Can't we all just get along?

[Soapy Sam]

Fiona- From what I've read, men also feel shame after they are sexually assaulted by another man. (Female on male rape is so bizarre I can only remember hearing of one case, so I'll ignore it here).
I think most male-male rape(in society at large rather than all male institutions) involves children- and usually is incestuous, or at least familial, so the victim is younger than and socially dominated by the (step)father / uncle/ whatever. But as the boy hits puberty, shame is supplemented or replaced by anger. (Testosterone, the wonder drug).

My knowledge of the multiple rape case currently in the media is patchy, but I understand the two daughters continued to allow repeated rape (and pregnancies) at the hands of the father, but that a son ran away at 15 and reported his father to the police for incest and sexual abuse- which was, very sadly, not followed up. Whether the daughters are mentally able, I have not heard mentioned. I do wonder about that.

Prolonged abuse like that truly is hard for me (and I think most men) to understand. Had they NO recourse to help? NO weapon (literal or metaphorical) they could use? Did he NEVER sleep? My mother once quoted my grandmother on the subject of "battered wives".
She said any man that hit her once would meet a frying pan next time he came through the door. Now that's an attitude I can empathise with.

Non-sexual violent assault in human societies generally is aimed not at women, but at young men. This is true in every human culture from the Amazon to NYC , I believe- especially at the extreme end of the spectrum- murder. (Except during wars, when female civilian casualties are similar to males. Bombs are truly democratic weapons).

Many young men go in permanent fear of assault- including in the city we both know well. But nobody ever "walks a young man home", even though he may be in greater actual danger than his girlfriend. He is somehow expected to be able to "take care of himself". In reality, outside the movies, no single man can hope to handle more than two opponents at once with any likelihood of winning, unless he's either well trained or lucky- and human predators are pack hunters.
That's why so many teenagers carry knives. They'd have guns if they could get them.
Hell, boys would have flamethrowers if they could get them. Boys dream about hurting people- but "normal" boys dream about hurting bigger boys to impress girls. That's actually how boys are supposed to think. I don't know how girls or women think .
(What man ever did?)
Anger is not the primary motivating emotion among males. Fear is.

If I'm attacked- and I have been, three times in my adult life- I'm not angry. I'm afraid. I get angry afterwards. (Incidentally, only go for the nuts if you're close enough to use a knee. It's a small target and if you miss, he'll grab your foot. Kick for the inside of the knee against a standing opponent, then run. If he's lying down, there are so many targets it's just not fair...Start at the throat and work down.)

Male on male rape is something qualitatively different (to me) than other assault. (ETA-That's male fear right there. As you say- self interest sets our attitudes).
I think this is where the male / female mindsets seem to go different ways.
If a man raped me, I would try everything I could think of to stop him at the time, regardless of what damage I took in the process. And if I survived the attack, I would spend every minute and every penny working out how to kill him.

Women don't seem to think / react that way at all, which may be natural selection screwing us over again. After all, back in the old days, rape and marriage were probably much the same thing- the "club & cave" culture. Did any man "ask permission" in the Stone Age? If a woman was raped, maybe she had a kid, who possibly passed on papa's "outgoing " personality- and 50% of HER genes too.
Being made love to gently by a dude she liked, passed on 50% of her genes too, plus those of a quieter personality. But maybe, because he was a nice guy, he never got the chance at all. We've all heard the complaint of nice guys everywhere, that women persistently want to be their friend, but choose to have sex with aggressive louts. I've seen it often enough to think there's something to it. And I include some extremely intelligent women in that generalisation. There seems to be something other than intelligence at work.

Maybe the reason we have two types of sexual intercourse (consensual and non-) at all, is that the nice guys (or "wimps" from one POV) became lawyers and distorted society to enhance their own reproductive chances? Or that women are gradually, generation by generation, feminising men?
Trouble with selfish gene explanations is- once you start looking, you can find them anywhere.

 

[Lonewulf]

Fiona- From what I've read, men also feel shame after they are sexually assaulted by another man. (Female on male rape is so bizarre I can only remember hearing of one case, so I'll ignore it here).

