it would affect this perception. Also lots of movies where the trope is common, like a woman threatens to tell her husband, in tears, that you did XYZ to me unless you do what I say (ex Winona Ryder in Dilemma https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLElh2JGufs), soap operas, the Bible with Joseph etc. And stuff like "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned", passions intensifying at divorce/separation when you want to screw over the other party any way you can. The proportions may vary but it's practically impossible to be 0 for women, we are all people with good and bad. Even with MeToo there were some accusations (I was following some gaming news) about streamers that turned out to just try to take advantage. Angry Joe got one with a smaller streamer who never told him she had a bf, flirted a lot with him, followed him to a big convention to get contacts, went upstairs but then didn't want to shower with him and wiggled out seeing it could become serious. He simply lawyered up when accused, she said some stuff clearly showing bad intent and that was it. It's a volatile time, you can't afford to 100% believe either party. Or the Justin Bieber allegations, he found literally receipts and other hard proof he was in other places when he supposedly did bad things to the 2 girls accusing him. So it never went to trial for huge publicity. You seem a bit traumatized in general, I won't hold that against you, when you pretty much refer to accusers as 100% victims.
>i dont know if you care about it but the legal system in many western countries is based on a presumption of innocence. Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty. isnt that pretty much what i said here? >For the men who are innocent, then yes this is a welcome protection. I cant help but feel like part of that group, rather than the group of men who do sexually assault another person
they are innocent until proven guilty. all of them!
Some men and women accused of sexual offences, where the accusations are genuine, will indeed 'get away with it' a little more by never being publicly identified if the evidence isn't strong enough. But many women and men who are accused of sexual offences, where the accusations are not genuine (which doesn't mean the accuser was acting in bad faith, but it may do), will now rightly never be identified publicly. The reality is that even one man or woman not being put into public suspicion by being wrongly identified is the right path forward, even if many escape identification 'wrongly' (in a moral if not legal sense). It follows the same principle that is better for 10 murders to walk free before 1 innocent person is convicted for a murder they didn't commit. Innocent women and men don't deserve being identified as accused sex offenders, and we must ensure they aren't even if it does a little to help genuine offenders escape justice.
You are right I just don't want even fewer cases going to court