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?

Beko I am sorry you went through that. The law is an ass at times.

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.

Slightly misleading that. She does not forfeit her anonymity by default. Her identity is only revealed by way of a prosecution, which isn't quite the same.

And then we are still left with the grey area of when the woman didn't lie, but arguably misled, or didn't tell the whole story. Subsequent discovery of other key facts might result in a conviction being quashed, but still doesn't mean she lied. What then?

It's messy to say the least.

People still say "no smoke without fire" regarding Michael Jackson

If you read about the case, there are good reasons for that. Regardless of whether he paid his victims off.

It is dangerous to take a not guilty verdict as absolute proof of innocence. In the case of the father of Ellie Butler, he was acquitted on a technicality of assaulting Ellie and breaking her arm. The judge in the children proceedings went to great lengths to emphasise that this meant that he was definitely 100% innocent and that there should be no further restrictions on him being able to see his daughter and she banned the local authority from further involvement. 6 months later, Ellie was dead because he murdered her. He was of course guilty all along (despite the verdict) and the family court should have erred on the side of caution.

I believe Ian Huntley was also acquitted of rape.

I’ve sat through about thirty rape trials during the past 16 years. I’m a reporter, so have no professional interest in either a guilty or not guilty verdict.

I’d say that about one third of the trials have had guilty verdicts. The other two thirds have been not guilty. And in my opinion, having sat through all the evidence and watching the victims give their accounts, I’d say there was only one of those cases where it was quite clear that the victim was lying. The remainder were simply not proven to the the threshold that a guilty verdict requires.

People who say that defendants shouldn’t be named or victims should be charged with perverting the course of justice after a NG verdict have usually never sat through a rape trial. To stand up in a witness box in front of all those people and describe something that didn’t happen, without your story being picked apart by the incredibly clever defence barristers, is nigh on impossible.

I think many not guilty verdicts are more not proven. Only the people concerned know the truth.
The clothes a woman wears should be irrelevant.
If my son was accused of rape and said he didn't do it I'd believe him and I'd want there to be good evidence he did it for him to be convicted and branded a rapist though. If my daughter said she'd been raped I'd support her in any case she chose to bring against the man she said raped her though and would believe her.

Slightly misleading that. She does not forfeit her anonymity by default. Her identity is only revealed by way of a prosecution, which isn't quite the same.

No, it is correct because I was responding to a pp who said the name should only be revealed if there is proof that the woman lied. If there is proof that she lied, it will surely be in the public interest to prosecute. You can only find out if she definitely lied by bringing a prosecution. If you reveal identity by default, that has nothing to do with whether she actually lied, which is what the pp was discussing.

I still don't think anyone has answered the question as to what the purpose or public interest is in revealing the victim's name after the trial other than to publicly shame her (and of course put women off even further of reporting rape).

Having had a bit of inside knowledge of a case that collapsed and read the stories the papers printed about it, I would be very cautious about believing anything they have to say. They'll often have got their info from the defence who will have been prepared to destroy the complainant. It's sickening really.

There are also plenty who seem to think any withdrawal of the complaint, the CPS not taking it to court or a verdict of not guilty means the alleged victim should be taken to court. I think if that happened they'd be disappointed. In many cases, even where the man was found not guilty the woman could well be found to be not guilty as well - beyond reasonable doubt goes both ways. It's also possible for the man not to have broken the law but for the woman to have genuinely felt she was raped.

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.

And this is precisely why you should never be on a jury.
You HAVE to treat both parties equally and not make assumptions like this. Making this assumption imposes a huge bias against the man. I can understand how that happens, but it doesn't make it right. It's no more right that judging a woman on how she's dressed.
This is why so many men object to the naming, because people still assume 'he probably did it, but they couldn't prove it'. It's such a dangerous assumption.

@TheBrilliantMistake
I get that, I'm saying something I read though and if the evidence is overwhelmingly pointing towards the person being guilty then its more than likely they did it.
Who would want to go through all that stress of having to go to court and tell detailed accounts of the event (and go through medical examinations) to be lying the whole time .
I know people do, and I'm not assuming every man that stands trial is indeed guilty. I'm just saying statistically the chances are the accuser isn't lying.
If I was on a jury for something like this I'd obviously consider the evidence that was presented and that only. I'm not thick. Maybe my post came out wrong

This is why so many men object to the naming, because people still assume 'he probably did it, but they couldn't prove it'. It's such a dangerous assumption.

To be honest, for the majority of men, the naming thing makes little difference. There are hundreds of rape trials ongoing as we speak and the local press is largely uninterested unless the defendant is famous or it has particularly interesting features. It is a myth that men who are accused have their name raked over the coals before trial. Usually very little to nothing is written.

What they do object to are being arrested, maybe in front of people they know, local gossip, social media, bail conditions that may force them out of their jobs etc. This has bugger all to do with anonymity. It would still happen even if the press weren't allowed to write about it. Therefore, it would make a difference to a small number of men such as footballers or soap stars who will have stories written about them.

I still don't think anyone has answered the question as to what the purpose or public interest is in revealing the victim's name after the trial other than to publicly shame her (and of course put women off even further of reporting rape).

Because the man has suffered this fate under the premise of possibly drawing attention to his name so that other victims might come forward.
By the same reckoning, naming the woman might reveal others who've been threatened with the accusation.