Bizarre or not, it happens. Several cases were quoted in the Sexual Assault thread.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

Soapy Sam: I personally don't think it is a male/female difference. I think most people (like you) think that they will react in a certain way to sexual assault, but when it comes down to it, they don't always act that way and often don't know why. Note Eck's post on this thread where he says he didn't fight back either, and doesn't really know why.

 

[Francesca R]

This is, for me, a genuinely baffling thing- that anyone would simply permit such an assault . Yet it seems to be common. The explanation I often see is that passivity helps avoid injury- but who cares? You are being injured. Bite the bastard's throat out! Let the courts argue about the verdict later.

In the majority of rape cases (I have read 88%--no citation) the defendant is not denying that sexual intercourse took place. The issue before judges and juries is whether or not the victim consented. Your questioning of why a (female) victim would not fight back probably represents a fairly common view, which is why courts are more likely to be convinced if evidence exists that a victim resisted, and was physically harmed (and furthermore, beyond the type of evidence that a defendant could explain away as being vigourous/energetic "sex-play"). Yet it flies in the face of everything many women believe--and are told--about self-protection. Rape prevention education advises women not to invite greater harm by fighting their assailant, who might have a weapon. Many documented cases of women who have been raped and then killed validates that violence does not always stop at rape. And I think that the fact is that most women know this instinctively anyway, without having it reported to them. I feel that your suggested reaction "who cares? You are being injured" simply doesn't compute in reality. Women being raped do not instinctively fight like lionesses defending their cubs. The reaction function is strikingly different. The suspicion that it should not be (which is entirely illogical to me) is what contributes to rape victims feeling like they are on trial over why they so easily allowed the rape to take place. This attitude is one of the things that can be improved.

Do you feel this passivity is something instinctively female?

I fail to see what being female need have to do with it. It is entirely reasonable. It would be correct to observe that it is inconsistent with a woman who was being raped considering thoughts like: "Now that I'm being raped, let me think quickly about how I can ensure for the production of maximum forensic evidence that will ultimately secure a conviction and justice". And that question does seem to be what sometimes befuddles judges and juries. But IMO it is ridiculous to suppose that a rape victim should or could ever consider such an approach when an attack is taking place, or afterwards.

 

[Magenta]

Magenta,

With your ability to quote people out of context I recommend you consider a career as a journalist for the tabloid press.

Assuming that women lie is prejudicial regardless of context when made without any attempt to qualify or justify the statement.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Assuming that women lie is prejudicial regardless of context when made without any attempt to qualify or justify the statement.

The context qualifies the statement.

In this case the context was the claim by women that they wear provocative clothing to "look good".

I doubt many women would have replied to such a survey saying they wear certain clothes so men find them attractive. That's just not PC.

But please feel free to continue digging the hole you are in by posting my comment about womens' answers to a survey on choice of clothing in a thread about rape.

 

[Francesca R]

How is the process unfair at the moment?
How should the process be changed?

This is not a direct answer to the questions, but here are a few of the changes that have happened. The purpose of noting them is to accept that change has happened but to offer the view that there is further to go:

The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 was the first ruling that the sexual history of the complainant could not be freely probed in a rape trial. However this was much later judged as inadequate in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 which prohibits sexual history evidence to other sexual offences in addition to rape, but there are still rules of admissability. The fear of cross examination about sexual history is a great deterrent to rape victims pursuing justice.

In 1982 a judge (Bertrand Richards) who fined the rapist of a teenager £2000 because the victim was "guilty of a great deal of contributory negligence" for hitchhiking at night (he also said she was "asking for it") was later shamed and banned from sex cases. Contributory negligence has been much diluted as a defence in rape cases but only in the last 20 years.

In 1990 a judge (Kenneth Jupp) gave a suspended sentence to a man who twice raped his wife, on the basis that "It was a rare sort of rape. it is not like someone being jumped on in the street". Until 1991, a married woman's "No" was pretty meaningless unless an offence of violent assault was also involved.

