The news reporting names of those accused of rape/similar, how can it be allowed?

Emlyn_Dewar

Emlyn_Dewar

Emlyn_Dewar

Soldato
Joined
15 Oct 2003
Posts
16,052
Location
Chengdu
BBC said:
Man cleared of raping woman at Lockerbie houseA 23-year-old man has been cleared of raping a young woman.

Andrew Lord, from Dumfries, had been charged with raping the woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, at a house in Lockerbie in October last year.

A jury at the High Court in Glasgow found him not guilty. Mr Lord, a tyre fitter, had always denied the offence.

His defence counsel Susan Burns said: "This has been a tremendous strain for him."

She added that when Mr Lord was charged with rape his previous employer told him not to come back.
Click to expand...

Was just looking through the BBC Scotland news and read this story.
Seemed quite unfair that women can just throw round serious allegations and ruin someones life. Always seems to be the case that it is perfectly alright to name/shame the accused, but the wrongful accuser gets away with it.
Why is the woman not allowed to be named for legal reasons yet the media are allowed to plaster the mans name up for all to see?

I just can't see how it can be allowed? The guy has been proven innocent, but it's probably biitersweet, given that his reputation will be ruined, name tarnished, etc. Meanwhile, the woman is allowed to go back to her carefree life, lying and sleeping around.

[/pointless thread]
 
Didn't the Lib Dems or Coalition put forward a policy that a mans name shouldn't be publicised in rape case until found guilty?

Then it was either retracted or pushed into the long grass iirc
 
You are right,

The solution you ask.

Make it illegal to name anybody until they are convicted/found guilty of the crime they are accused.

Not only does it risk influencing the jury it also undermines the right for privacy by those who are found top be innocent.

Imagine you had a friend, got accused of being a peado, in the papers everywhere - he got found innocent.

Would you let him look after your children now?, if you worked in a school would you give him a job?, if you were a women & in a relationship with him, would you think "what if he got away with it!?" - it ruins peoples lives.

Mud sticks & newspapers have no right to throw it on people who have not been found guilty.
 
I think identity should be protected until the person is found guilty. I don’t see why a person’s life should be ruined by innuendo which would inevitably happen if the name gets publicized.
 
Agree with what said above etc.

Just out of interest, are you allowed to be fired if you are charged with something? Do you get your job back if not guilty?
 
Sundance said:
Just out of interest, are you allowed to be fired if you are charged with something?
Click to expand...

It seems you are if you are the head of the IMF

(not that I think he was innocent, but that is immaterial as he was only charged and subsequently all charges dropped)
 
simulatorman said:
I think identity should be protected until the person is found guilty. I don’t see why a person’s life should be ruined by innuendo which would inevitably happen if the name gets publicized.
Click to expand...

I do agree with it but I think it leads to technical problems which is why it was dropped before.

ie: if you are not reporting these type of cases, why should you report the name of anyone accused of any crime until convicted... burglary, murder, embezzelment....all accusations carry a stigma to some degree.

But then if you don't report any case until it is finished, you do not have as open a media and/or judicial system.

What needs to change is people to not be so judgemental.....*looks around the forums* ... like that's ever going to happen :p
 
my mate got arrested for having (suspected) child porn

His name was published in the local paper saying he MADE 1000's of images,

his house was dammaged he lost his job and he had to leave the area, it ruined his life for almost 18 months.

after he paid out 15 - 20k for lawyers and investigators it turned out

1) the 1000's of images were infact 6
2) the 6 images were from a legit porn site
3) the 6 images were NOT even saved on his PC they were in the IE cache
4) the girls were all over 18 (he had to get a PI to get their birth certs)
5) they only took his PC because his credit card was used (after he reported it stolen) to make payment (that was blocked anyway) via a portal (that his ISP confirmed they always block) that (sometimes) was used by dodgey kid porn sites to process payments... (and the payment atempt was NOT from the UK)
 
Anyone with at least an ounce of common sense would think so, but rape victim charities and some MP's think otherwise.

Link

The Justice Minister in that article said “It is alleged that anonymity for defendants would deter victims in general from coming forward."

...why? Could someone enlighten me? Why must a potentially innocent man or woman defendant have their life ruined? The only info I can find against not naming defendants is female MP's whining that "singling out rape in this way ministers are sending a negative signal about women and those who accuse men of rape." :confused:
 
I believe that someone 'accused' of rape can be named in order to encourage others who may have been raped by him to come forward with their claims. That seems fair enough.

As to why the accuser is not named, I guess that this is so as not to discourage victims to come forward and because no useful purpose would be served by naming them.

There is a continuing debate as to what exactly constitutes rape and consensual sex. I believe that violent rape of a stranger is pretty rare; rape within marriage (frequently involving actual or threatened violence) is not unusual and casual sex with a relative stranger who is drunk or stoned is quite common.

So far as I am concerned, having sex with a virtual stranger when she is stoned or drunk should ALWAYS be classified as rape. Identifying and punishing such rapists can only be a good thing.
 
This thread comes up every month.

Naming the accused in the press will encourage possible other victims of that person to come forward. What if this was the 3rd rape committed and the first 2 victims were too scared to come forward, until they see they aren't alone?

Alleged victims should be kept anonymous so as not to discourage other victims from coming forward. If a rape victim is vilified after their alleged attacker is found not guilty, it would put off other victims from coming forward for fear of the same treatment.

The current system works, keep it.
 
stockhausen said:
So far as I am concerned, having sex with a virtual stranger when she is stoned or drunk should ALWAYS be classified as rape. Identifying and punishing such rapists can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

So we should outlaw one night stands?

Are you arguing, and it seems that you may be, that someone who is drunk/stoned is unable to provide consent?
 
stockhausen said:
So far as I am concerned, having sex with a virtual stranger when she is stoned or drunk should ALWAYS be classified as rape. Identifying and punishing such rapists can only be a good thing.
Click to expand...

What planet are you on? Does this mean that the majority of men that get lucky on a saturday night after clubbing are rapists?

If you want to fall back on the "unable to give consent" line, i'm sure there is something in the charge along the lines of "penetration without believing to have consent" or similar (been a while since i did any reading on this), how do you know the the man is sober/drunk enough to comprehend the level of consent being given?
 
Last edited:
Agree with non naming until found guilty.
I know a guy who was accused of rape years ago. He was front page news in local rag at the time, hauled through the courts etc. Then his defence found evidence of his innocence that the police actively covered up. Case was thrown out completely. She was given a new identity (wth?) and he ended up suing the police and got shed loads of compensation. Dunno how much but he has 3 houses to his name now.
Still, his reputation was in tatters for a while.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom