Should rape case defendants have anonymity?



stewiegriffin

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2007
Messages
839
Perhaps all defendants should have such a right ? Look at how the press have 'condemned' many 'innocent' people such as Ian Bailey , the non convicted , suspect.

It is tragic that that traditional 'pillars' of 'justice may need to be modified for the idiot masses of the 21st century .
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
The UK says yes
Rape case defendants to be given anonymity - Times Online

So.... do rape case defendants deserve anonymity ? How practical would such be in Ireland ?

cYp
Eh... it's already the case here. In camera trials are the norm for all sex offences, along with non-reporting by the media of a defendant's identity in case it enables identification of the victim. The victim can waive his/her anonymity, and that allows for identification of at least the convicted offender.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
As long as both parties involved were adults at the time of alleged offence, I don't think either the defendent or the complainent should be anonymous. By making adult complainants and defendents anonymous you do raise the chances of A: False allegations by the complainant as they won't be identified B: People who may have been assaulted by the defendent in the past won't come forward. A lot fo times rape cases fall apart because the police just can't find the guy. If you recognise a picture of a defendent you can call the police and proceed from there.

I don't think we've ever seen a number on false allegations, because it's almost impossible to come up with. The prosecution losing a case doesn't mean the man or woman alledging offense was lying, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
Sync said:
As long as both parties involved were adults at the time of alleged offence, I don't think either the defendent or the complainent should be anonymous. By making adult complainants and defendents anonymous you do raise the chances of A: False allegations by the complainant as they won't be identified B: People who may have been assaulted by the defendent in the past won't come forward.
If an allegation is proven to be false, the complainant will be identified.

More that that, what do you think will happen to the already not-that-high levels of reporting of sexual offences, if victims have to sit in open court and have their picture in the papers?
 

abccormac

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
84
If you accept that those accused of rape should be anonymous to protect their reputation, why shouldn't it be extended to all crimes? To be falsely accused of rape or another sex offence would be terrible, but I'm not sure that a false accusation of murder or bank robbery would be much better.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
As long as both parties involved were adults at the time of alleged offence, I don't think either the defendent or the complainent should be anonymous. By making adult complainants and defendents anonymous you do raise the chances of A: False allegations by the complainant as they won't be identified B: People who may have been assaulted by the defendent in the past won't come forward. A lot fo times rape cases fall apart because the police just can't find the guy. If you recognise a picture of a defendent you can call the police and proceed from there.

I don't think we've ever seen a number on false allegations, because it's almost impossible to come up with. The prosecution losing a case doesn't mean the man or woman alledging offense was lying, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict.
Hang on, if the gardai are looking for a suspect they have no problem with releasing an image or artist's impression. So that point doesn't apply. And then we have to consider that most rapists are known to their victims so finding the guy isn't typically the problem.

One of the reasons for anonymity is the no smoke without fire mentality of the public and you've just echoed it there. "The prosecution losing a case doesn't mean the man or woman alledging offense was lying, it just means that there wasn't enough evidence to convict." So if you are charged with rape but acquitted many people yourself included with that comment would view it as more likely that you did it but the DPP couldn't prove it. Imagine trying to get on with your life if you had been charged and it was publicly known but you were completely innocent and the court found you not guilty.
 

KingKane

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
2,323
Website
www.danielsullivan.ie
Twitter
kingkane
If you accept that those accused of rape should be anonymous to protect their reputation, why shouldn't it be extended to all crimes? To be falsely accused of rape or another sex offence would be terrible, but I'm not sure that a false accusation of murder or bank robbery would be much better.
Because in most other cases, it doesn't come down to he said, she said.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
28,913
If an allegation is proven to be false, the complainant will be identified.

More that that, what do you think will happen to the already not-that-high levels of reporting of sexual offences, if victims have to sit in open court and have their picture in the papers?
Unless you want to go down the route of charging every unsuccessful complainant with perjury you're not going to be able to prove an allegation false.

I want crimes against adults handled uniformly. If a alleged perpetrator's name is being released to the press then the alleged victim's should be as well.

