http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10760239

I think an opportunity was missed tbh...

No, that would be down to evidence, and how would the quality of evidence drop as a result of not knowing who the rapist is outside the police system?


That might be the real reason for not changing the law. It would be like admitting that they made a mistake before.

Labour argued that since defendants don't get anonymity for other crimes, so they shouldn't be afforded anonymity when accused of rape either.

Apparently they're not aware that being accused of rape can destroy your life (unlike being accused of other offences), regardless if you're found guilty or not.

There are a lot of people who would believe the defendant "got off" with it, rather than being found not guilty.

Yes I agree with that. Though the problem is that unless women are charged for malicious prosecution as well then the system will fall into disrepute.

"now says it will put pressure on media outlets not to name suspects instead."
Well that's obviously going to work.

I can see arguments both way re: anonymity but what I don't like is the notion that rape is for some reason a 'special case' in crime and should be treated according to different rules than any other. Rape is a pretty awful crime but so are many others. The law has to be objective, which means all accusations are prosecuted in the same way.

Jon

The flip side of that is that will scare women who genuinely were (already too few of which pursue court cases) from instigating proceedings.

The annonymity is fine (I think) but the malicious prosecution charge will be a step too far I suspect.

The issue with rape being treated differently is two fold: Firstly rape has made it into a much more socially unacceptable thing to do than other pretty horrific crimes, including Murder, and seem remarkably disinclined to listen to a jury returning an innocent verdict.

Secondly, because the base activity can be perfectly legal in many circumstances (the difference is one of permission) the case is far less clear cut in any of the difficult instances.

I would accept that not enough cases go forward and most are within the family.

As for malicious prosecution what about that case of the lawyer who cried rape when she woke up with someone whom she said she would not have dated normally? She should have been prosecuted. Also not every case is malicious so in those cases the women should be allowed to move on as well.

Rape charges dropped after evidence gleaned from iPhone

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobi ... 10ueq.html

Hope he takes them all to the cleaners

It all goes to show how skewed the law is at times. If the person has been convicted with rape before then yes I would accept that anonymity is unnecessary. But for those without a criminal record it should be mandatory that they are not named.