"The logic behind this policy is to uphold the mantra of innocent until proven guilty."

This 'mantra' just so happens to be the cornerstone of every democratic nation's legal system. If you believe that it should not apply, then you'd better come up with a more convincing case than the assertions and platitudes presented in this article.

"With the current anonymity policy, the future might see a more repressed society, with the victims being more hesitant of coming forward, leading to lower conviction rates."

Please explain why and how.

By all means, if people have committed this terrible crime, they should be arrested and locked up for good. But please explain why do you think that people should be stigmatised for life before they even have the chance to defend themselves in the court of law.

Uh, #1, did you even read the whole article? In response to your 'why and how' question:

"Not only will it discourage victims from reporting their cases, anonymity for a sexual offender suspect could hinder police investigations, as they would not be allowed to contact suspected previous victims."

Think about it. If you're raped and then accuse the rapist, and then they end up not being convicted, they're free to attack again without anyone being aware. Frankly, I'd much rather know who these people are, which is far less costly than allowing them to potentially attack more victims. We've had lack of anonymity for years; it's not like we hear about thousands of cases where falsely accused rapists are walking around being attacked, is it?

• Fri, 21st May 2010 10:00am - Edited by the author

People aren't being 'stigmatised for life'. Only around 2% of rape allegations are false, meaning there are very few people in this position. Furthermore, there has to be substantial evidence to even take any rape allegation to court, which means that there is usually some suspicion on the defendant with good reason. Let's remember that being acquitted is not the same as being proven innocent, it just means the defendant can't be proven guilty beyond 'reasonable doubt': we should retain an element of suspicion towards those who have found themselves defending allegations in court acquitted or not - especially if these people have careers working with vulnerable groups of people (ie. in teaching). I wonder if you'd let your child sleep alone in the same bed as Michael Jackson after his acquittal? No? That's because suspicion is a sensible precaution.

It's pure sensationlism to suggest that every allegation of sexual assault ruins someone's life: the unfounded ones are usually discovered early on, and dealt with on a local and confidential level. This maligned group of innocent, alleged rapists as an oppressed populace that we should support doesn't really exist beyond a tabloid newspaper. But if you are finding yourself the object of accusations, you might want to ask yourself how you're in a position where people don't believe you over some unsubstantiated gossip.

If you're still worried about people's reputations then you might want to cast a thought to the victims. Indeed, rape and sexual assaults are the only crimes in which the victim is also treated and examined as a piece of evidence. Not only is this hard enough for the victim after a sexual attack, but becomes even more difficult when the defence consists of systematically dismantling the victims credability and reputation by (usually) trying to establish her sexual promiscuity. Why then, should rape be the only crime where we would choose to protect the defendant's reputation?

Think about this practically: anonymity for defendants will inhibit police investigations. How do you catch a serial sex offender if his identity cannot be revealed to the general public? How will victims of a serial sex offender be encouraged to speak out against their attack if they think that they are the only victim (by remaining unaware of the existance of more victims of the same attacker, due to anonymity of the defendant), and thus would stand only a 6-7% chance of conviction?

" Let's remember that being acquitted is not the same as being proven innocent, it just means the defendant can't be proven guilty beyond 'reasonable doubt': we should retain an element of suspicion towards those who have found themselves defending allegations in court acquitted or not - especially if these people have careers working with vulnerable groups of people "

This is utter - utter trash!

Why should we "retain an element of suspicion" towards people who have NOT BEEN PROVEN GUILTY?! Does this apply to every crime. Convicted rapists should be named, but what does allowing peoples names to be plastered everywhere when they're innocent achieve?

I'm really, really worried by your second comment. Why does this "especially" apply to people working with vulnerable people? THat does not make them any more likely to be guilty at all.

If a teacher had so much evidence lodged against them that they'd been taken to court, then I'd want to know about it before entrusting my child to their care. Wouldn't you?

If I was a teacher who had been falsely accused, I don't think I would like a stigma to be attached to me for life. And it would be, if this measure wasn't in place. Also, I'm quite sure that if a teacher is taken to court for sex offences, they wouldn't be allowed to continue working in a classroom whilst the trial was ongoing - so maybe steer clear of the scare-mongering, eh?

#3
"People aren't being 'stigmatised for life'. Only around 2% of rape allegations are false, meaning there are very few people in this position."
I hope the latter statement isn't, in any way, meant to justify the former.

