This ere news story about the girl guilty of making a false allegation

I'm just saying that I doubt there are many completely made up false allegations given the difficulty of getting the crime of rape to prosecution stage.

 

Rightly or wrongly, I guess the reasons are:

* If a man is not named once charged and he then goes on to rape someone else in the meantime there will be questions asked about why it was not made public knowledge
* If the woman is proved to be guilty then the man has that proof to allow his name to be cleared and so he will not be tarnished by it. The only way his life could still be ruined by a false claim is if he was only found not guilty on a lack of evidence but then under your change she still wouldn't be named anyway unless she was convicted of definitely lying
* It definitely, 100%, would stop genuine women from coming forward if they thought there was even a chance of them being named if for some reason they weren't believed

 

I think the threshold for bringing a prosecution for a fake claim should be (and probably is) very high, and the number of such false claims will be very low, but in cases where the CPS is satisfied that a complaint has been falsely and maliciously made then the complainant should 100% be prosecuted in my opinion.

 

That’s not the point though, is it? It doesn’t have to get to prosecution for a false claim to be made. Oh, and it’s a lot more common than you think. I know multiple people that have had consensual sex with a woman after a night out, who has woken up in the morning, regretted it and reported it as rape. It’s worryingly common.

None of these went to prosecution, but one of the guys I know actually lost his job over it, as he worked with children and the company he worked for dare not risk the PR nightmare (trying to be vague here on purpose, due to personal details etc...). He took them to tribunal and got a pay out, but that’s not the point. He still lost money in the long run, as he had to start again at the bottom of the ladder with a new company. He also could not get a new job in the industry while the case was hanging over his head, for obvious reasons (this took months)

 

Exactly

 

8% according to the FBI are made up false allegations. That's a huge number

 

They are prosecuted, SuperTyke is commenting on whether they should also be named and shamed or not. I can't see a case for it other than revenge but I can see a case against it in that it would stop genuine women from coming forward. For me, the bad effects of doing so outweighs the positivies in not doing so I'd leave it as it is.

 

Surely the answer is to keep the names of men that allegations are against hidden also, until details are known? I’m all for releasing the names if a man has been found guilty, but wait until that time.

 

One huge case for it is that it would be a warning for future sexual partners to be wary of being the subject of a false allegation. If I meet a lass and she accepts my invitation for a night of passion (ok a few minutes) I'd quite like to know in advance that she has a history of falsely accusing sexual partners of rape.

 

It would seem to make sense to do that but all charges are available to the public so it would be making a special dispensation to keep this one private. I'm aware that that's what they do for women making the charges but that is specifically to stop women from being afraid to come forward. In the accused case, it would always ruin their life being falsely blamed for something until their name is cleared but it is still announced to the world. Should all names be kept secret for all crimes until guilt has been established?

 

Any Women found guilty of vindictively falsely accusing someone of such a crime should be prosecuted, however the name of the accuser should be withheld until an appropriate time.
As for the accused I don’t understand how they can make special exemption just for certain crimes. Currently anyone accused of almost any crime is in the public domain and available for anyone to obtain.
The reality of this sort of crime is that the minute an accusation is made, all of the accusers and accused are known locally to anyone who wants to know, so the anonymity is gone locally.

 

I did think about that but what are the chances of someone doing that again when there's no real gain for them when they know it would be so much harder to make it stick this time around when they already have a conviction? Might it also make it more likely that she is raped in future if people think they can get away with it as no-one will now believe her and/or want to get revenge on her on behalf of men everywhere?

 

Great minds and all that...

 

You mean that one where loads of people including the UK government are concerned that she got a fair trial. Way too soon to start throwing accusations IMHO

 

It isn't an accusation though is it? It's a convicted criminal.

Now one thing I could possibly agree with would be convicted criminals not being named until after appeals have been heard but then is that taking it too far and is it practical?

 

That's the only possible reason I can think of for not naming. That it would make her likely to suffer retribution in some way.

 

Shes not a convicted criminal if it wasn't A fair trial though is she?

 

Would she suffer more retribution than the men that have false claims made against them? Even if cleared, there’s still a stigma attached to people.

Look at Cliff Richard, I still hear people refer to him as a ‘nonce’ in casual conversation. It’s ridiculous

The phrase “no smoke without fire” needs to go. People still use that to hold it against people that have had false claims made against them.

 

Exactly you might as well say those 2 women in jail in Iran are “convicted criminals” while we’re at it.

 

I can't help feeling you're looking too hard for the victims here - BTW the UK govt estimates that it's less than 4%.

If you've got 10 women close to you - the statistical chance is that 2 of them have been sexually assaulted. Your Auntie, sisters, mum, daughter, wife??

According to the stats >58,000 sexual assaults were reported to the police last year, if 4% of them were false that's 2.3k false accusations. Again the government says that only 30% of sexual assaults are actually reported. So there were over 190,000 more victims last year than there were falsely accused men.

I'm not belittling the damage caused to those 2300 men - but it's 2300 against nearly 200,000 lives ruined so lets keep some perspective.