should men accussed of rape be afforded anonymity?

discuss.

i am intentionally not putting my opinion or the different sides of the argument as i see them out there yet.

what about the argument that as rape is an under reported crime, by naming suspected rapists you could draw past victims out and in to making a complaint?

Making the system more complainent friendly would be far more effective in drawing out past victims,

I personaly would like to see a world where victims of rape did not see the need to be anonymous,where the shame was placed where it belonged,on the rapist

However as this seems a far off dream ,yes anonymity for both,given that many rapes are not "stranger rapes " it may even increase reporting levels

Emotive topic but an interesting one.

Yes I think men accused of rape should be given anonymity until proven guilty - innocent until proved otherwise etc and mud sticks regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I personally know a man who at the age of 18 was accused and found guilty of rape. His name was released at his arrest which had a snowball effect on his family who were forced to move from their home and his younger brother had to leave college. He has always contested his innocence and knowing the man personally, I believe him. There are a lot of things I won't disclose about the trial itself as an appeal is pending.

I'm in no way condoning or trying to protect those who ARE guilty of rape or any sexual offense but since seeing the effect on a man wrongfully convicted, and his family, I really can't decide what is right for everyone and that includes the victim

I've moved the thread into this forum as I believe there are some people that purposely look in here for discussions

YES....easy, ask me another

Far too many false accusations being made for them to name anyone accused of rape. Not only does the "no smoke without fire" brigade tend to ruin people's lifes, there are also repercussions that could effect genuine cases. Those who falsley cry rape aremaking it harder for those who really have been subjected to this horrible crime, but if those accused were named it would be a thousand times worse.

Not everything in life is that straightforward, think outside the box.

Both parties should be named.

Ben, I guess there are any number of cases where the publicity has led to others coming forward that makes conviction more of a certainty, given the difficulty of securing convictions in a one-on-one he said, she said kind of case.

However, the naming of men accused is I think a hangover from the days when less than 30% of cases coming to court actually ended in conviction, and the percentage of accusations that actually came to trial was lower still, and naming them was I think a crude way of redressing that situation, what with the no smoke without fire thing. If we can't get you in court, we'll get you in the court of public opinion anyways, and that's how we'll protect other women from you seems to be the idea behind it. These days, conviction rates in cases that come to trial run at something like 50-60%, so I'm not sure it's quite so justifiable. It seems entirely wrong that only one side should enjoy the protection of anonymity.

N x x x

There will never be anonymity for suspects. The police rely on that publicity to prompt persons who may have been raped in the past to come forward. In any case, it is a useless gesture, as is the anonymity for persons raped. Everyone knows anyway....it is just the people not local to the event, or concerned in the event, that do not know.
The person whose arrest prompted this thread will never know normality again. Any search of his new name will throw the events out (the inevitability of the new name and the old name being linked) and any crb check also.
There is no verdict of innocent in this country: Just "got away with it".
Truly a sad indictment of justice.
I cannot remember whether the [malicious] accuser had the right of anonymity removed by the court....hopefully she did....