Arguments Against Defendants

In the public opinion, sexual offence cases cover a particularly traumatic form of violence (BBC, 2013). Under the UK legal system, victims are vested with special rights separate from those granted to victims in other types of criminal cases. The Sexual Offences Act 1976(Amendment) guarantees lifetime anonymity for the identity of the alleged victim. This legal restriction means the media cannot report on any matter that may link somebody the victim to the case. This restriction was first proposed by Heilbron in 1975 to improve the rate of reporting (Robertson& Nicol, 2008). However, whether defendants should have their identity protected or not is still a controversial issue. Some argue identity protection to extend to defendants. For example,

Defendants no longer enjoy the same rights as victims. Defendant anonymity was proposed again in 2006 and began the process of being reintroduced to the law in 2010. However, pressure and protest from women in all walks of life forced the government to remove it (Greer, 2011). Matravers (2003) argues that offenders may have the right to gain such injunctions in the future, yet it is currently not in force as a result of ethical codes. Some consider protection to be necessary for defendants as victims (BBC, 2013). It has been suggested that the law should protect the private information of suspects and prohibit media coverage from until the perpetrator is convicted. However, the charity Rape Crisis holds a different view. They consider that victims in sexual offence cases will feel further victimized due to the anonymity to suspects given by the law. This essay will demonstrate the arguments on both sides. It will analyse whether defendants should enjoy the same rights as victims from two aspects. One is that anonymity can protect innocent suspects. Another is that offenders face some

That bias arises from deep-rooted myths, but is also likely influenced by press releases. Greer (2011) argues that the main purpose of media coverage is not to ‘reflect’ objective truth. In his view, media coverage can cause moral panics, and plays an important part in constructing ideology and influencing social attitudes to issues of law and order. Therefore, the attitude towards people who are charged with sexual offence depends on how society has stigmatized it. When print sources describe a suspect as a devil, it may sharpen the debate over sexual offence cases. However, Matravers (2013) suggests that the government may manipulate public fears to strengthen its power and position against offenders, and therefore it is not in government interest to take measures against the aforementioned bias. However, he maintains that the law has a responsibility to deal with public fears and sensitive media coverage. In this situation, defendant anonymity should be considered for defendants as victims in sexual offence cases. Without anonymity, the public may not give appropriate attention to defendant issues aside the crime