There was an article in the Independent today, that leaves me in a quandary. It involves a man suing the woman who accused him of rape - as he has just been acquitted.
Independent Article
Independent Article
Understandably the women's rights groups are up in arms about the possibility of this happening, and the effect it may have on women coming forward after being raped - something that could become a serious issue.
From the other side, what happens to a man when he is accused of rape is almost as psychologically scaring as being raped - with the added side effect of anyone knowing that you were charged with it asking did he or didn't he.
Finding a line between the two may not be possible, to protect women and make them feel safe to bring charges against their attacker and at the same time protect men against false charges.
In the long run I think the only option may be to block any legal proceedings against the alleged victim but to keep the man's identity secret until he is convicted. Though far from perfect, it may be the only way to keep rapists off the streets - and though the occasional false allegation may harm some men - that is better than leaving predictors on the streets and at least the innocent would have a trial by jury to fall back on.
From the other side, what happens to a man when he is accused of rape is almost as psychologically scaring as being raped - with the added side effect of anyone knowing that you were charged with it asking did he or didn't he.
Finding a line between the two may not be possible, to protect women and make them feel safe to bring charges against their attacker and at the same time protect men against false charges.
In the long run I think the only option may be to block any legal proceedings against the alleged victim but to keep the man's identity secret until he is convicted. Though far from perfect, it may be the only way to keep rapists off the streets - and though the occasional false allegation may harm some men - that is better than leaving predictors on the streets and at least the innocent would have a trial by jury to fall back on.
1 comment:
Not guilty and guilty are quite clear terms. £300,000 is little compensation for the cost of proof that someone did not rape someone who lied to bring about a trail that finds the accused had told the truth. I hope that this man wins his case, the money helps him recover and his accuser is jailed. If she cannot afford to pay we all owe it to him to return his life to him. Trust me; it is not the authority’s fault that when a person lies to bring about a rape case the only person to blame is the lying accuser. They must be made to pay.
The tests are did the accuser lie? Did those lies leave the authorities with no choice but to follow procedure and charge? Was the accused found not guilty?
I see no reason why accused are named in respect of encouraging real victims coming forward. The authorities are quite capable of protecting the public interests. In fact anonymity for all until and if a guilty verdict is given can only encourage the facts are established and anything else encourages abuse of the system for all sorts of reasons other than a crime having being committed.
I believe regret is the greatest encouragement for women to make these claims both privately and sometimes officially. In so many ways society and the system supports women who, after the fact regret consensual but unplanned choices. It is simply not good enough to punish men and society because women who rightly enjoy more equality than ever before are encouraged to not take ownership and the responsibilities that come with those freedoms.
Post a Comment