Until the Public Order Act 1994 were judges were required to warn juries on the dangers of convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of complainants, although they still can at their discretion (Rape is a "special" a crime where corroboration is normally unobtainable) A judge (Sutcliffe) infamously warned a jury in 1976 that "It is well known that women in particular and small boys are liable to be untruthful and invent stories" Such a comment from a member of the judiciary with no basis in fact was contemptible.
____
Now--were you aware of any of these developments?

Do you think that they complete the process of building criminal statutes that maxmise justice (while still sanctifying legal rights and preserving civil liberties as much as possible) so that there is no more to be done?

Or are you really not all that bothered?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Now--were you aware of any of these developments?

Specifically, no. Generally (i.e. that judges ETA:were are often out of touch with reality and have made some bizarre statements in court), yes.

Do you think that they complete the process of building criminal statutes that maxmise justice (while still sanctifying legal rights and preserving civil liberties as much as possible) so that there is no more to be done?

No. Prof. Yaffle has provided some links which have practical suggestions on how to improve the conviction rate. They are not about changing the law, but about maximising the available evidence by improving how victims are dealt with by the police and CPS.

Or are you really not all that bothered?

I'm bothered about a conviction based solely on a complainant's testimony.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm bothered about a conviction based solely on a complainant's testimony.

Why? Courts regularly make decisions based on testimony, where juries make assessments of witnesses and facts. It is not confined to rape. Testimony under cross-examination is evidence and juries are required to decide if it is truthful. Is there something special about rape which renders testimony unable to be assessed? Why should it be the case that jurors are unable to separate truthful from false evidence without judges or defence lawyers interjecting with theories of sexual neuroses, female fantasies and warnings that women make stories up?

 

[Soapy Sam]

I fail to see what being female need have to do with it. It is entirely reasonable. It would be correct to observe that it is inconsistent with a woman who was being raped considering thoughts like: "Now that I'm being raped, let me think quickly about how I can ensure for the production of maximum forensic evidence that will ultimately secure a conviction and justice". And that question does seem to be what sometimes befuddles judges and juries. But IMO it is ridiculous to suppose that a rape victim should or could ever consider such an approach when an attack is taking place, or afterwards.

Interesting comment- especially having read Eck's description of a male-male attack, which suggests otherwise.
Fran- I'm asking, not stating. I don't know. I never had such an experience so don't know how I'd react. I know how I think I'd react, but until something awful actually happens, do we really know?
Trouble with a subject like this is that we rarely do discuss it. All the more kudos to Fiona.

ETA- I'd stress I don't give much credence to the "cool & calm evidence collection" argument- unless we're talking about a trained special forces operative, or someone of that ilk.
What I would expect- and am confused not to see- is more outright , mindless, desperate violence from the victim. I dunno if that does happen more with male/male cases. Or if it's under reported generally, perhaps to protect the victim from assault charges!

Add- I think there is something different about rape cases in the mass. Very often the ONLY evidence is testimony. In (say) robbery cases that is less probable.

It's not that the testimony is less reliable in rape cases, but that testimony is more likely to be all the evidence there is. In a case where the same man is accused by several women, it would appear there is a pattern independent of each case- and that is significant, but you can't get there from one case- and you won't get there if the legal system does not declare the other cases- as they may not to a jury.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona- From what I've read, men also feel shame after they are sexually assaulted by another man. (Female on male rape is so bizarre I can only remember hearing of one case, so I'll ignore it here).
I think most male-male rape(in society at large rather than all male institutions) involves children- and usually is incestuous, or at least familial, so the victim is younger than and socially dominated by the (step)father / uncle/ whatever. But as the boy hits puberty, shame is supplemented or replaced by anger. (Testosterone, the wonder drug).

I honestly don't know, Soapy. There is a great deal of child sexual abuse: much more than people are comfortable to acknowledge. For many girls and boys it stops a puberty but I am not sure about the reasons for this: at least some paedophiles just don't fancy folk with adult bodies and'/or minds I think. But data is sparse

My knowledge of the multiple rape case currently in the media is patchy, but I understand the two daughters continued to allow repeated rape (and pregnancies) at the hands of the father, but that a son ran away at 15 and reported his father to the police for incest and sexual abuse- which was, very sadly, not followed up. Whether the daughters are mentally able, I have not heard mentioned. I do wonder about that.

