To think people accused of rape should not be named?

[IHaveArrivedAtABadTime]

A rape allegation could seriously damage someones life and reputation. I think that by all means name and shame them after conviction but not before.

A friend of mine was falsely accused of rape last year but during the investigation the police happily told people his name when they were interviewing witnesses so everyone knew who he was . How is that allowed? My poor friend will have to live with this forever.

Luckily it didn't reach the press. It would have been so much worse if it did.

I myself was actually raped recently but I didn't report my rapist because I was terrified no one would believe me. It's too late now to report it I think. I feel women who lie about being raped like the woman who accused my friend should be locked up.

IDK I just feel so annoyed that my friend was put through this and annoyed that I can't report my rapist!

I do believe people who make false accusations have a lot to answer for and are the reason people are reluctant to report rapes

I don't think it's that simple actually. I think it's a lot more complex than that.

I actually believe that it's the perception that women run around making false rape accusations at the drop of a hat that hinders women from reporting and not the fact that a tiny percentage of women have lied.

I've lost count of the number of headlines I've read over the years about someone who was falsely accused only to then read the article itself and realise there was no proof the accusation was false. All that had happened was the allegation had been withdrawn or the accused had been acquitted and as a result it had been incorrectly labelled a false accusation.

I never reported my rape because I knew that if he had been acquitted at any stage then I would be branded a liar and labelled a false accuser. It wasn't the fact that a tiny percentage of women who had lied about being raped that put me off; it was the widespread belief that women frequently lied about rape that put me off.

I'm not ignoring the statistics at all but I do believe people who make false accusations have a lot to answer for and are the reason people are reluctant to report rapes

Tbh, my main concern is that my rapist and his family and friends will say I've falsely accused him - that's what rather puts me off reporting - that and the narrative within society that false accusations are a 'thing'. The minuscule number of false accusations has nothing to do with it.

You are right of course, names should be anonymous till found guilty. Innocent till tor oven guilty right?

I was under the impression that all those charged with any crime were named - is that not the case? So are you arguing that everyone accused of or charged with a crime should be anonymous until they are found guilty? Surely that will create a logistical nightmare within the legal system, given that court cases are generally open to the public and reported on in the press.

Reported.

Are the people who don't want to name the rape accused OK with there being more rapists going free and thus more rapes? Because the ability to find other victims is a major factor in securing a lot of rape convictions. That is the trade off you are asking for.

AVirginLitTheCandle has phrased it way better than I did!

False accusations are very rare. Convictions are very rare too. No conviction doesn't equal false accusation.

I agree that they should not be named.

It is really difficult to prove rape- a friend was repeatedly raped by her father and he got off due to 'lack of evidence'. It didn't mean that he did not do it of course (he bloody did)

..please don't be put off reporting your own rape because of your friend's experiences. They were not your fault.

'I've lost count of the number of headlines I've read over the years about someone who was falsely accused only to then read the article itself and realise there was no proof the accusation was false.'

Yes, this.
Also that sometimes the evidence it was a false accusation is astonishingly weak - something like 'she sent him a text afterwards' which isn't actually that unusual in date rape cases when the woman is still in shock and it hasn't sunk in what has happened to her.

But zippey the accuser is named.

Her name will be brought up during the course of the investigation by police when interviewing potential witnesses. Those witnesses are then free to tell other people who she is if they wish. The man who she has accused is also free to tell people who she is.

If the case gets to court then her name will be brought up in court. People who show up to the trial will then be free to leave court and tell people who she is.

The only protection that is given to the accuser and not the accused is that she isn't allowed to be named in the press. Given that 99% of reported rapes aren't reported in the press and the suspect will only be named in the press if the police/CPS believe there is a good reason to (e.g serial rapists) it's not really an issue imo.

I understand both sides of this. However, justice should be seen to be done. Naming at charge stage is essential.

I was actually raped about 2 weeks ago. I know I wont be believed because I have been very promiscuous in the past and am known for being a bit of a slut . And I invited him into my house so ya know...

