To think a woman isn't automatically lying if a rape trial verdict is not guilty?

[lilly0]

The courts in this country prosecute only on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. In rape cases the forensic evidence might not be there and it turns into a case of he said she said.
Every other crime we don't seem to automatically call victims liars if the accused is found not guilty. Why is rape so different?

Mike Tyson is hardly a typical example, and he was convicted. It did affect his ability to earn, but I've no sympathy for him. He still managed to do very well because of his fame / notoriety.

Mr Normal of Northants, who might be named but not convicted is a different situation.
His life will change, and not for the better.

TheBrilliantMistake so men's feelings are more important than women's safety and justice? There are many cases that would have never got to trail had the men not be named.

TheBrilliantMistake so the Ched Evans case, was it him who had to change his identity 3 times and move away from his support network? No, it's was the victims, who hadnt even accused him of rape? Or do women's lives being ruined not matter as much?

Plenty of people love Mike Tyson, didn't seen the Hangover getting boycotted, did you? Seems to me the public give a lot of support to rapists....

Why should it be a case of one is more valued than another. Aren't both people equally deserving until a verdict is reached?

That is why I am in favour of anonymity for both, because BOTH the man and the woman matter.

And let's not forget, men can be victims of rape too... by other men. That same applies there.

My husband was charged with assault because of the unusual circumstances of the case. He was named and our address was put in the paper he absolutely didn't do it I was there so I know this was the case the papers were also extremely biased against him it was a horrible time when it came to trial the case was resolved prior to trial and Cps accepted he was telling the truth , still people believe he was guilty .

iwant2know

Being found not guilty does not mean Innocent. It doesn't mean the victim and witnesses were lying.

In Scotland we have three verdicts, guilty, not guilty and not proven. Not proven essentially means guilty but the jury doesn't think the PF case meets the legal stage of beyond reasonable doubt.

I think English law should also include not proven
Sorry @iwant2know I have to strongly disagree with you. The not proven verdict in Scotland should be done away with.There is plans by the Scottish government reform of the criminal justice system to axe the NOT PROVAN verdict. Not provan does not bring any closure or justice for those involved.Sadly this is something i will live with for the rest of my life.

TheBrilliantMistake so you'd let someone like John Warboys never face justice in order to protect men's feelings? Because you need to realise, that's exactly what you're advocating by not naming these men.

And why single out rape anyway? How about child abuse or murder? Or would you apply this to ALL crimes?

If a trial ends in 'not proven' in Scotland does that allow the prosecution to persue it again if they feel new evidence is found?

TheBrilliantMistake so you'd let someone like John Warboys never face justice in order to protect men's feelings? Because you need to realise, that's exactly what you're advocating by not naming these men.

You're trying to use a high profile abhorrent case to suggest I'm happy that he might have gotten away with it? Good grief.
I stated earlier, once convicted, he should be named, and then if more victims come forward, he'd be tried for those too.

It's nothing to do with men's feelings. It's about trying to remain neutral regardless of gender until someone is actually found guilty.
I've already stated the reasons why men can be named, and they aren't without merit, but they aren't without criticism either.

It's not a crime to be on the side of anonymity for both parties, and it doesn't mean I sympathise with either side. It just means I favour anonymity (until conviction).

what is it about rape allegations that make it so important that someone's anonymity is preserved I think it is a sense of fairness, in other crimes, unless it is a child, the victim and the accused can be named. With rape the accused is named, if the accuser is making a malicious allegation they very rarely get charged so their name isn't tarnished but the accused is dragged through the mud with all the no smoke without fire comments.

Prosecuting the malicious accuser is often fraught with difficulties due to mental health problems. I knew someone who made numerous rape allegations. In the end I thought she was the most vulnerable woman in the world because no one took any notice because she had cried wolf dozens of times. It was tragic for her, it was awful for the men. Maybe it started off as real but we will never be able to work it out.

The overwhelming majority of men don't commit rape. But the law allows the naming of those accused.

