Should the privacy of those accused of sexual crimes be protected?

[femmejean]

@PatrickLondon

Hot debate in the UK around just this issue. There is anonymity for the complainant, but not for the accused.

There is debate about the way the names of people arrested or held for questioning before charge seem amazingly to find their way into the press, but there is an argument that once it is known that a particular person is under investigation, and/or formally charged, there may be other victims who were previously too abashed to come forward.

On the other hand, there have been a number of high profile cases here that have called this into question. In one case, no charges were made after a high profile raid in which the BBC were tipped off in advance and were waiting with a TV press crew, in another someone claimed various high profile people were involved in a murderous paedophile conspiracy, and their names were bandied about for months before it was decided the whole thing was a concoction; and there was the case of a man acquitted of rape (on retrial) where his supporters argued that the complainant shouldn’t have had the benefit of anonymity, as her credibility was in their view in question - and quite a few broke the law to name her on social media.

Never understood how a country like the UK could have such a ‘backwards’ legal system.

Of course they should be protected…The fact is that there is a sizeable number of people willing to enter ‘vigilante mode’. As they say it’s better for a rapist to go unharmed than an innocent man to get injured/harmed physically and socially.

[DaphneBlack]

I really struggle with this issue. On the one hand, I think that the accused must have the right to face his or her accuser in court. On the other, there is no doubt in my mind that many criminals have escaped justice because this adversarial system is too traumatic for some victims. On the one hand, all are innocent until proven guilty. On the other… no, there’s no opposite to that. But there’s also no opposite to freedom of the press, exactly… the UK is very keen to gag the press, and I happen to think that creates a worse imbalance of information than a free press that reports both the name of the accuser and the accused.

TLDR: I’m not sure it’s completely possible to untangle these issues ethically. At some point, a side is picked. My natural instincts are to protect the accused, which puts me in hot water with some.

[usedtobe]

I think the mere existence of a “Sexual Offender List” which follows a person for life.
If your name is on that list, you cannot live within “X Feet” of
Churches, (that one is a head scratcher, ain’t it?)
Schools,
What else?
People cannot live in their homes because this is a God-Fearing town with a church every 4 blocks.

Of course no child can walk past the home of rapist. Why do we assume everyone on The List will commit simply EVERY conceivable sex crime? If I rape a 30 year old, why to you think I’d be interested in a seven year old?
The List needs to die immediately.

And: anybody can now destroy any person they can name, just by dropping in the local Cop
Shop.

Yeah, there need to be some major changes.
Esp. the part of labeling anyone named in a complaint as Evil Personified, to be forever shunned and personally destroyed.

[Urbanredneck]

Yes, and I am opposed to those sites where one can go and find out where registered sex offenders live.

Why?

1. It hurts their neighbors and makes it hard to sell your house. Just because someones offender brother moves in with his sister after doing time shouldnt hurt you.
2. It focuses too much on this one crime while ignoring others like murderers, arsonists, and swindlers whom I also would not want as a neighbor.

[Jane_Smythe]

@Sunny_Daze

A recent thread, which discusses men falsely accused of rape, prompted me to think about how we treat those (male and female) accused of sexual crimes.

One frequent complaint is that false accusation ruins lives. Would it be possible to keep the names of the accused private, as we often restrict the names of the accusers, for a certain period of time, in order to limit the risk of damage from false accusation?

For discussion, I would suggest that the names of the accused and the accusers be kept private until the accused are either charged OR if we want to set a higher bar, until they have passed the preliminary hearing or the arraignment.

To start the debate, I would be in favor of some type of anonymous system, until the successful completion of the preliminary hearing. (Would that be “sealed charges”?) Once the prosecutor has demonstrated that they have sufficient evidence to move forward with a trial, then I think the name of the accused could be revealed.

What do you think? Would this system help prevent some of the damage caused by false accusations?

