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

SB118 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Well considering there is 100% anonymity for victims then there is no reason not to come forward.

Come forward or it didn't happen :p
 
stockhausen said:
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.
Click to expand...


Aaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyywaay back on planet Earth.....
 
Whats your personal details SB118??? I'm going to claim you raped me. Have fun when your windows get put through.
 
edscdk said:
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)
Click to expand...

I had a friend from school kicked out of uni for something similar. Entirely unfair.
 
Kazz said:
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:
Click to expand...
The thinking behind this argument is that seeing a man has been charged with rape encourages his other victims to come forward. A few pressure groups, like Women Against Rape, believe that the vast majority of rapes are committed by a hardcore group of serial rapists. They're completely wrong, but politicians do not want to get into a charged debate with rape victims.
 
Christ, if drunken sex is rape then I think about 80% of clubbing people including myself should be appearing before judges haha.

That said, a guy couldn't ever scream that he'd been raped by a woman when drunk!
 
SB118 said:
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?
Click to expand...

There is? News to me, though obviously Scots law is different.

It doesn't have to be a man doing the raping.
 
TommyV said:
That said, a guy couldn't ever scream that he'd been raped by a woman when drunk!
Click to expand...

lol reminds me of a mate who says he woke up and a girl was straddling him. She was fit though so he wasn't bothered :p

Doubt I would be either unless it involved an STI/her getting preggers.
 
Moses said:
The man would have to do the raping ;).

There's assault by penetration, below the border.



http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1

---

But anyway, consent's really not a simple issue, so when you read "reasonably believe", "does not consent", etc, don't just assume you know what they mean, lol. (@ any non lawyers).
Click to expand...

Pardon my igornace, there is also Sexual assault by penetration in Scots Law. (I hated criminal law as much as you hated EU law...)

The man comment was a bit of a mistype, or at least poorly explained. Yea, rape under both English and Scots law requires a mans penis. I was using a slightly less legal definition for that part of my argument. But, it was poor debate form on my part.
 
I think some responsibility lies with the media.

The whole Rebecca Leighton thing sums it up best. She was the nurse at Stepping Hill hospital who was accused of murdering the patients by tampering with saline drips. It was appalling how she was named and shamed when she hadn't even been found guilty of anything. She has since had all charges dropped and is 'back at work', albeit with limitations on what she is allowed to do.

Effectively, her career is ruined. Any patient is likely to recognise her face and/or her name and it surely can't be doubted that some will refuse to let her have anything to do with them.

From the headline news everyday, I'm pretty sure when I found out she had been cleared there was a small quarter page article at most. Surely if she was to make a claim against the media she would have a strong case?
 
TommyV said:
Christ, if drunken sex is rape then I think about 80% of clubbing people including myself should be appearing before judges haha.

That said, a guy couldn't ever scream that he'd been raped by a woman when drunk!
Click to expand...

If they were both drunk, they'd technically be raping each other... That would make for quite a good scene!
 
SB118 said:
The current system works, keep it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SB118 said:
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.
Click to expand...

its only fair if the guy did it...

why not name the woman maybe she tried to fit up other guys who may come forward saying she said "give me 20k or ill say you raped me"

it would be better to keep the guys name out of the press I think until he is convicted... then the other women can come forward...
 
edscdk said:
its only fair if the guy did it...

why not name the woman maybe she tried to fit up other guys who may come forward saying she said "give me 20k or ill say you raped me"
Click to expand...

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
 
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
Click to expand...

you might well be right, however I would have though she would simply say you banged out your load into the condom or stored for mrs palmer

I don't know the ins and out of the process, if a woman accuses a random guy of rape and the guy was alone at the time (ie not one to back him up) how far can it go?
 
Moses said:
No, just no.
Click to expand...

So you mean that most false rape claims are from women that never actually have sex with the man?? How comes simple quick DNA test doesn't result in the women being arrested for wasting police time??

edscdk said:
you might well be right, however I would have though she would simply say you banged out your load into the condom or stored for mrs palmer

I don't know the ins and out of the process, if a woman accuses a random guy of rape and the guy was alone at the time (ie not one to back him up) how far can it go?
Click to expand...

Even if i used a condom i would still be giving her a DNA bath and my hairs, spit, skin (Like under her fingernails) would be all over her.
 
Last edited:
robgmun said:
So you mean that most false rape claims are from women that never actually have sex with the man?? How comes simple quick DNA test doesn't result in the women being arrested for wasting police time??
Click to expand...

1) condom
2) never shot a load
3) forced her to wash
4) days later
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom