Why are men accused of rape named legally before they are found guilty?

Commotion Ocean

I have read multiple stories before about men who were accused of rape, especially more high profile people and they are named and identified by the media before they have been found guilty in a court of law.

There have been cases where there was insufficient evidence to find the man guilty and thus a guilty verdict was not passed, this could mean that the man was guilty (with very little evidence) or completely innocent. If the latter is the case, their lives and careers could have been ruined.

Is it not illegal to discuss in a public forum things which are sub judice anyway?

How come the liar isn't allowed to be exposed when it is proven that she was lying?

GerardKeating

dfeo wrote: »

I have read multiple stories before about men who were accused of rape, especially more high profile people and they are named and identified by the media before they have been found guilty in a court of law.

There have been cases where there was insufficient evidence to find the man guilty and thus a guilty verdict was not passed, this could mean that the man was guilty (with very little evidence) or completely innocent. If the latter is the case, their lives and careers could have been ruined.

Is it not illegal to discuss in a public forum things which are sub judice anyway?

How come the liar isn't allowed to be exposed when it is proven that she was lying?

Just because a person is found innocent, does not mean any witness against them was lying.

Commotion Ocean

GerardKeating wrote: »

Just because a person is found innocent, does not mean any witness against them was lying.

If you take a moment to read my post again you'll see that I said that.

You didn't answer my question btw.

dfeo wrote: »

this could mean that the man was guilty (very little evidence, therefore no conviction can be given) or genuinely completely innocent. If the latter is the case, their lives and careers could have been ruined.

dfeo wrote: »

Is it not illegal to discuss in a public forum things which are sub judice anyway?

Manach

My understanding, AFAIR from reading a paper on this once and so I might be in error, is to encourage other potential victims to come forward as the publicity would ensure a wider array of witnesses and so increase the conviction rate which had been judged to be too low.

Commotion Ocean

Manach wrote: »

My understanding, AFAIR from reading a paper on this once and so I might be in error, is to encourage other potential victims to come forward as the publicity would ensure a wider array of witnesses and so increase the conviction rate which had been judged to be too low.

But that could lead to a genuine person being wrongly named in the media and a person with a high up job (pilot, doctor, lecturer etc.) could have their careers ruined.

hullaballoo

There is a constitutional requirement for justice to be administered in public and a part of this is that the parties to all actions are named. There are some exceptions where a competing constitutional right overrides this requirement.

The problem that you are talking about is that the media don't seem to have any filter when it comes to the appropriateness of reporting certain cases where a verdict hasn't been reached because the reputation of the accused isn't worth as much to them as selling their ads.

It is an option in every case for one party or both/all to apply for reporting restrictions but they need to show they have a competing constitutional right or a very good reason for this constitutionally protected aspect of the administration of justice to be suspended.

Carawaystick

You could apply this question to all criminal trials.

The accused is named in almost all trials, prior to any verdict being found, with only certain limited exceptions to protect children and victims of certain crimes.

NUTLEY BOY

GerardKeating wrote: »

Just because a person is found innocent, does not mean any witness against them was lying.

And there lies a problem. No court declares an acquitted defendant to be innocent. An acquitted defendant continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence but the whiff of suspicion tends to remain in the type of case under discussion.

I see it this way, in two premises ;

1. All innocent people are not guilty.
2. Some people declared not guilty are actually guilty / not innocent.

Lord Denning once described this type of argument as a lawyer's quibble. However, the difficulty for an acquitted defendant in this type of case can be quite real.

As far as witnesses go their only obligation is to give their evidence truthfully. A witness can be truthful but be wrong. Mind you, I have heard some judges say that a particular witness's recollection was defective or, in the case of conflicting evidence, that a particular witness's evidence was to be preferred.

goz83

dfeo wrote: »

But that could lead to a genuine person being wrongly named in the media and a person with a high up job (pilot, doctor, lecturer etc.) could have their careers ruined.

It doesn't matter whether the accused person has a high profile job, or is on the dole. Their life could be ruined. A young lad in the UK recently took his own life after a girl accused him of rape. The charges were dropped, but the stress of the investigation was too much for the chap and two weeks after the charges were dropped, he took his life.