Full disclosure: I worked as a rape crisis counselor for several years. I talked to far more women who never disclosed, than I ever ran across false accusers BUT I recognize this may be a problem in our system. To the extent that it is, can we address it fairly?

Just for the record, by far most rape accusations are not false. A false impression is given about that; the false impression is given by men who believe what rapists say, that hey are falsely accused. Then men become afraid they will be falsely accused. They believe that false accusation are rampant when that is not true.

[Jane_Smythe]

@Sunny_Daze

Well, I suppose my entire question is predicated upon the supposition that false accusations of sexual assault (of whatever type) destroy lives in a unique way, and that the accused deserve a unique level of protection until the point of moving to trial is reached.

Is this true or not true?

Actually, your ‘entire question’ seems to be predicated upon the belief that false accsations happen a lot. They don’t.

[Jane_Smythe]

@Urbanredneck

Yes, and I am opposed to those sites where one can go and find out where registered sex offenders live.

Why?

1. It hurts their neighbors and makes it hard to sell your house. Just because someones offender brother moves in with his sister after doing time shouldnt hurt you.
2. It focuses too much on this one crime while ignoring others like murderers, arsonists, and swindlers whom I also would not want as a neighbor.

You don’t want to know if a convicted rapist or child molester is living next door to you, your wife, and your kids?

[Poysyn]

@Jane_Smythe

Actually, your ‘entire question’ seems to be predicated upon the belief that false accsations happen a lot. They don’t.

QFT - stats show that false accusations of sexual assault account for less than 1 out of every 100 reported.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Poysyn

QFT - stats show that false accusations of sexual assault account for less than 1 out of every 100 reported.

This is not correct.

Besides for the number ranging a lot higher than 1%, there are also a lot of accusations which are not proved false but also not proved true.

Bottom line, the true number is unknown and unknowable but could be quite high.

[AK84]

@Poysyn

QFT - stats show that false accusations of sexual assault account for less than 1 out of every 100 reported.

Not even close to being true. And rape has a higher level of purposely false allegations than other crimes.

[Urbanredneck]

@Jane_Smythe

You don’t want to know if a convicted rapist or child molester is living next door to you, your wife, and your kids?

Well to be honest almost anyone is capable of such things and I am always careful with my family. “Convicted” doesnt mean they will do it again. It only means they served time or been required to register as a sex offender.

But as others have said I would also be nervous living next door to a swindler, murderer, drug dealer, or just plain robber.

[DrCube]

@Jane_Smythe

You don’t want to know if a convicted rapist or child molester is living next door to you, your wife, and your kids?

You’re a proponent of public websites with the addresses and police records of murderers, thieves, shoplifters and speeders, as well, I take it?

[UltraVires]

@Bricker

The mis-accused murderer is indeed to be pitied, but unless a Oujia board’s accusation is admitted as evidence, it’s unlikely to be the victim accusing him.

And sexual assault is unique in another way: if the victim of a mugging accuses someone of accosting him in an alley and demanding his wallet with the threat that a beating will ensure for non-compliance, it’s far-fetched in the extreme for the accused to claim, “No, no – what happened in that alley is he approached me and offered me the wallet, just for fun.”

It’s true that whether the act of handing over one’s wallet is theft rests precisely on that claim: the man who does so willingly, with no threat, is the victim of no crime, and the man who accepts that wallet is the instigator of no crime. Consent transforms a crime into a gift.

But the mugger is out of luck because it’s unrealistic in the extreme to imagine someone gifting a stranger with a wallet. So the jury hearing that claim is entitled to treat it with great skepticism.

But when the issue is a sexual act, the lines are not nearly so clear. It’s quite possible to claim that the sex act in question was consensual. The jury cannot simply dismiss the idea that two strangers met and willingly engaged in sex. It happens.