While I do not think there is much evidence for a sex difference in response to childhood sexual abuse, I do think there is one very significant sex-linked factor you may not be taking into account, even though you mention it: the girls had babies. Sometimes when a baby is a result of rape the mother cannot bond and that is a problem in itself: but it is not always so. That man threatened that their children would be removed. One of the girls called child line but hung up when they would not give an assurance that was not true. I think we have to remember that young people brought up in such a family do not have a great grasp on normal relationship: often they are kept quite isolated and know little of how society and the law works either: and they have an inflated sense of the power of the perpetrator for rather obvious reasons. "Mentally able" is a wide term but we do know that childhood abuse and trauma interferes with the capacity to learn (well any trauma does at least for a time) and so regardless of annate ability the development is likely to be arrested or twisted. I think anyway

Prolonged abuse like that truly is hard for me (and I think most men) to understand. Had they NO recourse to help?

How could they know? Their picture of what the world is like was informed by their experience, just as it is for all of us. You are talking from the position of someone who sees this man as very unusual. But they knew little else. Who would you turn to? who trust? even in these circumstances the devil you know can be a lot less frightening, and I imagine he might have encouraged that view. Where comes the counter example? I am speculating, obviously, but I do know that in my work the hardest hurdle to overcome is sheer disbelief about what some folk do. Yet I have access to research and experience in practice. Still paedophiles do not present as monsters usually. They are generally quite nice - well children like them. Josef Fritzl was seen as a nice guy by some, reportedly: no-one thought he would do what he did. And why would you? the world is not full of monsters, Soapy. But these girls did not know that. Their mother could not help them and their brother could not either, from what we see reported. Why should they believe anyone could?

NO weapon (literal or metaphorical) they could use? Did he NEVER sleep? My mother once quoted my grandmother on the subject of "battered wives".
She said any man that hit her once would meet a frying pan next time he came through the door. Now that's an attitude I can empathise with.

Yes but again you are talking from the perspective of someone who has a sense of self worth:and who has a reasonable grasp of what is acceptable.

Non-sexual violent assault in human societies generally is aimed not at women, but at young men. This is true in every human culture from the Amazon to NYC , I believe- especially at the extreme end of the spectrum- murder. (Except during wars, when female civilian casualties are similar to males. Bombs are truly democratic weapons).

Many young men go in permanent fear of assault- including in the city we both know well. But nobody ever "walks a young man home", even though he may be in greater actual danger than his girlfriend. He is somehow expected to be able to "take care of himself". In reality, outside the movies, no single man can hope to handle more than two opponents at once with any likelihood of winning, unless he's either well trained or lucky- and human predators are pack hunters.
That's why so many teenagers carry knives. They'd have guns if they could get them.
Hell, boys would have flamethrowers if they could get them. Boys dream about hurting people- but "normal" boys dream about hurting bigger boys to impress girls. That's actually how boys are supposed to think. I don't know how girls or women think .
(What man ever did?)
Anger is not the primary motivating emotion among males. Fear is.

Not sure about this. I have referred to the reality of violence before, and I am very well aware that young men are far more likely to be victims of non-sexual assault. The figures are truly shocking and I have drawn attention to this fact in other threads. But I see an inconsistency in what you say here and it interests me. You say that boys are frightened and if that is true then it is perfectly reasonable as I read the figures. But you also say they "dream" of fighting to impress girls. And that is truly odd.

What I have been arguing here is that our fears are not properly grounded on what actually happens, but rather on myth and culture with a little truth to sustain it through confirmation bias. So there is rape: but it is not usually of the type that is most feared; and there is false allegaton: but it is not so common as the fear it engenders would suggest. Is this perhaps the same kind of mythology but in reverse? Are young men afraid but not as much as they should be, given the incidence? I put it to you that the media do not generally report assaults on young men in the same way: they do sometimes (scarce news day or if there is some special feature, for example): but not even all murders make the news in a big way: serious assault is not national news if it is young male on young male. So it is downplayed and that is not good either. What do you think?

If I'm attacked- and I have been, three times in my adult life- I'm not angry. I'm afraid. I get angry afterwards.