I don't believe it's just, or right to name a person accused of rape, while protecting the identity of the alleged victim. The very fact that a person is labelled the victim before the outcome of the case is in itself a damnation of the accused. I am in agreement with the above poster, that the terminology used is also poor, when a defendant is fount "not guilty", it does not declare them innocent.

NUTLEY BOY

goz83 wrote: »

SNIP SNIP The very fact that a person is labelled the victim before the outcome of the case is in itself a damnation of the accused. SNIP

That is why they are best referred to as the "complainant".

newacc2015

GerardKeating wrote: »

Just because a person is found innocent, does not mean any witness against them was lying.

But there are plenty of cases where the witnesses were lying and they got a telling off at most. Where as the accused will always be known as a potential rapist. There are plenty of cases where young women had consensual sex, they were ashamed afterwards and called it rape. When the accused is proven innocent later is irrelevant to most people.

Rape is generally one of the most falsely reported crimes and the FBI stats prove this. About 8% of rape cases are false according to them.

Commotion Ocean

How come women who make false accusations (and it's proven that the accusation was false) are immune to perjury charges? and why aren't they named when the accusation was proven false?

AFAIK, a judge in Ireland is not allowed to prosecute a woman in a rape case even if it's proven that she's lying. I stand corrected on that though.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Commotion Ocean

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The name of the accuser should be made public if the accusation is proven to be false, she should also have her name put on the sex offenders registrar and receive a criminal record and be tried on indictment.

Little CuChulainn

Accusations are rarely proven to be false. Not being able to prove something happened is not the same as proving it didn't happen at all. An accused person being found not guilty does not mean the victim deliberately lied about them or the incident either.

Commotion Ocean

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Accusations are rarely proven to be false. Not being able to prove something happened is not the same as proving it didn't happen at all. An accused person being found not guilty does not mean the victim deliberately lied about them or the incident either.

If you read my post I said in situations where it was PROVEN to be a deliberate lie, for example, if the accuser's stories start conflicting and she is found to have been deliberately lying.

Little CuChulainn

dfeo wrote: »

If you read my post I said in situations where it was PROVEN to be a deliberate lie, for example, if the accuser's stories start conflicting and she is found to have been deliberately lying.

Proven where? The introduction of reasonable doubt in a trial is far from the standard required to prosecute someone. And how do you prove the intent?

Commotion Ocean

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Proven where? The introduction of reasonable doubt in a trial is far from the standard required to prosecute someone. And how do you prove the intent?

If evidence came to light that the woman had conspired to lie. If it doesn't change, then justice can continue to be perversed in our courtrooms. False allegations are alarmingly common.

Sleeper12

It seems much worse in the UK. Cliff Richard, Freddie Starr etc named as being questioned,not even charged. At least if you are charged the dpp feels it has a case but to be named just because they questioned you is downright wrong imo

Little CuChulainn

dfeo wrote: »

If evidence came to light that the woman had conspired to lie. If it doesn't change, then justice can continue to be perversed in our courtrooms. False allegations are alarmingly common.

False allegations may be common but evidence of deliberate falsehood is extremely rare.

NUTLEY BOY

dfeo wrote: »

The name of the accuser should be made public if the accusation is proven to be false, she should also have her name put on the sex offenders registrar and receive a criminal record and be tried on indictment.

The problem here is one of proof.

You have to distinguish first between evidence given which turns out not to meet the required standard of proof [beyond reasonable doubt] and perjury at the original trial.

Evidence that is wrong is not always evidence that is false. All false evidence is wrong evidence but only some wrong evidence is false evidence in the sense of deliberate lying.

Next, the DPP would have to prosecute the witness for perjury. That requires proof - to the criminal standard - of the intent to give false evidence. If the DPP considers that there is no real prospect of securing a conviction against the alleged perjurer no action will be taken.

I cannot see how a perjurer could be placed on a sex offenders' list.

However, public disclosure of the perjurer's identity on conviction should have a strongly ruinous effect on their reputation and that will follow them unless they change their name. (That is why I think that the PPS number of everyone convicted of an offence like this should also be recorded if that does not happen currently.)