In days long past, the reason that the chaste reputation of a rape victim was relevant was for the same reason: a jury could assume that a woman of chaste character would never willingly dally, sexually, with a man outside the bounds of matrimony. So if the woman could claim a chaste reputation, the jury could regard proof of the sex act as strong evidence of a lack of consent. But if she were a loose woman, who willingly had sex with men outside of marriage, then the mere fact that sex occurred here proved nothing.

Of course, that presumption was itself problematic, because in practice it became: a woman who is not chaste can’t really be raped. Today, rape shield laws make that kind of inquiry into a victim’s past legally irrelevant and impermissible.

But the problem remains: to analogize rape or sexual assault to other kinds of crimes against the person generally fails, because sexual assault is about the only kind of act that both rests entirely on the lack of consent and involves an act which is perfectly plausibly done consensually.

All that, of course, is general commentary. The facts of specific cases makes claims of consent easier or harder to prove. The rape victim admitted to the hospital with broken bones and lacerated genitals will most likely not face a strong defense of consent at trial.

In addition, sexual abuse cases are one of the very few scenarios where convictions regularly happen based upon uncorroborated testimony of the alleged victim.

Imagine going to the prosecutor and saying that John Smith mugged you 11 years ago. You didn’t report it then because you were afraid of John Smith, but now you are coming forward and want him arrested.

They would laugh at you. Change “mugged” to “sexually assaulted” and it is a different story. If it is a child coming forward with the accusation, then not only will it be prosecuted, it will very likely be a conviction.

[Sunny_Daze]

@Jane_Smythe

Actually, your ‘entire question’ seems to be predicated upon the belief that false accsations happen a lot. They don’t.

Actually, if you look at my OP I was careful to disclose that I worked as a rape crisis counselor, which ought to give you an idea of my opinion on the matter. I did not want to drag this down into the mire of how many false accusations are out there, because, to a certain extent it’s a mire we’ve been in before, and because I was specifically interested in the question I did ask.

Are the accused entitled to some level of protection until such time as they are actually going to be brought to trial? Is “sexual crime” uniquely more damaging to the accused than other crimes, like murder or embezzlement? Or is this just an area where some people have strong opinions that lives are being destroyed, perhaps due to a political agenda or MRA leanings or whatever, and the system should just be left alone?

I’m genuinely curious about this. I do think sexual crimes are unique in nature and I’ve seen the harm done to victims. I can certainly see an argument that protecting the identity of the accused might have some value early in the criminal investigation and prosecution of a case (only until the time of trial - at that point, I think personally think the dice are cast and it’s pointless to conceal it). If there is no case, what is the benefit in publicly identifying the accused?

[bump]

I’m still not seeing the difference between information being released about any of the following before Bob Smith is actually convicted of anything:

[ul]
[li]“Bob Smith is accused of raping woman X”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of beating his wife”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from company Y”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of robbing old ladies at gunpoint”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of pedophilia.”[/li][/ul]

Being accused of any of those, even if not guilty, could easily cost Bob his job, his community standing, his professional reputation and his social circle, as well as make things much harder for him.

Considering the often murky nature of sex crimes, I’d say Bob’s privacy should probably be more protected in that case, than something where the cops caught someone like say… armed robbery.

[joyfool]

@Sunny_Daze

I know the thread you speak of. I will see if I can find it.

I think I’m drawing a rather arbitrary line of withholding information from the public until such time as the preliminary hearing is conducted and it is determined there is sufficient evidence, cause, etc, to bring the accused to trial. At that point, I think it is warranted to release the names. Prior to there being a determination that there will be a trial, perhaps it’s premature. It would be interesting to know what percentage of charges are ever brought to trial (or any type, not just rape). I am assuming that there a drop off between being charged, and arraignment, for example, where a case might be dismissed or dropped for various reasons.

Did anyone ever find that thread? I’d really like to see exactly how anyone could advocate for such a position. That sounds absolutely appalling.

[Fotheringay-Phipps]

@Sunny_Daze

Actually, if you look at my OP I was careful to disclose that I worked as a rape crisis counselor, which ought to give you an idea of my opinion on the matter. I did not want to drag this down into the mire of how many false accusations are out there, because, to a certain extent it’s a mire we’ve been in before, and because I was specifically interested in the question I did ask.