If other women say 'he used similar techniques with me, and raped me', then other men could say 'she threatened me with accusing me of rape because I'd ended the relationship' etc.

To be honest, for the majority of men, the naming thing makes little difference.

Really?
I am gobsmacked at that statement.
It usually ends careers, ruins existing relationships and can cause untold issues with future relationships.

I would be completely unable to sit as a member of the jury in a rape trial. And I would be honest & upfront about that if I was pulled to sit on one. I've been a victim three times, only one of those were reported & it was fucking hell on earth. And i retracted...which I guess means to some i was lying? The truth is even sitting in a police station telling somebody what has happened is soul destroying.

I'm assuming that if i was called up for a rape trial i would be able to say that i would struggle to be impartial based on my life experiences. If not, then that would highlight another flaw in the system

Therefore, it would make a difference to a small number of men such as footballers or soap stars who will have stories written about them

They are just as worthy of anonymity regardless of their fame and fortune. We can't just start saying 'it's only a small number so it doesn't matter as much.'

I don't agree with even celebs being named pre-trial. I think so much nowadays is trial by media or trial by public, & i'm sorry but every person has the potential to be influenced by what they read & hear outside the court room. If you are sitting on a jury for Rolf Harris, accused of raping one person, but outside of court you hear suggestions that four other women have come forward, there is potential for influence. Naming afterwards if found guilty, fine. I get that sometimes naming an alleged rapist can draw other victims out, but it can also completely sway a trial that has nothing to do with the new accusors

mustbemad17, I think you'd be doing precisely the right thing in declaring that. If you know you're biased, then you'd rightly stand aside.

Retracting should never be seen as an admission of lying. There are so many reasons why people feel they can't go through with a trial. Many more wouldn't even report the rape for myriad reasons.

It usually ends careers, ruins existing relationships and can cause untold issues with future relationships.

I think what Susan is trying to say is that, contrary to popular belief, the majority of alleged rapists are not actually named. So an anonymity law wouldn't actually make much of a difference.

Generally if a non famous man is named prior to being found guilty it's because there is an unusual element to the case and/or the police/CPS have reason to believe there are more victims and they need them to come forward in order to help secure a conviction.

Really? I am gobsmacked at that statement. It usually ends careers, ruins existing relationships and can cause untold issues with future relationships.

Not because of press reports. Anonymity would not prevent the police from conducting their investigation, speaking to witnesses, including existing partners, and setting bail conditions. It would not stop people having an obligation to disclose a charge to their employers etc. None of this would come to an end because of restriction on press reports.

I don't know if anybody has any stats on how many are named?
I suspect it's more a case of most don't make national headlines, but they may well make the local paper.
It's hard to say without empirical evidence (and I'm not sure it exists).

Because the man has suffered this fate under the premise of possibly drawing attention to his name so that other victims might come forward.
By the same reckoning, naming the woman might reveal others who've been threatened with the accusation.

If other women say 'he used similar techniques with me, and raped me', then other men could say 'she threatened me with accusing me of rape because I'd ended the relationship' etc.

Really? Because it's so common that rape-accusers go round threatening to make false reports? Surely you would only need that information if you were going to mount a prosecution for perverting the course of justice? In that case, the woman would be named anyway. What is the justification for naming the woman as a matter of routine? You honestly think a load of men will come out of the woodwork saying 'wow yeah, she threatened to frame me for rape too'?

Of course not! It just means the jury didn't feel confident enough to convict. The victim isn't on trial, to prove she was lying you would need a separate court case where she is on trial and is found guilty.

I don't know if anybody has any stats on how many are named?
I suspect it's more a case of most don't make national headlines, but they may well make the local paper

I can assure you it is fairly rare unless it's a slow news day or it's a case with aggravating features, e.g. someone attacking women out walking. Not date rape allegations. I worked with a guy charged with rape. It was not in any papers pre or post-trial (he was acquitted). The reason he lost his job is because his bail conditions prevented him from going within the boundary of the M25 and he was bailed to his dad's house. He couldn't therefore come to work. His employment contract also required him to disclose to his employer if he had been charged with a criminal offence. Anonymity would have made no difference whatsoever.

It usually ends careers, ruins existing relationships and can cause untold issues with future relationships.

No it doesn't! Really annoys me when people say this because it's mostly not even true. Mike tyson is a convicted rapist, hasn't hurt him has it? There are so many men in the public eye who have been accused or convicted or rape/sexual abuse, or domestic abuse and are still doing just fine.

In Scots Law there is a three verdict legal system. Guilty. Not guilty. And unproven.

Unproven can mean for the victim 'we believe you but we are unable to prove it'.

Maybe this is of little comfort.....?

Really? Because it's so common that rape-accusers go round threatening to make false reports? Surely you would only need that information if you were going to mount a prosecution for perverting the course of justice? In that case, the woman would be named anyway. What is the justification for naming the woman as a matter of routine? You honestly think a load of men will come out of the woodwork saying 'wow yeah, she threatened to frame me for rape too'?

Because you can't start making up the rules based on perceived probability. Of course we know that men commit the overwhelming majority of sexual offences, but we can't start assuming it's every case, or start saying 'that happens so infrequently, we'll not bother considering it'.

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