Why men accused of sex attacks should NOT be named.

sre01 · 2015-09-23T11:07:56+00:00

I would push further and say that all people accused of crimes should have their identity protected until the trial or conviction.

mikesteane · 2015-09-23T07:27:07+00:00

Kudos to the Daily Mail for publishing well-written and serious articles like this one in amongst the other stuff.

2015-09-23T12:28:29+00:00

As a former cop, I have to come to believe any accusation a woman makes is false. I wish more people realized this.

2015-09-23T13:22:32+00:00

and the police would not only have an obligation to protect my identity, but also a duty to investigate my claim

If only! Police don't actually investigate sex claims. They work on the assumption the accuser is telling the truth, and basically try and eliminate any obvious flaws in the case they are starting to build. But if they can put you in roughly the same place at the same time, that's all they need, investigation over. And unlike every other kind of trial, the less evidence the better, as you can't disprove evidence that is not there.

Police should have a duty to fully investigate rape claims - including the claim itself, the accuser, and whether the accuser is lying and the claim is false. Yet as a matter of policy they don't do this because it might make real victims feel bad (because its better to put an innocent person in jail than hurt someones feelings). And if you say "oh well what other kind of crime does the supposed victim get investigated for lying" realize that few other crimes begin with an allegation and nothing more (no physical evidence of a crime taking place) - and if there was a lack of evidence, suspecting the accuser of lying is one of first responses.

Imagine if you made an allegation you were robbed in a dark alley and some guy stole $10,000 bucks off you. But you had no bruises. No CCTV put you in the place. No evidence of financial transactions for the money (you had "saved" it). The person you are accusing didn't have they money either and no recent large purchases, and happened to be a person of good character with no history of robbing people. Do you reckon the cops start suspecting the accuser is a liar, or do they put the accused on trial without evidence? That's how real investigations work, and how it works in every crime except rape - police keep an open mind from the beginning, and will start investigating the accuser themselves if they get even a hint of suspicion they are lying. But moreover, they actually care about the truth and getting the right outcome (corrupt cops excepted).

Rape stands alone as the only crime in which police stop investigating and simply start building a case with zero care or concern about truth and a vicious, evil motivation to obtain convictions no matter what, and there needs to be more awareness of how much of an aberration this is in terms of normal police work, and how much of a violation of investigative procedures it is. And this is even before you get to trial, where a whole other raft of violations occur, presumption of innocence, due process, being able to face your accuser, standards of evidence etc. It's easily the biggest human rights violation occurring in western society today, but thankfully the MHRM has been able to shed some light on it.

blueoak9 · 2015-09-23T15:39:13+00:00

"Right now, there is nothing to stop me walking into a police station and accusing pretty much anyone of sexual assault. It could be utterly bogus — or malicious — and the police would not only have an obligation to protect my identity, but also a duty to investigate my claim."

This women gets right to the heart of the problem. Well done.

ld2gj · 2015-09-23T16:05:21+00:00

I can only imagine what would be said if that was brought up in a vote in Congress. Since, you know, innocent till guilty unless there is a women involved, than all dicks are guilty.

Murky42 · 2015-09-23T16:46:22+00:00

the likelihood is that the name of my alleged attacker would be made public in order to encourage any other victims to come forward.

This has on several occasions proved to be effective and isn't entirely without merit.

So is a blanket ban on naming truly a good idea?

On the one hand there is undeniably merit to saying principles are important to up hold even if at times it is inconvenient.

On the other hand I find publishing the name if there is sufficient evidence/a PROPER investigation and a justifiable reason to justify releasing the name logical enough.

The current system undeniably sucks shit though and something needs to be done.

2015-09-23T14:50:35+00:00

Big difference between accused and convicted.

Title	Why men accused of sex attacks should NOT be named.
Author	TR6Cool
Upvotes	106
Comments	13
Date	September 23, 2015 6:43 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3m1csh/why_men_accused_of_sex_attacks_should_not_be_named/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/why-men-accused-of-sex-attacks-should-not-be-named.970821 https://theredarchive.com/post/970821

Comments