Anonymity and rape

[la_marquise]

Am I the only person who is deeply concerned by the proposal our new masters have put forward to reintroduce the policy of anonymity for people accused of rape? This used to be the case and it was changed because it can be damaging to conviction rates -- when a name is given, other victims do on occasion come forward, having previously not done so out of fear, uncertainty and conviction that the system is against them. It's estimated that rape is greatly under-reported in this country already, and this move will not help that. It won't help the conviction rate, either, and that is shockingly low. People accused of other crimes are named unless they're under-age. This move is all about protecting men and that's all. It doesn't help deal with the crime, and it panders to one of the most pernicious of the rape myths, the false accusation. The level of false rape claims is no higher than false accusations of all other crimes. But whereas the latter are barely notice din the press -- as are the bulk of rape accusations -- false rape claims are almost guaranteed to be splashed all over the news. What this move tells us is that male reputation is considered to be far more important by our new regime than female safety.
Details of the new proposal are here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8695367.stm
I suggest anyone who wants to question my remarks on rape conviction rates and false accusation rates takes a quick look through the online archives of a respectable newspaper or reads one of the several excellent recent books on women and our modern raunch culture. (You could start here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/mar/20/rape-convictions-lady-stern-cps)

Comments

[dorispossum.livejournal.com]

You've already said most of what I feel about this subject.

The appalling level of convictions - and what it reveals about the deep rooted level of misogynist attitudes among BOTH sexes in this country - is my main concern. With no meaningful sanctions against rape, there is little deterrant to those men who like to do it, which means an escalating risk to (mostly, by by no means exclusively) women and girls.

For example, in some US studies (see link) one in four men reported having forced women to have sex despite their visible distress, and a third of male college students reported that they would rape a woman IF THEY KNEW THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE CAUGHT OR PUNISHED AS A RESULT. [my emphasis - and note this statistic is based on the attitudes of 'nice' middle class boys, not the stereotypcal ghetto kids]
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a741405961~db=all~jumptype=rss

Women's safety is dependent both on social attitudes and on effective legal sanctions - which we don't have.

The proposal to restrict DNA sampling worries me for similar reasons: yes, keeping records on the basis of arrest IS an infringement of civil liberties. But so is being assaulted. And as you observed, I find it troubling that the legal civil liberties of men appear to matter more than the practical freedoms of women.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

That is scary. And yet, when I think about it, more or less every woman I know has a tale of being pressurised into sex on at least one occasion. We have such a long way to go in educating our culture to treat women as people still.