• Fri, 21st May 2010 12:56pm - Edited by the author

The idea that a teacher who was subject of completely unsubstantiated claims would find themselves tarnished for life is laughable. Sexual allegations are serious and as such are treated so by the workplace: do you think a teacher's colleagues and superiors would just hand them over to the dogs unless they were absolutely convinced that there had been some kind of foul play? An unsubstantiated claim wouldn't even leak into the staffroom, let alone into the local community or the legal arena. If a claim is in some way substantiated then it needs to be considered: perhaps the teacher has been behaving unprofessionally but isn't guilty of rape? Just how many teachers are being seriously accused of rape anyway?? Probably very very few that you will have heard about because, without substance, claims don't materialise into the local, or public, eye. This isn't about scaremongering, you're missing the point.

This recent case highlights my point:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/apr/15/public-school-teacher-cleared-sex-pupil

This woman was acquitted from seducing her pupils. Whether she really is guilty or not, her claim got as far as court because she had allowed pupils to stay, overnight, at her house. Should her career now be under scrutiny? Yes, of course: she is clearly not capably of behaving professionally and establishing appropriate boundaries between her position as teacher and her pupils.

• Fri, 21st May 2010 1:06pm - Edited by the author

as the article says, this is just a matter of statistics, and choosing the one that will benefit the most ppl and hurt the least.

only 2 % of rape allegations are false. so while it is terrible to have that stigma walking around with a false accused defendant, this situation happens FAR less than rapes, including rape cases that are not reported, and those that do not reach conviction because there is simple lack of evidence.

" Furthermore, rape cases only have a 6-7% conviction rate."

So really, think about it logically. this stigma would affect 2% of those accused of rape, but this policy will protect 93, (or 91% minus the 2% who actually deserve the anonymity) of rapists!

how is that in any way justifiable??

I don't believe this is just a matter of statistics, and I can't respect the argument of anyone who treats such a serious matter in such a reductive way. I'm not at all comfortable with any legislation designed in the full knowledge that it will throw innocent people to the dogs (even if it's, y'know, only a few). And, get this, I say that as someone who is anti rape and pro women's rights.

I'd hope we all agree that there is an unacceptable degree of stigma attached to an individual once they have been publicly accused of the act, so public proclamations of accusations shouldn't be leapt to without considering all alternatives. I'm no expert (if I was, I'd steer clear of online comments sections) but I would expect that much could be done to improve these statistics without throwing some innocent people to the wolves.

• Fri, 21st May 2010 1:52pm - Edited by the author

"only 2 % of rape allegations are false"

First of all, provide a reliable source for that statistic, because otherwise we are all free to ignore it.

Secondly, do you SERIOUSLY believe that destroying the life of even a single innocent person is in any way justifiable? Or do you just don't care?

This campaign is simply preposterous. It seems to me that some people just want to have the power to destroy other people's lives without even giving them the chance to defend themselves. This is not about justice; you do not seem to care at all about justice.

In democratic societies, people are innocent until proven guilty, no matter how horrendous the accusations against them are. Either deal with this, or move to a country where 'justice' is dictated by ideology and enforced through kangaroo courts.

"only 2 % of rape allegations are false. so while it is terrible to have that stigma walking around with a false accused defendant, this situation happens FAR less than rapes,"

Are false or can be proven false? There's a massive difference.

To assume that 7% conviction rate + 2% false claims meanas that 91% of rapists get away with it is a ridiculous manner to deal with this. You need to remember that a number of those who weren't convicted may not have been the guilty party, in other words they may have been wrongly accused and arrested on circumstantial evidence.

People like you are the reason that such a policy needs to be taken. Someone should not have their life ruined and be the victim of stigmatisation for a crime that they have not committed.

• Fri, 21st May 2010 2:10pm - Edited by the author
• Fri, 21st May 2010 2:11pm - Edited by the author (less)

• Fri, 21st May 2010 2:11pm - Edited by the author (1 more)

Alleged perpetrators of other crimes are not given anonymity, and other crimes also carry stigma. Why should alleged rapists be an exception to this rule? And what evidence can you provide to back up your assertion that this is necessary, and indeed that there is a link between false allegations and ruined lives?

This says things more clearly than I can:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/21/anonymity-rape-defendants

• Fri, 21st May 2010 8:29pm - Edited by the author

I find it difficult to express how outraged I am by some people's view of justice.

