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?

I was on the jury of a rape trial. We didn't think the victim was lying, but there wasn't enough evidence to convince everyone on the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. We returned a not guilty verdict. It doesn't mean he was innocent.

I am not sure what 'global truth' is referring to.
However, a key factor in determining rape is if the accused reasonably believed that consent had been given. This is such a tricky area, but here is one example of the complexities:

1. Man A forces a woman into having sex with other men (for his own gratification, or prostitution)
2. The woman clearly does not consent to this, but feels 'forced' to comply.
3. Man B who is unaware of this coercion has sex with the woman.

The woman could reasonably believe that Man B raped her.
Man B could reasonably believe he has not raped her as he believed it was consenting.

A jury would probably be entirely in agreement that the woman had not consented (she was forced), but then it would be a matter of determining if man B knew of the situation or not. If he did know, it's rape, if he didn't know, it's not rape.

It is not always enough to say 'No' either (although usually it is). In some cases where roleplay has been involved and 'no' was part of the roleplay, things get very tricky again.

It also gets very tricky if in the middle of sex, a woman changes her mind and withdraws consent. At this point, the man must stop immediately. A woman might say 'he took 5 seconds too long, therefore it's rape' and the man might argue 'I withdrew as soon as I could as she was on top on me'.

I was on the jury of a rape trial. We didn't think the victim was lying, but there wasn't enough evidence to convince everyone on the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. We returned a not guilty verdict. It doesn't mean he was innocent

It does.
He is innocent unless proven guilty. His guilt could not be proven, ergo he's innocent in the eyes of the law.

However, and here is what I think you're alluding to. Sometimes, guilty people get off. They are deemed in the eyes of the law to be innocent, but in fact, they did it.

Likewise, some who've been found guilty didn't do it.

I'm disgusted that somebody thinks a victim of rape should be named if their trial returns a noy guilty against their rapist. WTAF?!

'm disgusted that somebody thinks a victim of rape should be named if their trial returns a noy guilty against their rapist

Despite not guilty, you'd still deem them a rapist?
There is a clear inequity in the law when one side is named and the other is not. It's fraught with difficulties and there are good arguments for protecting the identity of both, and for revealing the identities, but it's a much harder argument for naming only one side.

There ARE some arguments for naming the man only, but they are becoming increasingly difficult to defend, especially in light of recent convictions that have been overturned due to new evidence coming to light that painted a very different picture to those presented in court.

Haven't read the full thread, but it stands to reason that just because someone is found not guilty it doesn't mean they definitely aren't guilty (in reality), let alone that the complainant is lying.

I have sat through a few rape trials and they were fucking depressing. In two that spring to mind, the women were so brave and had been through hell and the defendants said 'oh she consented' and were found not guilty.

In short, YANBU.

mustbernard I would only support the accuser being named if it was PROVEN that they were lying. But that is rare. Sometimes it is mistaken identity, or in child cases, the child may have been coached (more like bullied IMO) into claiming they had been abused (eg McMartin, Orkneys and Cleveland cases). And many times could well be lack of evidence. False accusers should not be named and shamed unless they lied deliberately.

There ARE some arguments for naming the man only, but they are becoming increasingly difficult to defend, especially in light of recent convictions that have been overturned due to new evidence coming to light that painted a very different picture to those presented in court.

But genuinely what are the reasons for naming the victim AFTER the trial? What purpose does that serve other than public humiliation? How does it help serve justice?

Additionally, I presume if there are no reasons for naming the defendant for rape then there are no reasons for naming ANY defendants, including for drink driving, assault, murder, theft etc. If that's not your belief, then what is it about rape allegations that make it so important that someone's anonymity is preserved. Do you suggest similar for those accused of downloading child abuse images for example? Or do you not feel able to defend suspects of those crimes to the same degree?

People still call the late Michael Jackson a paedophile. But AFAIK his alleged victim retracted his statemement. So he may well have been innocent. Why else would the victim retract his statement long after growing up? Scared child victims retract due to fear. Or coercion to do so. But a grown man retracting after all these years? Hmmm

TheBrilliant as far as i'm concerned - as much as i hate it - if someone is found not guilty they shouldn't be named as being a rapist/a thief etc. Neither should a victim be named if the verdict is not guilty.

