Why do men not get anonymity when it comes to rape charges?

Question

Ronaldo, Craig Charles, John Lesley... their are sooo many guys who get accused of rape when they are innocent. Why do their names get shown in the press, while the accusers get annonymity?

Look at Ronaldo last year, he was eventually not charged but his image was dragged through the mud, while his accuser wasn't even paraded through the press when the charges were thrown out..!! Where's the equality in that?

Also now with this Big Brother Sezer thing, why is his name being shown in the papers when he hasn't been found guilty, whereas the "glamour" model that has accused him gets total annonymity?

Fair enough if they are found guilty, but if the charges are dropped then the accuser should face charges for bringing false charges in the first place.

Don't get me wrong, rape is of course a terrible thing and if found guilty, send them to prison for 50 years, but while they have not been found guilty surely their identity should also be protected?...

Answer 1

Because people need to know who are committing these crimes, to limit the chance of it happening again.

Answer 2

This comes from the set-up of the English legal system. Generally the emphasis is upon helping the victim to get a conviction rather than protection of suspects. The rule in law is that there has been a rape until otherwise proven. The police must investigate and open a case, and the victim cannot be named under statute, the Sexual Offences Act.
But a real problem is the celebrity cases. Where a celebrity such as Ronaldo is accused, it is the journalists who make the stories. They know such people and situations will sell papers and magazines, not the story of an little known victim. I think your real blame should lie in the greedy headline-grabbing journalists and not anyone else- the only reason that the names get into the paper is the journalists. They decide the stories.
There has been a suggestion that anyone accused of rape will get automatic anonymity, regardless of who they are. The predent situation means that accused people who are believed to be in need of protection are usually remanded to custody if needed, and this happens in few cases, mostly due to expense and also the time it may take between the first hearing and the main trial hearing.
But I do agree that the present situation is unfair and is in need of dire rectification, sooner rather than later.

Answer 3

If a man is found guilty of rape then he should face the full wrath of the law. His face should be plastered on every newspaper & should be on the sex offenders registar for the rest of his life. Personally, I would rip his bollocks off. There are men out there who are animals, but there are also women out there who are liars. BUT Why oh why is a man's name published before the verdict. It has been shown time & time again, that the courts have protected the woman's identity, and publised the man's name. If he is found NOT guilty, he still has to endure the shame of his name being publised and no matter what anyone says, MUD STICKS. He is the one who has to endure taunts and jibes afterwards, even though he is innocent. People will say "he's the one." His life and that of his families would be in tatters - forever! The law should be changed to protect BOTH accused & accusser's name until the truth is out.

Answer 4

Some people would say there is no smoke without fire - but lets be real about this, there have been countless cases that have come to the attention of the media merry-go-round, and then been proved to have been false accusations by the complainant.

Everybody has different views on the law and how anonymity for sexual cases should be for both accused and accuser. In exceptional cases, anonymity has proved to be the downfall of cases, as by identifying a rapist publicly has brought forward other victims who have lived through the terror of rape, but been too afraid of not being believed and being branded as a liar and worse.

It is wrong and unlawful to accuse anyone of a sexual crime and have them be for want of better words, chewed up and spat out by the public. To only later be exonerated of the offence.

An accuser should then be identified as a liar. They should be charged with wasting police time, and be made to consider the overall effect that their actions have on victims of rape.

In your missive you go on about the guys accused, and they are an obvious consideration, the effect it has on their lives can be devastating. Equally, a consideration should be made of all those women who have suffered at the hands of rapists and never come forward, because of the fear of public exposure!

Answer 5

Because no one campaigned to fix it. Until quite recently, women were paraded in the press and rape trials were reported as gossip. There was pressure put on to make it unlawful to treat rape victims that way.
But no one has addressed the fact that you are innocent until proven guilty. So men don't get the same protection.
The real problem is a gutter press that treats this kind of thing as porn. Its titillating, it sells papers. We don't want news we want gossip, apparently. The press have such low moral standards that they have to be forced to treat people with a bit of respect and dignity.

Answer 6

i dont think their names should be released until they are proven guilty

it makes it too easy for awoman with a grudge to make a false allegation then even if the man is cleared of all charges he is never fully trusted by the public again

people will always have doubts

oh and as far as onename saying only a bloke would ask that question you are wrong i am female and have asked myself the same question many times
i believe until the end of the trial either both parties should be un named or both should be named

this may disuade people from making false accusations

Answer 7

Yeah. Seems a little crazy that anyone ACCUSED of a crime has their name in the news. But it is public information and falls under the open laws of the First Amendment of US Constitution... Free Press, Speech, etc. News people must be very careful how they word thier stories so as not to commit any type of defamation of character. But, perhaps, if we are a nation of innocent until proven guilty names should not be released until there are convictions.

Answer 8

Yes that is wrong----but however that is rare to how many people who are raped in this country----half of them you never hear of.

The average term served for a rapist is 4 years!!

for something that will distroy the victums life forever----4 years is sapose to be justice!

This is so wrong---what do you think?

also:
there might be many reason the cases are dropped against the rapist----lack of evidence dosn't mean that they arn't guilty----jsut means they didn't have enough evidence to prove it

Answer 9

Both parties should have the same right until after the legal process

Answer 10

Do men get anonimity, in cases of male (gay) rape?