You are happy to do away with the presumption of innocence, the cornerstone of every democratic nation's legal system as it has been rightly pointed out. You are simply ignoring the terrible consequences that a false accusation could have to innocent people. You seem to think that these people are just collateral damage, statistics of no particular importance. This is simply shocking.

"Why should alleged rapists be an exception to this rule?"

Because of the huge stigma (rightly) associated with this horrible crime. Because being accused for this is enough to ruin someone's career, marriage, reputation, and emotional stability. Because innocent people's names can remain on the public domain for ever, linked to a horrendous crime that they didn't commit.

And I for one believe that the same should apply to all serious crimes, not just rape.

"And what evidence can you provide to back up your assertion that this is necessary, and indeed that there is a link between false allegations and ruined lives?"

Is this a serious question?

#14: This article is ridiculous. Only a bigoted fool could argue that being falsely accused of rape is not a serious problem, because "in reality, rape is not really seen as a heinous crime"

Perhaps you could read some of the comments. In particular..

"Funnily enough as a two time rape victim who proudly identifies as a feminist, I support this [policy] wholeheartedly.

Identifying the alleged rapist often inadvertently identifies the victim, making it much harder to have any form of privacy in your 'real' life at a time when you seek it most. It's damned hard to report to the police without your entire social circle and wider community knowing about the rape. People gossip, often without the full facts and having been blamed and suspected of lying by everyone you know for months wears you down before you've even got to court and have to face more of that. Six years later, my rapes are still fuel for chitchat and malicious gossip amongst people. You cannot know the shame and stigma unless you have felt it.

Identifying the alleged attacker also makes it more likely for rape victims to be accused of 'runing someone's life' or looking for glory, especially if you have the misfortune of being raped by some famous or connected. This is what makes most people think women lie about rape.

I was raped by someone with a rich powerful politically connected relative and I was terrified to report for fear of it getting into the papers and being accused of slandering the family. It took 3 months to pluck up the courage to do so, by which time the forensice evidence was gone. Despite my attacker confessing multiple attacks to me, he wasn't even formally questioned and remains free to attack at will, no doubt bolstered by the feeling of 'having got away with it'. If I had been confident that the details wouldn't have got into the press, I would have reported immediately and who knows? He might have been punished and I would have been saved some of the extra stress and fear I suffered.

I have discussed this subject with the 30 or so women I know who have all experienced rape and the majority feel that these proposals would take a lot of pressure and suspicion off the victims. You might not like what these men have decided on the behalf of the predominantly female victims of this crime, and maybe they should have consulted victims more. But if it helps even some victims come forward and encourages juries to abandon the idea of thinking all women lie about rape, then I think it's a valuable step forward. But these are just my opinions with a few extra voices for support.

Your article makes no mention of what might be good for victims, and indeed discounts press coverage and local gossip as mere bagatelles for them. You presume to speak for all victims without asking their varied opinions. This is no more helpful than what politicians, lawyers and policemen do to victims. It's just dressed up as concern rather than censure. Maybe this debate should involve some people who have lived these experiences first hand rather than simply read about them?"

or...

"I know of a true story about a school janitor that was accused of rape. He hung himself whilst awaiting trial. The woman who made the accusations later admitted that she had lied because the gentleman in question had been rude to her."

I obviously do not want to reinforce the belief that women just lie about these things, but it is undeniable that such cases have happened and do happen. If you seriously believe that even a single instance of that is acceptable, then I simply do not know what to tell you.

• Fri, 21st May 2010 10:01pm - Edited by the author

15. You fail to see the point. What evidence is there that rape accusations, more than any other crime, leads to more ruined lives? You may have cherry-picked the more disturbing comments from the guardian article, (and chucked in an opinion from one self-identified feminist as if that should seal the deal) but this in no way can make the conclusion that defendants found not-guilty of rape have a harder time than those found not-guilty of other crimes such as murder. I'm sure a quick google could find a series of newspaper articles relating to ruined lives/suicides over murder investigation. But this isn't the point. The justice system isn't perfect, and sometimes mistakes are regretably made: but false rape allegations occur no more frequently than false allegations of other crimes, so why treat these defendants differently? To simply insist that rape is different because 'Because of the huge stigma (rightly) associated with this horrible crime' doesn't make it true. By that logic I could equally argue that if there were more of a stigma for men, maybe less rapes would occur as these men wouldn't be so confident about being able to get away with it. All this speculation and a few anecdotal comments on the guardian do not constitute data, so don't present it as such. If we're going to speculate on stigma in rape cases, then the *proof* from a panopoly of researched studies suggests that the stigma lies with the woman: that women are still often thought of as 'having it coming to them' for being drunk, dressing scantily, or behaving promiscuously; that they are scared of coming forward because conviction rates are so low that it's not worth putting themselves through the tortuous ordeal of criminal proceedings. This proposal simply does not attend to the actual problems at hand, and instead reinforces the (commonly held) notion that women simply make rape up, and that men need to be protected from their vindictive natures. This its preposterous. Do we have a climate where women are making accusations willy-nilly? No. The opposite is true: we have a climate where the majority of women don't report rape.

