Rape accused - innocent until proven guilty?

[Whickerman]

A young man whose consensual sex partner couldn't remember the tryst, and claimed rape because she was drunk, has been cleared.
http://www.itv.com/News/Articles/Chef-cleared- of-raping-solicitor-395903259.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/colum nists/india_knight/article5993008.ece

Despite him drinking as much as her, under British law he can be arrested if she claims she's too drunk to consent. So my question - 2 parts actually -
1. Why was he named immediately, yet despite him being found innocent she is not identified? (Same rules apply in vexacious false rape claims)
2. Why is the onus on one party in the couple to be responsible? Whatever happened to equality and personal responsibility?

And before someone gets in with it, I'm NOT suggesting date rape doesn't happen, and I'm NOT suggesting a victim brings it on him/herself by drinking.

[paraffin]

1. He was named because the great British media chose to and were not stopped by the trial Judge from so doing. That Judge would be the one justify his/her decision.

2. Simply because an allegation of rape was made and the CPS obviously thought that on the evidence provided there was a case to answer, hence the reason it went as far as it did. The CPS clearly took the decision that the expenditure of taxpayer's money was justified.

[hc4361]

I think it is important for rape suspects to be 'named and shamed' as the publicity may bring other victims forward.
It is equally important for rape victims, male and female, to be protected by anonymity as they have done nothing wrong.
This case highlights that justice can be done, and is done, despite many people believing the opposite. The woman is this case is not a rape victim and should be named now.

[Whickerman]

Very fair answers.

I'm still at a loss over the 2nd part though - why is it apparently the man's responsibility to decide if consent given is real?

[hc4361]

Either party can claim they were victim of sexual assault, and in Norway a woman has been convicted of raping a man.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/articl e1027927.ece
Under English law this would be sexual assault, not rape, but in the UK either party can cry 'foul' after the event.

[paraffin]

birdie:

My sentiments entirely - well said!

[weeal]

People who are arrested for many crimes have their name revealed before being tried.

A rape victim is only a witness for the prosecution, it is the state who takes the perp to court (scotland) but being one of the most degrading and filthy crimes the victims life would also be ruined for ever.

If its a false accusation the victim should be named? ...well how do you prove it was false, its one of the most difficult crimes to prove in the first place. Only if the victim admitted a lie should her name be revealed and she should suffer a sentence for that.

Everyone can be responsible for their own personal wellbeing up to a point, but when one 'party in the couple' is stronger and more controlling it wouldnt matter a jot if the other was sober or drunk.

Its ironic that a woman feels she must rely at times on a man for physical protection yet its a man who is her greatest physical threat.

[Ice.Maiden]

I agree with you. Names should be kept out of cases until sentence's been passed.

[pinktwink]

whilst it is crucial that society know about conficted rapists child abusers, it remains a complex issue for those tried but not convicted. Particularly in child sexual abuse a number of cases dont go to trial and of those that do not many are found guilty due to technicality and lack of proof. In effect the guilty remain at large in society monitore donly by social services already understaffed. Sadly to acuse someone for something as serious as rape in the wrong can destroy their name. Whilst one is innocent until proven guilty there are more cases of unreported rape then there are false claims of rape. . Those that make false claims should be charged with wasting police time

[Ice.Maiden]

I agree with your last sentence as well pink.

[hc4361]

It is a fact that around only 6% of reported rape cases get to court, mainly because it is one person's word against another. This is harrowing for a true victim of rape, and dangerous for potential victims of a rapist not tried.
If naming the accused encourages other victims to come forward, there will be more evidence to get the matter in to court.
People in the locality of the accused will always know that he has been charged with rape whether it is in the papers or not. People gossip. People who don't know the accused will soon forget his name if he is found not guilty. I have great sympathy for him but I think he is intelligent enough to turn this in his favour.
In this particular case I believe the woman should now be named as she is not a victim of rape. She has done women no good at all, and she has done a huge injustice to real victims of rape.

[anotheoldgit]

The time is long overdue or the appointment of a 'Minister for Men'.

Someone to defend the rights of men.

[socket2008]

I most certainly don't think men or women should be named. The problem with rape is that it is the only crime where the actual act is legal. It is whether consent was given that makes it not. I am all for women being given a hard time in court over allegations of rape as long as those such as this case exist.

I knew someone that accused another of rape a few years ago. A couple of years on she admitted that it was made up to cover the fact she had a one night stand/make the boyfriend jealous (the accused was rightly found not guilty)

This case again questions why the onus is always on the male where sex is concerned. Look at the recent case of Alfie Patten the 13 year old who was said to have got the 15 year old pregnant. Police said at the time that under the circumstances he wouldn't be charged. What about her?

There was also a recent Government report that said that conviction rates are low in rape cases and the Government were going to work hard to increase said conviction rate. Another case of assuming that a low conviction rate means high numbers are getting away with it instead of tackling the real problem why it is made easy for men or women to cliam rape in the first place, whilst knowing that the accused will have their name plastered all over the media.

[New Judge]

It is not only �stupid people� who cannot differentiate between the guilty and innocent, birdie. Neither can the police.

The unfortunate Mr Bacon will have the record of this accusation (but not the details of the unsuccessful prosecution) among the �other information held by Chief Constables� that is against his name.

This non-conviction never becomes �spent�. He will never be able to gain employment in any area where a completely clear CRB check is required and it may jeopardise any plans he might have to live or work abroad.

In addition, because the government continues to ignore the European Court�s ruling that they should not retain the fingerprints and DNA profiles of people not convicted of any offence, those details will be held on file unless and until the authorities are forced to remove them. This may jeopardise job applications he might make because many employers now ask on their application forms �have you ever had your DNA profile taken and retained by the police?� So it is little surprise that �There are people in this world who are so stupid that they can�t differentiate between an accusation and guilt.� They are almost encouraged to be so stupid.

All this would have happened to Mr Bacon had his details been published or not and the question of his details being made known in the media is almost immaterial. People who do not know him will soon forget his name, but the authorities upon which he depends to record his reputation will not.

It is not the �stupid� people he needs to fear but a State system which is illegally gathering and retaining personal information about innocent people at an alarming rate.

[brionon]

False claims of rape should be prosecuted ? You'll get even fewer women reporting rape. A 'Not Guilty' verdict doesn't mean the woman lied.

[jake-the-peg]

False claims of rape should not be automatically prosecuted but they should be referred back to the CPS to see if a chage of attempting to pervert the course of justice is warrented .

We don't need to change the law here, just the procedures.