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

SB118 · 26 Oct 2011 at 15:29

Emlyn_Dewar said:
It didn't work for the guy in this case.
Doesn't really seem like justice that he can be found not guilty, but still be left with the ruined life that would result from his name being publicised.

Worked just fine and dandy for miss anonymous though, she's free to throw round more accusations in the future.

It's not designed for individual people, it's intended for the greater good.

Emlyn_Dewar · 26 Oct 2011 at 15:52

I fail to see how it is the greater good, this must happen to quite a lot of people every year.
Doesn't seem like justice.

Marshstyles · 26 Oct 2011 at 16:44

im sure I saw this video on these forums somewhere before but ill repost it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2_3ULc9jj8

I know its different to the OP but it was someones live ruined.

Same goes for being accused of a pedo.

If I see a child crying in a shopping centre/park or whatever because they have lost their mum I can't go help. I'm too scared to and I'm sure a lot of other men are aswell.

As for a change in the law about protecting the accused, I dunno. It's easy for me/us to say its terrible as I'm sure all of us have been accused or doing something and haven't (eating the last chocolate bar or something). It's easier to relate/imagne how much more devestating being accused of rape must be.

I've not been raped nor do I know anyone that has so I can't say how it changes you and how scared you might be.

Destination · 26 Oct 2011 at 17:35

robgmun said:
That fact is, and please correct me if i'm wrong, the majorty of false rape claims is because the two people involved actually did it, then the women claims rape for whatever reason.

If a woman claimed i raped her but i actually never laid a finger on her, then the police wouldn't go further then questioning me for a night as the DNA test would throw all of that out the window. Probably so quick that the papers wouldn't even know about it

Assuming she goes to the police that instant, or cliams it just happened, if it occurred over a day before, then dna won't be useful for your defence.
They'll proceed with other enquiries and question you for days unless youncan prove you were elsewhere.
Also, DNA tests are not done in CSI fashion and speed, they take days or weeks to come back. It would only form a small part of the case against you, but could be decisive in the case of a positive result.

They won't throw you in a cell, then let you go the nextbday as the magic test was blank, the test would be weeks to come back anyway.

wnb · 26 Oct 2011 at 17:57

A friend of mine is a postie. His name was in the paper as being accused of rape. He had the same name as the guy who was being accused. He was bullied at work and beaten up, he was suspended and hauled up in front of his managers. The behaviour of his work colleagues and his management meant that he successfully won a tribunal.

Vonhelmet · 26 Oct 2011 at 19:22

My guess would be it's to do with habeas corpus. It's a legal thing that it has to be public knowledge who is being held by the government and why. It's to stop people being disappeared by the government.

rexehuk · 26 Oct 2011 at 19:24

Worst I've raped someone and my name is in the public domain thread EVER.

Trifid · 26 Oct 2011 at 19:30

Vonhelmet said:
My guess would be it's to do with habeas corpus. It's a legal thing that it has to be public knowledge who is being held by the government and why. It's to stop people being disappeared by the government.

Sounds great from that angle but how can it be fair that someone innocent can have their life ruined by their name appearing in the paper? A good example is the saline nurse.

I was going to make a thread on this issue...

Vonhelmet · 26 Oct 2011 at 19:38

Then the problem is with idiotic reports in the press or with idiots reading the news. Abridging freedom of the press is a big deal, though.

semi-pro waster · 26 Oct 2011 at 19:40

Moses said:
RE: the two previous posts, talking about how having defendants names could lead to other victims coming forward. How often does that happen, considering how many accusations actually end in a conviction? You're exposing far more people, who get accused, to life ruining publicity... whereas you're only convicting a small number of people. I don't think the balance is there, to justify having their names made public.

Isn't there a large(ish) assumption there that because someone isn't convicted that they're not guilty of possibly questionable behaviour in this regard? Of course we don't want peoples lives to be ruined unnecessarily and the above does sound a bit "smoke without fire" but there could be an interpretation that without conviction it wasn't a justified claim and I don't think that's always true either. There may not be enough evidence to convict or the system may be weighted against getting a rape conviction anyway (an argument that is sometimes advanced). Rape is by it's very nature often usually the word of one person against another which makes convictions harder to achieve unless it's especially clearcut and aided with other circumstantial evidence, that's without getting into situations where it's a question of whether informed consent was given.

As with many things it's about getting a balance and I'm not convinced that we've got it right yet but pretty much any way we try someone is going to be on the end of unfairness. I don't know what the solution is or indeed if there is even one but I'd be wary of trying to change anything too significantly in a hurry, as I'm sure you know the unintended consequences of law making can be long lasting and far reaching.

rz30 · 26 Oct 2011 at 20:23

Seems a bit strange that only the BBC are reporting it(had a quick google, maybe i missed something) ?

Maybe the BEEB are trying to highlight the unfairness toward the man for losing his job, you don't know the whole story though.

SexyGreyFox · 26 Oct 2011 at 21:06

wnb said:
A friend of mine is a postie. His name was in the paper as being accused of rape. He had the same name as the guy who was being accused.

Reminds me of an ex work colleague in the 80's.
The Police came for him about 2 in the morning and dragged him down the cop shop for questioning.
They held him for the maximum time and got the woman in to do an identity parade.
On looking at my mate she said "What's Pete doing here?" and the coppers just looked at each other.
It just so happened she knew who her rapist was and where he lived which was "His name is Pete and he lives on High Lane, Burslem" and the coppers pulled my mate because he was on the police computer for causing trouble at P**t V**e Football Club.
The thing is that even though he was 100% innocent there was still a nagging doubt in some peoples minds.