It's pretty ridiculous to accuse others of having a skewed view of justice, when these are the ones listening to people who know what they're talking about; i.e. people who work with rape victims and the police who deal with rape. Anonymity has been tried before but was repealed BECAUSE THE POLICE SAID IT WAS PREVENTING WOMEN FROM REPORTING RAPE.I don't happen to think that lowering conviction rates of rapists even further (bearing in mind rates are disturbingly low anyway) by providing all alleged rapists with anonymity is helpful for anyone. And it certainly doesn't smack of justice.

By enacting this law, the whole 'point' of falsely crying rape would have just been eliminated - there is no incentive for anybody to do it, if the defendant is to remain anonymous. Therefore, the police will be able to take ALL rape allegations much more seriously. Perhaps even, alleged victims will feel more confident approaching the police (which is already a big problem) knowing that they are going to be taken more seriously. The fact that most rape cases depend on the word of one person over another, means that the few people who DO falsely acuse others of rape, can mean that genuine victims allegations are not considered properly due to this possibility always hanging in the air, however unlikely statistics may show it to be. This is the problem. So, removing this possibility from the equation means that we remove the 'culture of presumption that women are lying' which can only be a good thing. Of course, this will also protect the (small) proportion of victims of false-rape which is, also, a good thing.

Also, might I add. I believe that there is too much focus on the conviction and retribution of alleged rapists. The very nature of the crime means that it is hard to convict, and this will always be the case - hence the reason for low conviction rates. It off course, it could be better. We should give way more attention to support and care for all alleged victims (even if their cases can not be proven). This, in combination with anonymity for both parties would ensure that the defendants remain innocent (in the public eye) until proven guilty, and the alleged victim will always receive support no matter what. I fail to see how anybody who, like myself, calls themselves a feminist or, human rights campaigner, would oppose this bill.

• Sat, 22nd May 2010 12:49am - Edited by the author

17. I would imagine that if one chose to make false allegations, then the 'point' would be to inflict pain on the defendant. This scenario wouldn't be eliminated at all with anonymity. Do you think the defendant will be able to retain his anonymity to his wife, close family, friends, local community, job even, when he's going to be making frequent trips to the police station and possibly to court? Ok, so his name might not be published in the local newspaper, but people communicate in other ways. A false allegation will still have the power to destroy someone's reputation.

(This is not to say, at all, that I believe there are significant numbers of women making false allegations)

I agree certainly that more support needs to go to the victims of rape, something this society is less concerned about as funding is withdrawn for rape crisis centres around the country. But I fail to see any real benefit to anonymity and am extremely concerned (as a 'feminist and human rights campaigner') that this proposal would lower rates of reported rapes (as was the result when tried before and NOT the other way around as you suggest), as well as being a huge waste of time and resources that should be being invested in victim support.

18. I do agree that it might be impossible to gain full anonymity, but still, its a step in the right direction, and this will especially help where the media is concerned.

But it seems, in light of what you said - that less people report rape when the defendent is anonymous, which is of course likely to be the case if you think about it. What about the conviction rate? If the possibility of alleged victims falsely crying rape is reduced, or diminished, under such a system, then the reporting of rape is then going to go down, but there could well be more actual convictions, as a percentage of the whole, directly because of this. If there is any reason that was reported previously for the reduction in reported rapes then this would be interesting to hear. It is hard to imagine why anyone with a serious claim would then only report if they knew the defendant would be named and shamed before the conviction. Maybe they just do, maybe I am being too hopelessly rational. I would, conservatively, conclude that a reduction in rape reporting would be due to the reduction of false rape reports, unless, as I said, there is another plausible reason.