Is it fair to anonymise rapists waiting for conviction?

The story derives from MP Mark Pritchard who was accused of raping a girl in central London late last year, and since being let go due to “insufficient evidence”, has called for a change in the law for those accused of sex offences. Now, don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that I do not empathise with people, predominately celebrities and people in the public eye, who are falsely accused and have their name questioned for something completely made up; because I do. It must be a difficult time in their lives to go through a trial like that, threatening their professional careers as well as their private lives. But where do you draw the line?

Is it fair that whilst waiting for trial, rapists have the possibility, if wealthy enough, to roam the streets? Well believe it or not, in some cases, this is happening; by making these people anonymous, it could be putting the public at risk. Whether or not this only a very minute percentage or the majority, it does not change the fact that it is unfair for women and men everywhere to be living in fear with no idea whether or not their rapist is still wandering the streets. I understand that if it is a repeat offender, this would not be able to happen, but raping someone once should be enough of a criminal offence to have your name publically shamed, anyway. There may be a small percentage of alleged offences which have no background and are possibly completely made up, but does this make it okay for the thousands of cases which are not false to leave girls and boys living in fear their attacker could strike again.

Taking into consideration it is estimated 85,000 women are raped in the UK every year, it would be unfair on the victims that justice is not being served for their attackers. It is difficult enough for the women who are attacked to come forward and admit to it after the shame and embarrassment forced upon them with no escape. Then, for them to then find out their attackers have the same rights as them for anonymity is just absurd.

As I have previously stated, I am not saying that it is therefore right for innocent people to be accused; I am simply making a point that rapists should be named and shamed. It is, of course, unfortunate that innocent people have to be dragged into this, but that small percentage should be blaming rapists for committing something so unforgivable that people live in fear, and not the law.

Interestingly, it is not necessarily that the accused have been successful in clearing their name and proved their innocence. In fact, a lot of the times, similar to MP Mark Pritchard, the cases are closed due to insignificant evidence. Who is therefore to say that this means it is untrue? I understand that the word of one person is not enough to convict someone, but how many times have rich, prestigious men managed to falsely clear their name in order to protect their reputation. Of course, we will never know the answer to this question but it is definitely something to think about.

David Lisak also created a very interesting study of a Northern University’s sexual assault encounters, which helps emphasise the point I am currently making. He proved that out of 117 cases, 52% were investigated and closed, sometimes due to insufficient evidence but often due to the complainant stopping cooperating with the investigation. Is this due to fear? Embarrassment? Disgust? Or could it be, as Mark Pritchard is basically suggesting, that the girls are just lying and therefore the accused should not be named. Personally, it’s so far from the latter that it upsets me to think of the anguish these girls must be going through. Again, I am not saying that some girls do not lie, but after history making it socially unacceptable for girls to admit to rape and being called liars for hundreds of years, it is no wonder that girls, and boys, act out in such a way when concerning rape.

Overall, my answer in short would be no: accused sex offenders should not be given anonymity. Why should someone accused of rape have the right to anonymity until they are trialled, whilst we live in such a corrupt society of hegemony? I understand the statement ‘innocent until proven guilty’ but the ruling classes are getting away with everything and anything simply because they have power. In other cases, police officers are getting away with murder, the literal kind not the metaphorical kind, and high end journalists are getting away with invading people’s privacy. If innocent people like the McCann’s, and the numerous celebrities whose lives were ruined by the phone hacking scandals, are being conveyed to the world in a false and unfair way against their will, why should possible rapists have their right to anonymity?