If it's decided by a judge that the complainant is too traumatised to be named then it's unfair imo to name the defendent.
 

abccormac

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
84
Because in most other cases, it doesn't come down to he said, she said.
I don't see how thats relevant. The type of evidence presented is irrelevant to the harm the accusation causes the accused. If the idea is to protect the innocent, then why not extend it to all serious crime?
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,160
One of the reasons for anonymity is the no smoke without fire mentality of the public and you've just echoed it there. .
Precisely. All people involved in any court cases should not be printed in any media as happens in other countries. Only on a guilty verdict are their names released and the same should happen here. The courts are held in public, with some exceptions of family, so the public can go and see. I imagine the only people who'd have a problem with that are low lifes like Ger Colleran whose gutter paper couldn't print lurid headlines and stories.

Rape as a crime has been elevated onto a pedestal by the feminist movement to an outrageous degree. An alien looking at the last 2 decades of discussion on the law might think rape was the worst crime possible.
 

abccormac

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
84
Rape as a crime has been elevated onto a pedestal by the feminist movement to an outrageous degree. An alien looking at the last 2 decades of discussion on the law might think rape was the worst crime possible.
It's always been considered as amongst the most serious of crimes.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
abccormac said:
If you accept that those accused of rape should be anonymous to protect their reputation, why shouldn't it be extended to all crimes?
But I don't accept that. Anonymity is there to protect the victim, which is why it can be waived by the victim (over both victim and defendant) but not waived by the defendant.

Sexual offences often involve a violation of the victim in a way that simply isn't there - not to remotely the same extent - in the robbery of a car or the forgery of a signature on a cheque, or whatever. It really shouldn't be hard to understand why the alleged victims of sexual offences get special protection.

Sync said:
I want crimes against adults handled uniformly. If a alleged perpetrator's name is being released to the press then the alleged victim's should be as well.
That doesn't happen under Irish law. Even on conviction, the perpetrator's name is only disclosed if the victim waives his/her anonymity.
 

Clanrickard

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2008
Messages
33,160
It's always been considered as amongst the most serious of crimes.
I didn't say it wasn't serious but it gets an inordinate focus and has been elevated to a position it doesn't deserve in the pantheon of crime.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
2,994
I didn't say it wasn't serious but it gets an inordinate focus and has been elevated to a position it doesn't deserve in the pantheon of crime.
Where would you rank it in "the patheon of crime"?

Somewhere below piracy but above assualt causing harm?

Or maybe above piracy but below setting a bomb to explode on a milktruck if it's driven under 5mph?

You really don't like women all that much, do you?
 

abccormac

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
84
But I don't accept that. Anonymity is there to protect the victim, which is why it can be waived by the victim (over both victim and defendant) but not waived by the defendant.
That's fine, the question was directed more at people who did accept it.

Sexual offences often involve a violation of the victim in a way that simply isn't there - not to remotely the same extent - in the robbery of a car or the forgery of a signature on a cheque, or whatever. It really shouldn't be hard to understand why the alleged victims of sexual offences get special protection.
I completely agree. This isn't about protecting victims though, it's about protecting people who have been accused of crimes but not yet convicted.
 

bob3344

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
7,021
If you accept that those accused of rape should be anonymous to protect their reputation, why shouldn't it be extended to all crimes? To be falsely accused of rape or another sex offence would be terrible, but I'm not sure that a false accusation of murder or bank robbery would be much better.
I'd much prefer to be accused of murder or armed robbery - for personal safety reasons if nothing else.
 

Hazlitt

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
1,076
Interesting choice of words suggest why they should have anonymity.

do rape case defendants deserve anonymity ?
Presumption of guilt.
Good post. Let's be pragmatic about this. We all know that there is a stigma attached to someone who has been accused of rape and acquitted, 'mud sticks' as they say. We also know that people have falsely accused others of rape too. We all know the story of the garda Niamh O'Connor who purposely and falsely accused a taxi driver of sexual assault recently because she claimed he gave her a "dirty look" :mad: (RTÉ News: Garda charged for false statement). Why would a person who should always be presumed innocent by a court until proven guilty not deserve anonymity from a hearing of a judge and his/her peers??!
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top