Is It Now Time That The Accuser In These Cases Was Also Publicly Named And Shown?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4909300/Former-student-accused-rape-female-friend-cleared.html

This young chap has gone through three years and two court cases only to be finely cleared of rape, whereas the accuser remains unidentified and free to carry on with her life with no 'there's no smoke without fire' comments made against her.

[jim360]

It's nice to see The Daily Mail concerned with protecting the privacy of someone by plastering his face all over their article.

[jim360]

Also, why would you want to name the woman in the case? This man's life has been ruined by an unprovable accusation, and I hope it doesn't follow him around (although the media have presumably gone some way to ensuring that it does). I'm not sure what's gained by doing the same to the woman -- who, it must be noted, hasn't definitely or deliberately *lied*.

[ummmm]

Rape is hard to prove.

[jackthehat]

No, it's not
But the newspapers will ensure that his name remains available through 'Search Engines' in perpetuity......and that is very unfair.

[jim360]

For like half a second jth I thought your first line was replying to ummmm :(

[cassa333]

I know that men are capable of getting it up at the drop of a hat but if he was so drunk he didn't know what happen surely he would have been incapable of well anything really?

When does brewers droop come in?

[trt]

It must be horrible to be raped, and at the same time, accused. if innocent.

Would it be fair, to either name both party's at the beginning of the trial, or keep both undisclosed?

Its a hard one.

[whiskeryron]

I was under the impression that women & men are equal so if the guy in question has been proved to be innocent, name the female, simples.

[zebo]

Either both should be named or neither.

[jackthehat]

I think, as time goes on, I am coming round to the opinion that *neither* should be named.

[pixie374]

Neither should be disclosed before a conviction imo. Aog, I don't know how many times this needs explaining... not enough proof to convict is not the same as proving he didn't do it. He may or may not have done. There is no proof she has lied, so that would mean another trial- for her.

[Gromit]

And what would naming the woman achieve?

He didn't know if they had sex, and she is adamant that she didn't consent.

Both were foolish, and now they can get on with the rest of their lives.

[jim360]

But the principle here is legal, not some sort of warped version of gender equality. You name the accused, if they are legally of age, because doing so might make it easier to gather the necessary evidence against them -- eg because they were a serial offender, and making others aware of the offence they are being accused of might encourage other potential victims to come forward. You don't name the accuser because why exactly would you? If the accused isn't found guilty then it doesn't automatically mean that the woman was lying, and their's no reason to put her name out there. None whatsoever. I can't even understand why you would argue that. To be sure, you can dispute the idea that the man should be named, as (in this case) even being found innocent doesn't mean the story will go away.

Women who have been found guilty of lying, though, deserve to be, and have been, named. But then that's because it was their turn to be the defendant, and the same first principle applies.

[cassa333]

If men can be named to ' allow other victims' to come forward then women who falsely accuse should be named to do the same.

Wasn't there that woman rescently who had accused 17 men of rape and some of gang rape?

[ummmm]

Yes, Cassa, and she was named.

[ToraToraTora]

as I've said a thousand times, name both or neither I don't mind which.

[Spicerack]

ummmm/// Yes, Cassa, and she was named.///

After the trial, obviously.

[jackthehat]

She was named before, during and after the trial.....and quite rightly, too.

[ummmm]

TTT...with rape being hard to prove do you not think naming the accuser would deter them from reporting it?

[sp1814]

Hey women...if you are raped, and the case goes to court but your attacker is found not guilty, then you will be publicly named.

The great thing about this is that the bloke you accused will have a degree of sympathy afforded to him, whilst we the public will be able to point at you and call you a liar and fantasist.

Even better - it means that even fewer women will report rape and sexual assault.

Great news all round!!!