Should Men be named if accused of Rape or any other Indecent Offences, untill found guilty or not guilty?

Was going to put this couple of week ago, but forgot. Women can remain anonymous when making an accusation, but the Male is named Before it goes to court. I personally thinks its wrong, both parties shoudl remain anonymous, till the court as made its judgement 1 way or another. Only a couple of weeks ago, A mans reptuation is in ruins after a female accused him of rape, (not the 1st time she as done this, but still law says she as to remain nameless.) This morning on News, Bloke is freed from Prison after its found he was not guilty of a sexual crime he never committed, but his life is now in tatters. I know these are henious Crimes, but I feel the Males that are accused should remain namless, not only for them but for their families to. What as happened to the saying "Innocent untill Proven Guilty." what do others think ?

Related posts:

  1. How far can government claim responsibility for, or be accused of causing, unemployment figures?
  2. If someone has been arrested for driving offences 4 previous times what is the likelyhood of going to prison the 5th time for no insurance or licence?
  3. My sister found out that she apparently has a criminal record although she has never been convicted of any crime and this is an error in the system, She contacted the criminal records people who told her she would have to contact the local police, none of
  4. What offences could a tourist be deported from your country for? How many tourists are deported each year? more
  5. Should any current university degree subject be changed to diplomas or other profession-based awards?
9 Responses to “Should Men be named if accused of Rape or any other Indecent Offences, untill found guilty or not guilty?”

  1. TallScotsGuy - April 14th, 2009

    Both should remain anonymous until the verdict….it's the only fair way, simply because of the "no smoke without fire" analogy that most people (tabloids) seem to live by.

    One person argued that if the man is named the woman should also be named, but I think this is opening another can of worms as the woman could be targetted by male sexual predators.

    If they think they will get away with it by arguing that she's cried wolf before so she must be doing it now.

    Anonimity for both is the fairest way…and in thse days of Human Rights I'm very surprised that they've missed this one…probably because many of the Human Rights lawyers are female or gay, therefore advocating the analogy that all men are B*****ds and they deserve it!

  2. Hiheels - April 14th, 2009

    No they shouldn't be named – what happened to innocent until proven guilty?

  3. rasputin1309 - April 14th, 2009

    The rules should be the same for both accused and accuser

  4. Candy.DeRun - April 15th, 2009

    I agree with all the above. A friend experinced this situation, it was the worst six months of his life, before his accuser broke down in court and admitted it was an act of spite. She was never prosecuted!

  5. loopyg4eva - April 15th, 2009

    Maybe the regulations on how such cases are heard could be changed. Think about it – a jury is not allowed to discuss any details of a trial it deliberates on, a judge or magistrate can order that there be no press coverage on specific cases, and children remain anonymous in any case because they're under-age.

    Maybe remoulding that slightly, to anonymity within the court setting and a press blackout until proven guilty is the way forward.

    And of course the CPS should also press charges for wasting police time, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice etc, for those who 'make it up' – these can carry quite severe penalties, but are seldom used as they should be.

  6. tarapalmer1974 - April 15th, 2009

    I agree both should remain nameless but sadly in this country your guilty untill proven innocent.

  7. jordy8511 - April 15th, 2009

    I totaly agree, they should not be named.
    A couple of months ago a friend of mine met a girl he knew at a party who has a bit of a reputation and slept with her.
    My friend told his mates he was with her and it got back to the girls uncle.
    When her uncle asked her she told him that he had drugged her them raped her.
    The girls uncle got a load of men to look for my friend so they could beat him up, so my friend went to the police and explained whta happened, they then arrested him and went to see the girl who made a statment.
    He then was banned from were he lived from the police and his name was plasterd all over the paper.
    In the end the police found out the girl was lying as a blood test they did on her to see if she had been spiked came back as negative and her story kept changing.

    But the damage was already done.

  8. bondgirlonline - April 15th, 2009

    No, they should not be named until proven guilty. It makes no sense to me that they are. Falsely accusing a man of rape is abhorrant. Reputation is easily torn to shreds, even if subsequently the accused is cleared.

  9. Interpolhead - April 15th, 2009

    No they certainly should not name the male before proven guilty. Like everyone seems to have already said, a person's reputation is often everything, the 'immortal part of myself'.

    Having said that though, changing the law wouldn't have helped the man in the case you mentioned. Yes he was innocent and his life is in tatters, but he WAS found guilty by the courts and so would have been named even if we did have a law which protected the anonymity of innocent-until-proven-guilty males.

    This might suggest a higher punishment is needed for those who falsely acuse men of rape, yet it is also important to remember that cases like the one you mentioned are very rare. A tiny percentage of rapes are reported at all and an even smaller proportion actually lead to charges and sentencing.

Leave a Response