Why has this UK man been named as a potential rapist when the woman has not been named?

Question

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20071219/tuk-jonny-evans-bailed-over-man-utd-xmas-45dbed5.html
he has been named and he is only 19
she is apparently 26 and not been named.
The law is not equal!

Who is she? why is she not named?

He could also be a victim. The police have yet to investigate.

Answer 1

He certainly shouldn't have been named, because it has not been proven that he did rape her, or that she was raped at all. He has since been released on bail, so there obviously isn't enough to keep him there.

Can I point out, while I'm on the subject, that the majority of rape claims against footballers are false, while said footballers are named and shamed in the press. Does anyone remember Leicester City a couple of years ago, where 8 were initially arrested on suspicion of rape/sexual assault in La Manga? 5 were let go, 3 were slung in jail until the women admitted they made it up. How disgraceful is that? Then there was the claim against Ronaldo, and the one against Jody Morris and his friend, both of which came to nothing. Forgive me for sounding cynical, but I've heard too many women cry rape when it comes to footballers for me to instantly believe this to be true. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm just saying that before the papers name and shame someone, check that the woman isn't lying. If she is, she should be jailed and THEN be named and shamed. Until one thing or the other has been proven, the decent thing to do is keep BOTH identities secret.

Answer 2

"if there were a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence for provable false accusation more men and their families might be spared this nightmare."

There are already severe penalties for perjury, so this is not required. Indeed, it could be counter-productive in the extreme to the processes of justice. Almost all rape cases never make it to court. Of those that do, the conviction rate as a percentage is in single figures. It is incredibly difficult to bring a rape case to court.

If the victim also has to face the possibility of a jail sentence for reporting a rape, the effect of this, however remote it may seem to you, would be to reduce the number of rape case investigations and charges to nearly zero.

This is hardly any better than those regimes currently the subject of wide condemnation for meting out lashes and imprisonment to women who have been raped.

Answer 3

Imagine that woman was your mother, sister, wife...........would you want her name all over the news? Imagine the damage to her reputation, and that of the whole family.
Imagine she was telling the truth and no one believed her, people would stare and point in the street, call her a slag and say that she 'was asking for it'
This is why the law protects the victims in these cases.
How many women would report rape if there was no anonymity for them?


I do agree however that he should not have been named either

Answer 4

It's customary in many venues not to name rape victims or alleged rape victims.
It is necessary, though unpleasant, that people arrested for crimes be named. It helps guarantee that any suspect will be given fair treatment. We don't want a state where somebody can be arrested and nobody know about it.
Being raped by a 19 year old would not be any better than being raped by an older man, would it?

Answer 5

I think when it comes down to one persons word against another then both should be afforded anonymity.

This case aside,women who cry rape falsely do great damage to genuine victims of rape and untold damage to the innocent men they accuse.The courts are unduly lenient on these women and if there were a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence for provable false accusation more men and their families might be spared this nightmare.

Answer 6

Neither names should be released until evidence and proof of guilt is discovered. Too many women cry rape and it makes it harder for the real victims. Many times a man has been branded a rapist untruly. And the real perpetrators get away with it.

Answer 7

He's a footballer - sells newpapers !!

The question is - who told the newpapers/news media ??

Further question - seeing as certain facts in this case are becoming widespread - What happened to the "sub judice" law and where are the summonses for contempt of court ??

Unfortunatly - we are becoming "Murdochised" and court cases are starting to be decided in the newspapers as in the USA before they even reach a jury.

Answer 8

I hear what you're saying and I agree with you. He shouldn't be named. But the victim's name should never be given out!
Say for instance it's true and he really did rape her, does she need the added insult to injury?
But you're right, his name shouldn't be released until after he is convicted, unfortunately it doesn't always work that way! ~V.

Answer 9

I thought he handed himself into the police station.
Like above said 'victim' needs protecting.

I know some real rape victims and they never got this protection, it's all about fame and money.

The press love to bring down the rich and make everything in their lives more high profile, it sells papers and ruins lives quicker.

EDIT: i agree with crazymen. 110%

Answer 10

It doesn't seem fair at all, even worse is being accused of being a paedophile and being innocent, mud sticks. In cases like this the accused should remain anonymous until the charge is proven.