Guilty as (pre-)charged

The coalition has dropped plans to grant anonymity to men accused of rape. This is a climb down from a coalition pledge that said, "We will extend anonymity in rape cases to defendants."

The original plan was to grant pre- and post-charge anonymity. Apparently, the government now wishes to pursue a “non-statutory solution” – which appears to involve asking the media to respect pre-charge anonymity.This just isn’t good enough. Those accused of sex-crimes are judged by public opinion from the start – ruining the lives of people who are eventually cleared of all charges.

It could be argued that allowing those accused of rape to be “convicted” by the media is likely to encourage false accusations. The stigma of the accusations is what incentivises those who make them.

Apparently, MPs believe that granting anonymity to defendants could send a negative signal about those making the accusations. I would argue that it would actually do the opposite. Removing one of the incentives for making a false claim surely adds weight to subsequent claims.

By Andrew Tait

Comments

[Anthony Smith]

Is it a crime to make malicious false allegations?

[Andrew Lale]

Totally agree. Do you know why the anonymity for defendants was rescinded in the first place?

[Nik Greene]

I was accused of rape and acquitted with no case to answer after 2 years of investigation and 2 months in prison.
The girl concerned was still a complete virgin!!
No charges were bought against her she was referred for psychiatric evaluation

Nik Greene author of 'False Accusations'

[Redacted]

Good article. Some very good points.

I can clearly understand why accusers need anonymity in this situation. But to me it seems lopsided not to extend the same protection to the accused, as if the accused stands to lose nothing at all; which anyone can surely see is not the case in these highly emotive matters concerning powerful taboos.

In general I agree with government resisting rushed, and possibly botched, change, but surely political parties are supposed to have thought their policies through before adopting them, aren't they?

[Jess The Dog]

Can it not be down to the judiciary or prosecutors to make such restrictions? I'm uneasy at a blanket ban, but recognise the need for enforcable proportionate reporting.

I think it's a red herring to assume 'malicious' complaints are made to exploit the 'court of public opinion'. It seems to me that most such complainants try and push the process as far as possible, indicating they would want to see a conviction to vindicate their case, for psychological or reputational reasons. And I don't think that such complainants should necessarily be jailed either (as often seems to happen)...psychological treatment or community sentences would seem far more appropriate. This might in fact be a circular argument for defendant anonymity.

This whole area of law is a minefield anyway. The litmus test is the conviction rate, but other area of public policy or crime management focuses on causal events and wider society. The depressing regularity of rape prosecutions probably has a lot to do with the prevalence of 'lads magazines' and sexual attitudes, and I'm completely in agreement with feminist opinion on this. Might seem odd for a libertarian, but there you go....

[Thoughtful]

Not sure I agree with you Jess, about penal sanctions for false accusations. A malicious complainant has, after all, sought to destroy an innocent man's life. I am not sure that several comfy sessions on the psychiatrist's couch is a real deterrent. While I am in agreement that the prevalence of "raunch culture" does fuel adverse attitudes and perhaps provide a facilitative context for seual offending, I would ask what is the answer? Do we go back to the mid-Victorian era, even draping piano legs because they were "suggestive"? I don't have the answer but I don't believe a return to prohibition and puritanism is the way either.