Rape is a horrible, horrible crime that can ruin a woman's life for ever and if a man is found guilty beyond any doubt then they should throw away the keys, chop his balls off to boot or just save us taxpayers a whole pile of money and lock him up in the general population i.e. not segregated of a nice tough prison. They won't last long in there.
that man is found guilty then he should IMO also be offered the full anonymity that the accuser receives. How many cases have we seen where a girl has willingly slept with a guy and then basically regretted it in the morning, or her boyfriend has found out, so she cries rape! Or other instances where the accuser is just a vindictive bitch who wants to ruin someone's life. As has been said, mud sticks and it doesn't matter if you're accused but found innocent there are plenty of people who will still see them as guilty but just got away with it, as opposed to actually considering that they were innocent.
There have been cases where the accusations by the girl have been so obviously false and thrown out very quickly in court (why the CPS decided it should have gone to court is another matter though!) but still that poor sod has been named publicly. At least in some, not many, cases of obviously false allegations the girl has been prosecuted for it and the guy fortunately has not had his name smeared or life ruined.
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?
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.
I can't see the reasoning behind that TBH. If a rapist is convicted and then named (as he should be) then that will bring other people forward if they had also suffered at that person's hands. That will bring further trials and if found guilty of the other rapes make sure that the guy won't be getting out for a very long time.
However, if a guy is on trial for Rape A and named beforehand as in the current system then that will make not one iota of difference to the chance of conviction of that trial as the prosecution simply aren't allowed to bring into court the fact that other people have come forward accusing him of rape - it's simply not allowed. Those other cases would need to be tried on a separate basis so there's simply no reason therefore for the argument of naming the accuser when first accused. Both should be given anonymity until any verdict. If the guy is innocent then he shouldn't be named but if the accuser has blatantly made up the accusation then IMO she should be named,and she would be anyway if the Police then took action against her or the judge found her in contempt.