So in the wake of a massive public spotlight on rape, the priority apparently is to protect the reputations of the tiny % of men falsely accused of rape

3-9%. Similar false accusation rate for all crimes. Do you believe in anonymity for all defendants?

Your BBC link talks about 3-9% false accusation rate, Zippy LJ, which comes from Home Office statistics.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7265307.stm

A good BBC article on the topic.

You know what would be good? If people read something on the subject before forming an opinion. You know - research, facts n shit. Actual information. I feel it would help.

quite!

maisere, dedicated rape units like Operation Sapphire perhaps? Sometimes even those officers who are tasked with investigating rape are often prejudiced or incompetent, sadly. Sapphire isn't alone. Have a look at Scotland. Look at the Worboys case, where a serial rapist was left free to carry on raping women for years because the police dismissed complaints and failed to investigate properly.

A victim of any crime is a witness. The court case is Regina v. the defendant - the victim does not have equal status with the accused, so the argument for anonymity is bizarre. Being wrongly accused of murder must be even more damaging than being wrongly accused of rape, but no-one argues for anonymity for alleged murderers, do they?

I have been in both situations here...I was abused by my uncle as a child...I was raped when I was 14 years old and My hubby was falsely accused.
I know the horror of rape and I know the horror of watching an innocent man being accused of rape. THEY ARE BOTH AS BAD AS THE OTHER !
Where do you get the idea that women reporting rape ect are not believed ??
Come there are dedicated police units round the country, its not something which is swept under the carpet. Why are all the men being arrested in operation yewtree ...because women ARE believed.
I am a women born a long time ago....Women of today need to learn this world is a hard place, see both sides of rape, whether its real or false people get hurt.

It is not sexist to not name the (female) victim and name the (male) rapist. You are assuming that same treatment means equal treatment. As it stands, the victim and the rapist however are not on an equal footing, and fair treatment of the victim (like giving her anonymity) is an attempt to achieve that equality, or remove some of the inequality, rather than creating an inequality that didn't exist before.

WW I think the sex discrimination argument is the other way round - as it's men who are charged with rape, if rape defendants had anonymity when other defendants didn't, that would be a group of males getting different treatment.

Syd, why impractical for crimes in general but you would want an exception for those being prosecuted for rape?

In an ideal world then I would agree with anonymity for anyone accussed of anything, until proven. I don't think it is possible to achieve.

A no naming of anyone for any crime until conviction maybe better. The cps could have a point score form to decide if it was in the public interest to name before then.

From what I have been reading a lot of people seem to think that when the cps says 'lack of evidence' this means guilty but can't prove it. This is not always the case sometimes it is just 'no evidence'. Does that not sometimes mean the accused is just not guilty.

Also judges on historical cases often though out of court cases due to no evidence. We life in a country where there is no time limit on charging but the goverment and police destroy there own archive records other a certain date.

On other sites they have used human rights and said it is sexist that the women in rape are not named but men are. As only men can rape (under law rape is done with a penis??) it has been said that naming is sexist. Do think people forget men/boys can be raped too.

Syd, do you also believe in anonymity for the accused when one man is prosecuted for allegedly beating up another in a pub?

I don't agree that to be accused of a violent crime against the person is as bad as being a victim of it.

The norm for rape victims is to not get any justice at all - only 6% will see their assailant convicted - either because they don't feel they can report it, or because the CPS won't go to trial because of 'lack of evidence.' Often the evidence needed to prosecute serial sex offenders is gained by further victims coming forward having seen their attacker reported in the media.

No, when a man is "falsely accussed of rape" he is the victim. When he is rightfully accussed the person raped is the victim.

At the point of accusation we do not know which statement is true and should not decide without further evidence.

sydlexic Many people are presumed to be guilty of crimes by the community without even an accusation. Ask any minority.
Why is being wrongly accused of rape more devastating then being wrongly imprisoned for a non-rape crime?

So from your posts I understand you to mean:

When a man is accused of raping a man, woman or child,
He is a victim,
And should be protected until he is convicted.

Like I say, an unusual approach, but I'd be interested in hearing your reasonsing behind all of it. Also what you want to do for the men women and children who report rape. Are they victims too? Should they be protected? You haven't mentioned your views on what should happen to them.