To be angry about the Oritse Williams rape case?

[prettyinpink23x]

He's been found not guilty today by a Jury.

So many people on twitter are saying 'name and shame the woman, she's lied' 'she deserves a prison sentence'. This is infuriating! Do these people not realise that 'not guilty' does not equate with innocent and it doesn't mean she's lied?

Is it unreasonable for me to be angry about this?

So what does it take for someone to prove innocence? What else is there apart from a not guilty verdict?

Our entire criminal legal system is based on the idea that you can't prove innocence. You can say someone is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In the case of rape trials, chances are the vast majority of accused are, in fact, rapists. Just not convicted ones.

In the court of public opinion you can be 'proved innocent' of rape merely by being a popular man.

@Nesssie I agree but as I've said due to my past experiences with the court system unfortunately that's how I see him. I have also said that he shouldn't have been named.

@prettyinpink23x - I do agree that she shouldn't now be named unless there is clear evidence that she has lied. Although given the high profile of her alleged rapist, if she had been found lying, I am sure that would have made the news by now.

@Nesssie Similarly he could be innocent or he could be a rapist who has now got away with causing extreme trauma in a woman's life for the rest of her life. The point is is that we won't know but what we don't need is people blaming the woman and naming and shaming her.

Currently in the U.K., only 1.7% of rape cases are prosecuted. Not convicted, but prosecuted at all.

How many innocent men do you think are making it through CPS decision making to get to court? Not saying it’s impossible but it can’t be many.

NOT unreasonable at all OP, it fucking boils my blood! Insufficient evidence does not mean a person is innocent of a crime, just that you cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that a crime has been committed. Ugh, I absolutely dispair sometimes at this type of thinking.

@Starlive23 It boils my blood too! I have been furious but I guess you just have to let people be that ignorant.

“The court had heard that two women had gone back to the hotel room Williams had been sharing with Nagadhana, 32, and had cuddled on the bed. Williams had then tried to have sex with one of the women, who hotel staff described as looking “spaced out and zombified”.

Sounds legit.

How many innocent men do you think are making it through CPS decision making to get to court?

^^ this. I don't think people can have a clue of how difficult it is to get to the stage where you are actually even at court, in cases like this. Yet here we are, poor man, it's so sad, career ruined. I think not.

The sad reality with rape when it comes to the justice system is that it invariably comes down to one person's word against the other. As crimes go, it's pretty much unique in that regard.
Whilst I struggle to rationalize any move away from the fundamental principle of presumption of innocence, the reality is far too many rapes go unpunished so something needs to change. I don't have the answers but naming and shaming victims in failed prosecutions would be absolutely a step in the wrong direction. A failure to prove guilt does not equal innocence nor does it mean the allegations were fabricated, malicious or vexatious. Rape victims have enough obstacles to overcome in their pursuit of justice without also having to worry about being subjected to a witch hunt if the prosecution can't win the case.

She shouldn't be named, as sadly not guilty doesn't necessarily mean innocent. People accused of rape shouldn't be named unless found guilty either though.

This culture of men and women getting completely drunk and going to hotel rooms often with people they hardly know etc isn't good though. Being drunk, very few people being present etc means that if a woman is raped, it's difficult to prove which is obviously dreadful. As a man I would also want to protect myself from false accusations which may be made by putting myself in that situation.

TooTrueToBeGood I agree. I think its the 'beyond reasonable doubt' bit that needs to change. A jury could be (and this has happened before) sure that the guy has done it but because there is a slight doubt they therefore cannot say that he is guilty.

I'd favour a system with three specially trained judges in rape and sexual assault cases, rather than a jury. And child sexual assault as well.

I guess you just have to let people be that ignorant. I hope that's not at me.

I don't think she should be named but I don't think he should have been named either. Either none or both need to be named imo.

MrsTerryPratchett I've always found it odd that in such serious cases, the jury is made up of members of the public. I would hate for my waste of space neighbour to be part of such an important decision.

@Nesssie No of course not! I was referring to the people on twitter and the daily mail comments.

Either none or both need to be named imo

Many cases have been won based on the fact that other victims come forward once the accused is named.

Do you not realise that he may actually be innocent ??

The jurors have a huge decision. In my case, the guy had actually raped a woman before and then he was found not guilty by a split jury. He then raped me a couple of months after he had been in court for her. So inadvertently that Jury (obviously they are not to blame) let that man go and he then caused great harm to me. Now he is walking free and nobody is aware of the type of guy he is. That is scary to me! I fear for women.

@Pk37 Of course he could be. I am making the larger point about people's criticism and perception of the victim and how they are being unfair.

Do you not realise that he may actually be innocent ??

It's possible but unlikely. Micheal Jackson was never convicted but he wouldn't be babysitting my child.

In rape cases, nobody should be named until the verdict is passed. That there are many cases of false rape accusations is beyond a doubt, but there are many guilty rapists walking the streets through lack of evidence, good defence lawyers and possibly biased jurors.

I'd favour a system with three specially trained judges in rape and sexual assault cases, rather than a jury. And child sexual assault as well.

Something needs to be done. We're at the stage where rape is tacitly accepted as being a crime that the perpetrator will very rarely be punished for.

If you want to commit rape as a man all you would have to do is ensure the girl is drunk so has a limited memory and do it in a private setting so theres no hard evidence. That is how easy it has become for a rapist to do something like that it is ridiculous.

I don’t see how it would work to offer confidentiality to accused / charged rapists when other criminals don’t get that. The reason they don’t get that (unless there are mitigating circumstances usually related to children/ vulnerabilities) is because the justice system in this country is designed to be transparent and open about how it works and who is being put through it and why. Would you really want secret courts? Secret arrests? Why? Would anonymity be worth it to sacrifice accountability and one of the cornerstones of our (imperfect but excellent) justice system?