Um, the overwhelming majority of men are never accused of rape either. People have already explained that naming the accused makes relatively little difference unless it's a high profile case. Local papers don't give a shit about a date rape case, even after conviction.

@mustbemad17

Sadly not.

Parkhead i can't decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing. I think as a victim 'not proven' may be slightly better than 'not guilty' but only slightly!!

If the naming makes such little difference, why do it at all?
Some posters above who've experienced the naming claim it makes a heck of a difference. I'm inclined to believe them.

I think it's so dismissive to say it makes very little difference unless you're famous. The local press may not care, but friends / family / work do.

Whichever way you want to paint it, if a raped woman isn't believed or cannot prove her rape, OR a man is wrongly accused, both are terrible situations, and deserve equal sympathy and protection.
Are the innocents worth sacrificing for the sake of securing convictions of the guilty? - that's another debate. It's not something I'd be comfortable with though.

grannytomine I don't think that's a good argument at all. It's not about a 'sense of balance'. Take e.g. drink driving, an offence that I have not heard people arguing anonymity for. Often there is no 'victim' because the accused was simply stopped at the roadside. If it's a famous accused, the papers will report that. But you're saying that's okay to report, but not an accusation of rape just because the victim is not named?

Or what about downloading child abuse images? The victims would likely be unknown and would not be named. But are you arguing strongly in favour of people accused of this being granted anonymity? If not, why not?

You and Mistake clearly believe that rape is especially bad, that it's more likely to destroy a person's life than being accused of anything else. Why is that? Evidence suggests that it's not true. There are many high profile men accused of sexual misconduct who have had little impact on their careers. Surely something like child abuse would be far far more damaging. But I don't hear anyone coming out in support of suspected pedophiles. Why the clear assumption that women lie about rape but no corresponding assumption that e.g. children lie about abuse?

The trouble with not proven is that it's an easy option and likely the most feasible option in many cases.
The very nature of rape tends to make it difficult to prove either way, particularly in existing relationships where intercourse would normally take place. It so often ends up with 'it went too far, I said no, and he didn't stop'. That is ultimately why conviction rates are so low.

I think we'd end up with a lot of 'not proven' verdicts which leaves both parties still in limbo. It wouldn't be enough for the victim, and it wouldn't be enough for the accused (unless he was guilty, in which case, he'd be relieved).

@mustbemad17
The victim in this case is dead. As a family we have to witness the accused walking about laughing, living his life. Before the trial I thought prison was an easy option for him and I couldn't have cared less what happened to him. Now 2years later I hate visiting my home town in case I see him.

the 'in the public interest to procecute' bug me immensly. can't quite articulate why...

The local press may not care, but friends / family / work do.

And they will find out regardless of anonymity. Anonymity just relates to the press. You are pretty unlikely to be able to keep a rape charge secret from friends, work or family for very long. What people complain about when they talk about lives being ruined is the police investigation itself. E.g. Liam Allan talks about living in fear for two years, but I cannot find any local news reports from the time. What he is talking about is the investigation itself which no doubt spread to friends etc but anonymity will never stop people gossiping.

Surely something like child abuse would be far far more damaging.
Yes, being accused of that would probably be far worse. And still, I would argue anonymity until guilt is proven.
It's easy to paint the picture of a guilty paedophile being 'protected' by not being named, but at the same time, teachers get accused of abuse by pupils, and often it's an unfounded accusation.

Once the evidence is presented and someone's found guilty, by all means, name and shame them. But until then, I'm simply not comfortable with the naming.

Parkhead i'm really sorry to hear that. I know what seeing that person does to you, and i understand the anger & frustration that bubbles. I can fully appreciate why some victims or their families retaliate tbh

Perhaps surprisingly, I am with TheBrilliant re naming. Which actually does surprise me sometimes!!

What I don't understand is that we have 85,000 rapes every year and comparatively just a handful of false claims, and the conclusion someone reaches from that is that men need more protection.