Publicly naming alleged rapists.

[flobadob]

How can it be fair that as soon a someone is accused of rape they can be named straight away, guilty or not, but the alleged victims get lifelong anonymity?

[Mojo-Jo-Jo]

It's not fair and I think no-one should be named until they are convicted.

[douglas9401]

Plainly, it can't.

[hc4361]

Naming an alleged rapist can bring forward other victims who would otherwise keep quiet. Rape is an horrendous act which can be very difficult to prove, the police investigation can be as invasive as the offence and if it gets to trial is traumatic. Many victims fear they won't be believed.

Victims of rape are given anonymity because the fact they have been raped can have long lasting consequences in their personal lives.

Don't forget that this applies equally to all rape victims, whether they be male or female; and alleged rapists of either sex.

[ummmm]

I don't think they get named as soon as they are arrested. After they are charged maybe. It also might encourage other victims to come forward. A high percentage of rape victims do not come forward, for various reasons, and seeing that their attacker has raped before/after might make her more confident that she'll be believed.

[baza]

hc whilst I agree in the most part there have been instances of false allegations.

[Baldric]

I would have thought being named as a rapist could have long lasting consequences on your life as well, especially if you were later found not guilty.

[ummmm]

Of course, it's a hard call to make.

[Ann]

Baza and Baldric - couldn't agree more, my family knows this from experience.

[hc4361]

There have been instances of false allegations and women have been sentenced to prison for doing so.

When a person makes an allegation of any offence to the police that allegation is recorded. With today's technology it is easy for police all over the country to access that information and if a man or woman is an attention seeker or has any other problem that causes him or her to make false allegations against several people it is easily spotted.

And remember, rape is horrendously difficult to prove. Even with all the evidence possible it can be still a case of one party calling rape, the other stating consensual sex. Just because a person is found innocent in court it doesn't mean the other has been lying.

I really don't know what the 'fair' way is but if police need to name a suspect in the hope of gathering more evidence then it has to be so.

[douglas9401]

Better ten innocent men have their lives ruined than one guilty one goes free kind of thing hc4361?

[ummmm]

I think there might be more 'actual' rapes than there are false accusations.

[hc4361]

Not at all, douglas, and don't forget women are accused of rape, too.

As I said, it's difficult.

[wildwood]

Ludicrous! Even when the Alleged is proven not guilty, the stigma is there and will probably ruin their life.
Naming them before they are found guilty in the hope that other victims may come forward is just beyond the pail!

[naomi24]

This is exactly why I object to names being published in the Jimmy Savile scandal before the real evidence is produced. Mud sticks and can ruin innocent people's lives.

[flobadob]

For people talking about victims coming forward, why nit let the person be found guilty first, then name them. The victims can then come forward.

[naomi24]

I'm not sure I understand you, flob. How would you find a perpetrator unless the victims came forward first to accuse him? You wouldn't know he'd done anything wrong.

[flobadob]

Naomi, I simply mean let the accused be found guilty in court, in the case that is being brought against them. If and when they are found guilty then name them and then other victims can come forward. Rather than naming them straight away and tarnishing their reputation.

[naomi24]

Oh right. In that case I agree entirely.

[Old_Geezer]

I think naming any accused is debatable. That said I'm as curious as the next when I know a well known individual is involved in some accusation.