I did go to A&E afterwards because I thought he'd hurt me but I was fine and I don't know how long they hang on to evidence.

I just don't want to think my friend is a rapist. He is so nice.

But then again the man who raped me is "nice" so I don't know

The names are public, so any other victims, can come forward. As they do in many of these cases.

However I am reading through this thread and trying to take peoples opinions on board.

I didn't start a thread about this yesterday. This is my first thread on this.

As others have said the names are public to encourage other victims to come forward.

You don't know your friend was falsely accused. Such accusations are very rare.

Men are statistically more likely to be raped themselves than to be falsely accused.

Even if (God forbid) rapists were granted anonymity in the press, the police would still name suspects to witnesses, show them photos etc, when conducting the investigation. That's how investigations work.

Victims are anonymous in the press, but the police still name them to witnesses etc on order to carry out the investigation.

Your friend was probably not falsely accused. It's incredibly rare.

And if you did report your rape the friends of the man who raped you would call you a false accuser too. Have a think about that before you condemn another woman.

If you don't want the police to interview witnesses and ask them about what a rapd suspect did, then what you are saying is that you don't want the police to investigate rape complaints. Ever. Because doing the above is an essential part of the investigation.

Rape convictions would then go down to zero. But hey, men would be protected so all worthwhile....

I'm sorry that what happened to you did.

I had a very dear friend who was accused of sexual assault. Nobody could believe it, the girl was hounded and the case dropped due to lack of evidence. He confessed about 10 years later (to another friend) that he did do it. (He reported it to the police, nothing was done).

It's very hard to step back and look at someone you like and trust and see them for what they really are

You've already posted about this, haven't you OP and it was reported and deleted.

I've posted this before every time this topic is discussed but I'll do it again anyway.

I'm a reporter and when people are accused of rape, we don't name them until they are charged and named by the police or in open court, firstly because we are concerned about libel, or more often because we simply don't know who they are. I have been a reporter for 14 years and have never named a rape defendant before their first court appearance.

Local newspaper reporters are already really cut to the bone and attend court very infrequently compared to five years ago. If we couldn't name rape defendants, we simply would not attend the cases. There would be no point as it would be impossible to report it and it would make no sense to our readers ("A man who we can't name raped a woman who we can't name at their workplace, which we can't name because it might identify them etc). If people don't think this would happen, then look at local newspaper coverage of family courts and youth courts where defendants can't be named. It's basically zero, apart from the most high profile of cases.

It's all very well saying you can name defendants on conviction, but in practise if you've not attended the whole court case, then this is unlikely to happen because there is no mechanism for the outcomes of crown court cases to be routinely publicised. So you get, in effect, zero reporting of rape cases in the media and you end up with decisions being made in court by judges who know that there will be no public scrutiny of their decisions. The only people to benefit from this will be defendants. Victims are much less likely to get justice.

One of the principles of open justice is that the press can report freely from court, and that justice is not only done, but is also seen'to be done. Reporting court cases acts as a huge deterrent to would-be criminals. If there is no reporting of rape cases then there is no publicity deterrent.

And people cleared of rape can and do go on to continue their careers with the support of the public and very few consequences for them (Bill Roache, Michael LeVelle etc). How many rape victims have the same luxury?

We must protect victims before we protect defendants.

No, they should be named like any other suspect. Justice should be as open as possible. Alleged victims should not because of the particular nature of rape and the reasons victims do or don't come forward.

Some people still think the law protects the identities of women. It doesn't. If a man accused a woman of serious sexual assault, he would get anonymity and she wouldn't. But rape and sexual assault are predominantly male on female, which is the real issue.

If you have enough proof that a woman falsely accused someone of rape, you can prosecute her just like any other crime. Acquittal of any crime does not mean the accuser should automatically be jailed. Nobody would ever testify if that were the case.

Rape is no different to murder, burglary or any other charges. All of these also have defendants named. It's a vital part of open justice to have this done.