Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

The Undying Zombie of a Lie that Anonymity for Men Accused of Rape is 'Fair'

Illustration for article titled The Undying Zombie of a Lie that Anonymity for Men Accused of Rape is Fair
Image: Shutterstock

A pair of British celebrities have introduced a petition calling on parliament to grant anonymity to those accused of rape until they are charged. On Monday, the British pop singer Cliff Richard and broadcaster Paul Gambaccini held a media-packed event announcing the petition. Both men were previously accused of sex crimes, but the cases were ultimately dropped and they allege reputational damage from the surrounding press coverage. Now they are calling for a “re-balancing of the legal system” while forwarding unsourced claims about a “false allegation crisis.”

The argument around extending anonymity to the accused in sex crime allegations has been revisited several times now in the United Kingdom. The very same pair of men, along with parliamentary member Nigel Evans, in 2016 launched an unsuccessful anonymity campaign. (Please do behold this pic of the trio posing with their hands in “go team” mode.) These pushes are invariably premised on the concept of fairness, owing to the fact that accusers in sex crime cases are already legally granted anonymity. In fact, the group behind this latest petition is Falsely Accused Individuals for Reform, or FAIR.

Never mind that accusers are granted anonymity for reasons of fairness—most notably because revealing their identities would drastically discourage already minimal levels of rape reporting.

Advertisement

Each time this topic arises, it inspires a frenzy of media attention in the UK, and victims’ advocates exercise saintly patience while reciting the same sensible arguments: mandated anonymity for the accused would perpetuate myths about false rape accusations, discourage reporting of rape, and hinder law enforcement’s ability to locate additional victims. And each time, at least thus far, the push for suspect anonymity has been shelved on these same grounds. But, here we are once again, with victims’ advocates patiently explaining the lie of suspect anonymity as an act of “fairness.”

On Monday, Katie Russell, spokesperson for Rape Crisis England and Wales, told the BBC that granting suspects anonymity solely around sex crimes would “inevitably reinforce the public misconception... that those suspected of sexual offences are more likely to have been falsely accused.” Advocates have been making variations on this point for years—that uniquely protecting those accused of sex crimes implies that accusers in these cases are uniquely untrustworthy, which is demonstrably untrue. In 2013, the Crown Prosecution Service reported that false accusations around sex crimes were not only rare, but also no more common than for any other type of crime.

Advertisement

Contrary to a “crisis” of false allegations, the End Violence Against Women (EVAW) coalition argues that there is a crisis of underreporting of rape. In a 2016 letter on the issue, addressed to Richard, Gambaccini, and Evans, the group wrote, “It’s estimated that only 10-15% of rapes are ever reported to police.” Activists argue that legislation treating sex crime accusers as uniquely dishonest will only further discourage reporting.

On the other hand, there are stunning examples of how publicizing the name of the accused can actually encourage additional reporting to police. In 2008, the taxi driver John Worboys was arrested following accusations of multiple sexual assaults on passengers in the back of his cab, which led to his being publicly named. Ultimately, at least 85 women came forward with allegations. This is why the guidelines for the UK’s College of Policing advise, “Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so. ” Among the listed “legitimate policing purposes” is “the prevention or detection of crime.” Legislating against police discretion around naming the accused takes away a powerful tool for finding other alleged victims.

Advertisement

These concerns around the ability to locate other victims have successfully stalled previous anonymity pushes. In 2010, parliament considered introducing anonymity legislation, but changed course after finding “insufficient reliable empirical evidence” in favor of “anonymity for rape defendants.” Questions were specifically raised as to “whether the inability to publicise a person’s identity will prevent further witnesses to a known offence from coming forward, or further unknown offences by the same person from coming to light.”

As EVAW argued in its years-ago letter, the harm that the accused and acquitted experience is “a result not of the fact of being named but of terrible media representation of sexual violence cases, accompanied by a collective failure to uphold the presumption of innocence.” (In fact, Richard won massive damages in a privacy case against the BBC relating to its coverage of the accusations against him.) The letter continued, “We should all stand up and tackle these problems—media sensationalism and protecting the presumption of innocence—but it is of the utmost importance that police retain the ability to name a suspect when they have good investigative reasons to do so.”

Advertisement

On Sunday, the day before Richard and Gambaccini’s announcement, the group tweeted, “Tomorrow a group of rich, privileged men are planning to launch another campaign for anonymity—despite knowing that it would make it harder for victims to get justice after rape.” They then linked, once again, to the letter.

Senior Staff Writer, Jezebel

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

kittengal2019
KittenGal2019

It’s absolutely true that instances of false accusations are incredibly small (much smaller than incels and MRA trolls would like us to believe).

It’s also true that rapes are still under-reported and we need to give victims as much protection as possible.

But the fact is, false accusations DO happen. Doesn’t matter how small the number is... they do happen.

While our penalties are still not good enough when it comes to rape and sexual assault, and powerful men still get away with far too much... there IS a cost to being accused of rape, even if you are exonerated in a trial.

I went to a D3 college and was friends with a player on the basketball team. He was black, and ended up getting accused of committing a rape at a house party by a white woman. The racial dynamics at play mattered... he was immediately suspended from the team (and school). His name was known all over campus, he had his dorm vandalized (both with “rapist” and racial slurs...not surprising given it was a southern school).

Well it turns out that through the course of investigation there was scant evidence to convict him..., several people backing up his version of events, no one saw them leave together or even interacting. Also came out that the woman who accused him was a racist POS (thanks to social media sluths). He was completely exonerated.

Didn’t matter though, plenty of damage was done. He ended up withdrawing from the university and as of this stay is still in therapy dealing with anxiety and panic attacks.

Remaining anonymous while the investigation played out would have helped him tremendously.

I know we want to address rape culture and bring monsters who commit these crimes to justice... but maybe we should think about due process and protecting people like him with some of our policies.

Seems harsh to say that his life doesn’t matter because we want to encourage more women to come forward.