Rape. Naming those involved?

Isthis the malicious cases I have known about have been proven because there has been false and concocted evidence that has not only been disproved, but shown to have been planned with some degree of malicious intent. For example, a woman whose boyfriend ditched her cooked up a story with her friend, who gave evidence saying that she had heard the man admit the rape. She coudn't have heard him, though, because he could prove he was away on holiday in France at the time the witness/friend claimed she heard him. The woman had mental health problems and her friend wanted revenge for her. Both women got custody. Such cases are extremely rare. It's usually false alibis that are disproven.

Yes vq and the few women who have made malicious claims have received prison sentences for attempting to pervert justice or wasting police time. The ones who have not been malicious have to try to come to terms with being told by a judge that the view of the court is that they were mistaken, it didn't happen, they must have changed their mind when they regretted it next day, or they didn't supply sufficient evidence.

Malicious would seem an extremely difficult thing to prove.

I think that if a man is found not guilty and the woman was malicious then there should be good coverage so that the man can be seen to be innocent and the woman can be shown for what she is.

Isthis yes, I do agree with you. We don't want anyone unfairly convicted or acquitted. Unfortunately, currently the proportion of men unfairly convicted to women unfairly losing their case is overwhelmingly in the rapists' favour. I would like to see more women getting indignant about those victims who have been left to live with the trauma of rape, knowing the rapist got away with it.

I know women must have a very tough time of it in such cases, when, no one's denying that. I'm just trying to see it from an innocent man's point of view, that's all.

Ana I'm not implying anything about Reg Travis, and simply saying that the argument about unfairness falls firmly in favour of men in terms of who gets the worst deal. Women have a hell of a fight on their hands, starting with fighting the rapist off, and continuing with the ordeal of reporting, learning whether she has contracted a sexually transmitted disease, having a pregnancy test, treatment for any internal injuries, hearing whether Crown Prosecution thinks she has the slightest chance of getting the rapist brought to justice, being bombarded with cross-questionng to check whether she 'deserved' to be raped and maybe brought it on herself, perhaps was drunk, and so on.....Not many women want to go through all that for no purpose.

This is soooo difficult. "Far fewer (men with unjustified stains on their character) than you imagine" says whenim64 but one is too many. And one raped woman not seeing her rapist convicted is also certainly one too many. How to balance?

Yes, I can certainly understand your last point. But you seem to be implying that most, if not all, of rape cases are justified and it's only by lack of evidence or the whim of the jury that any are dismissed - leaving me, at least, under the impression that Reg Traviss and others like must in fact be guilty.

Far fewer than you imagine Ana. Malicious or 'regretful' complaints tend to get weeded out in the investigative process., with neither name being publicised. The process of complaining about being raped is not something a woman takes on lightly, and many withdraw their complaint when they experience just how daunting it is.

I appreciate that, when, but there must be a fair proportion of men who are really not guilty, when perhaps the woman involved has felt guilty afterwards or been persuaded to plead rape even though sex was consensual. There is a stain on their character, even though they're found, and are, not guilty - and what's more their name has been plastered all over the media for possibly months. Is this fair?

I have come across too many rapists who have previous complaints on their police records, and this information only gets shared after conviction and sentence, when risk assessment and treatment planning meetings begin. In some countries, previous relevant convictions are now allowed into trial, whereas here they are not. Only on a finding of guilt and in consideration of the sentence are previous convictions disclosed in court. Rapists, particularly date rapists, tend to behave aggressively towards women over a period of years, often since adolescence. If this was known in trials, many more would be convicted.

Isthisalltheris I am so with you on that but its like what I was saying on another thread about the person that got 2 years imprisonment for de facing a painting=what a drink driver gets for taking someones life while under the influence of alcohol, as I said in that post the Law in the UK is an Ass because you are abs right, why have they not named that lady, if nothing else it will help other men to watch out for her!!

Especially as we all know that many rapists are not found guilty because of lack of evidence.

Although, of course, a man who is innocent will be forever a bit 'suspect' in the eyes of many, even when he's been found not guilty.

If the woman is acting maliciously, then I can see no reason why they should not be named. However it is very difficult to establish that, so the principle of anonymity would seem to be the safest route in order to stop rapists relying on the victim's reluctance to come forward and press for a prosecution.

I think that defendants should not have anonymity because it stops police from calling for witnesses to come forward. It is not commonly known that rape is often a serial offence. Women who have been afraid to come forward on their own behalf will be encouraged to complain when they realise they might not be the only victims of rape by the same person. We can't know the outcome until investigations and a trial have taken place. An acquitted man will have his outcome publicised. I don't agree with complainants being named unless there is clear evidence that they have made a malicious allegation. Often, a case is not proven beyond reasonable doubt, so they cannot convict. Our rape guidelines are still evolving, and naming defendants has helped the conviction rate to rise steadily, whereas the attrition rate was apalling beforehand, with only 1 in 10 rape victims actually complaining to the police, and 1 in 10 of those who complained securing a conviction.

My views are based on a career working with rapists and other sex offenders, in prison and in the community.