With regards to the age of consent,
The incest charge was wrapped in a neat bow of
"Sexual intercourse with a child family member" I was told that if I had been under 13 it would be rape, but over 13 is A. Almost never prosecuted unless it is rape or coercion and B. Statutory rape is not a charge that exists within UK law so as such - despite the age of consent, it can be difficult to obtain a standalone charge of anything if the sex is consensual (as it was deemed to be in this case). So the only thing they could actually have him on was incest. If it hadn't been incestuous in the eye of the law he likely would've escaped any charge at all.

I would only support the accuser being named if it was PROVEN that they were lying.

That literally already happens. If there is clear evidence that a woman maliciously lied about being raped, the CPS will prosecute for perverting the course of justice and she will be named and tried in open court.

Emotional then surely that person would be criminally convicted of perjury? If not, then what good is naming them after the fact? Except to stir up the crazies that like to viciously target people just because

Xpost with Susan, sorry

mustbemad Maybe it would help clear the accused man's reputation. mud tends to stick.

Mustbe Some people still think the accused are guilty even after beign declared not guilty even when someone has blatantly lied. People still say "no smoke without fire" regarding Michael Jackson

If I had been the inspector who heard Nick whatever his name is (man who accused Cliff R), I would have laughed at his story and told him to stop wasting my time. the man was a known liar and als omentally unsound.

someone with history of lying and mental instability should only be allowed to be a witness if their story adds up

Additionally, I presume if there are no reasons for naming the defendant for rape then there are no reasons for naming ANY defendants, including for drink driving, assault, murder, theft etc. If that's not your belief, then what is it about rape allegations that make it so important that someone's anonymity is preserved. Do you suggest similar for those accused of downloading child abuse images for example? Or do you not feel able to defend suspects of those crimes to the same degree?

I don't believe I've defending anything. I've stated facts - that there ARE currently reasons why the defendant is named. The reason is that by naming him, other potential victims might come forward. That's not my justiication, it's not my view, it's the commonly cited rationale for naming. I am presenting that rationale, not supporting it.

If you are asking for my own personal view, I would be in favour of anonymity for both sides. If the woman is later found to have lied in court, then she should forfeit her anonymity (as should the man if he's found to have lied). A not guilty verdict does not mean she's lied, and she'd keep her anonymity.

The problem with keeping anonymity is that someone like Jimmy Savile may have kept more crimes hidden, but I would still be in favour of anonymity. If, after one case goes against him, he is named - then a flurry of other victims come forward, then fine - he can go to court again to face the rest of his crimes and have his sentence increased accordingly.

I don't know if anybody saw the reports on the Ireland rugby players trial last week. The defence brought out her underwear and top to show to the jury, a black thong and sequinned top. The clear meaning was a woman who was wearing those things must have been looking for sex.

There's something really wrong with the evidence system. On the one hand we have irrelevant things like what she was wearing or her sexual history (Ched Evans) being brought up. On the other we have crucial evidence like text messages being suppressed. The whole thing is a damn mess.

Been reading the thread with interest; I thought the thing of a defence brief "trashing a witness's reputation in court" was supposed to have ended, but clearly I was wrong

Can I ask though, is it possible for an alleged victim to object to such questions ... to effectively appeal to the judge over their relevance and ask for a direction that they don't need to answer?

But unless you can 100% guarantee that the accusor is lying, you're destroying that person's life. If that guarantee can be met then the CPS have the option to file charges...if they don't it suggests they can't prove it. Which then begs the question if you can't call an alleged rapist a rapist after a not guilty, why should you then call the accusor a liar if nobody can prove it?

YANBU.
I heard that for a case to even make it to court they have to have sufficient enough evidence which imho if they have sufficient evidence 9/10 times the person accused probably did it.
Just because a jury didn't find them guilty doesn't mean they are actually innocent.
I know there's times where they actually are innocent but thats not always the case.

Before anyone says I am being disabilist, I have been in hospital for mental health reasons, I know what mental illness is like. The issue is that this accuser had never been honest and was not a reliable witness yet the accused person has had to suffer an ongoing ordeal.