Sorry to respond to this because it’s off-topic as you note. But it’s perhaps worth considering that you may have a bit of a skewed perspective as a rape crisis counselor. Because the women who you encounter in rape crisis situations are disproportionately likely to be actual victims of rape. The ones making false accusations are less likely to seek crisis counseling. So you wouldn’t be seeing a representative picture.

[Sunny_Daze]

@bump

I’m still not seeing the difference between information being released about any of the following before Bob Smith is actually convicted of anything:

[ul]
[li]“Bob Smith is accused of raping woman X”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of beating his wife”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars from company Y”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of robbing old ladies at gunpoint”[/li][li]“Bob Smith is accused of pedophilia.”[/li][/ul]

Being accused of any of those, even if not guilty, could easily cost Bob his job, his community standing, his professional reputation and his social circle, as well as make things much harder for him.

True.

Considering the often murky nature of sex crimes, I’d say Bob’s privacy should probably be more protected in that case, than something where the cops caught someone like say… armed robbery.

Thank you for answering.

@joyfool

Did anyone ever find that thread? I’d really like to see exactly how anyone could advocate for such a position. That sounds absolutely appalling.

I know where to start looking. I’ll try to get this done today. (I know who was arguing it, I’m just not sure if it was his thread. I need to dig.) But hey, scan up, there’s someone on this thread who just argued a variant of this.

@Fotheringay-Phipps

Sorry to respond to this because it’s off-topic as you note. But it’s perhaps worth considering that you may have a bit of a skewed perspective as a rape crisis counselor. Because the women who you encounter in rape crisis situations are disproportionately likely to be actual victims of rape. The ones making false accusations are less likely to seek crisis counseling. So you wouldn’t be seeing a representative picture.

Well, I will say that I have a different picture than the public in any case. (Unfortunately, it’s not just survivors who call hotlines, but that’s a whole 'nother thread, if folks ever want to know what it’s like.)

Note that I am still not picking a number of false accusations out there. We can now all agree (I hope) that if that’s what we were discussing, I would argue for the lower side. We do know that there are a range of estimates out there, and that false accusation does, whether we like it or not, happen occasionally.

If we stay away from the idea of false accusation, there is the question of just the investigation itself. It’s not always a straight line from crime to accused. I am including those who simply might be investigated or even wrongly charged due to the investigative process (not false accusation per se) in this conversation. I think their names should stay out of it until we reach point “x” in the criminal proceedings. I think later than being charged and prior to the start of the trial. Arraignment or the pre-trial hearing makes sense to me.

IOW, don’t make the name public until the trial is likely to happen.

[jonesj2205]

@Sunny_Daze

I know the thread you speak of. I will see if I can find it.

I think I’m drawing a rather arbitrary line of withholding information from the public until such time as the preliminary hearing is conducted and it is determined there is sufficient evidence, cause, etc, to bring the accused to trial. At that point, I think it is warranted to release the names. Prior to there being a determination that there will be a trial, perhaps it’s premature. It would be interesting to know what percentage of charges are ever brought to trial (or any type, not just rape). I am assuming that there a drop off between being charged, and arraignment, for example, where a case might be dismissed or dropped for various reasons.

In NY anyway your arbitrary line would filter out virtually nothing.
The arraignment is only a formal reading of the charge and there is no weighing of strength of accusation.
Felonies are presented to a grand jury, which is ridiculously easy to get an indictment from. One stat is 97% of cases presented to grand juries result in indictment. Or you can go for the Sol Wachtler quote that a DA could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

At most you’d shield 3% of the names that the grand jury decided there wasn’t reasonable cause to believe the defendant committed the crime.

[Sunny_Daze]

For those interested, it was the Brock Turner thread. The relevant portion seems to start around here.