Makes sense and is another myth dispelled for me. I did think that anger kicked in quicker though as soon as you say this it is clearly much more likely to be as you describe

Male on male rape is something qualitatively different (to me) than other assault. (ETA-That's male fear right there. As you say- self interest sets our attitudes).
I think this is where the male / female mindsets seem to go different ways.
If a man raped me, I would try everything I could think of to stop him at the time, regardless of what damage I took in the process. And if I survived the attack, I would spend every minute and every penny working out how to kill him.

Perhaps you would, Soapy. It is not like that for all men as we can see from Eck's very brave post

Women don't seem to think / react that way at all, which may be natural selection screwing us over again.

Maybe. I do not think so - see above

After all, back in the old days, rape and marriage were probably much the same thing- the "club & cave" culture. Did any man "ask permission" in the Stone Age? If a woman was raped, maybe she had a kid, who possibly passed on papa's "outgoing " personality- and 50% of HER genes too.

Well, Elaine Morgan has proposed a similar origin for rape in "The Descent of Woman", so you are not alone in this speculation. While I find the aquatic ape hypothesis attractive I do not buy this bit: I quite simply do not see this as a likely description of stone age social mores: but we will never know and not much hangs on it I do not think we need a story to explain a sex difference which is not yet established, is all

Being made love to gently by a dude she liked, passed on 50% of her genes too, plus those of a quieter personality. But maybe, because he was a nice guy, he never got the chance at all. We've all heard the complaint of nice guys everywhere, that women persistently want to be their friend, but choose to have sex with aggressive louts. I've seen it often enough to think there's something to it. And I include some extremely intelligent women in that generalisation. There seems to be something other than intelligence at work.

Maybe the reason we have two types of sexual intercourse (consensual and non-) at all, is that the nice guys (or "wimps" from one POV) became lawyers and distorted society to enhance their own reproductive chances? Or that women are gradually, generation by generation, feminising men?
Trouble with selfish gene explanations is- once you start looking, you can find them anywhere.

Not even going to go there, for now: this gets wider as we discuss it and this one is a topic all to itself

 

[Francesca R]

Interesting comment- especially having read Eck's description of a male-male attack, which suggests otherwise.

Doesn't Eck's post also report "passivity"?

Fran- I'm asking, not stating. I don't know.

Sure, but it seems completely logical to me that as a victim I would not fight back. And not particularly because I'm female.

 

[Francesca R]

Prof. Yaffle has provided some links which have practical suggestions on how to improve the conviction rate. They are not about changing the law, but about maximising the available evidence by improving how victims are dealt with by the police and CPS.

But there will remain much incidence of rape where there will be no evidence beyond the testimony of witnesses. That is the nature of the crime. There may have been large strides forward in the ability of forensic science to prove that sex took place, but as I noted above, this is not contested by the majority of defendants in rape trials.

So where does that leave you? It seems to be that if witness testimony is all there is, such a rape case should not be tried.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

But there will remain much incidence of rape where there will be no evidence beyond the testimony of witnesses. That is the nature of the crime. There may have been large strides forward in the ability of forensic science to prove that sex took place, but as I noted above, this is not contested by the majority of defendants in rape trials.

So where does that leave you? It seems to be that if witness testimony is all there is, such a rape case should not be tried.

If it is one person's word against another and there are no unusual circumstances or other evidence then, no, the case should not be tried.

I agree this is not very satisfactory.

Allowing conviction for rape based on such evidence would probably result in the correct verdict most of the time, but there would be some which would be wrong and could never be corrected.

 

[Francesca R]

If it is one person's word against another and there are no unusual circumstances or other evidence then, no, the case should not be tried.

I agree this is not very satisfactory.

Unsatisfactory to the point of being wholly unacceptable. And bizarre. Forensic evidence is almost always circumstantial and is subordinate to witness testimony in respect of attesting to the burden of proof, yet you apparently regard it as superior?

For some reason, the evidence of sworn-in witnesses, under cross examination, with the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not worth hearing in your opinion?

Is this just for rape, or for any and every criminal trial where there is no circumstantial evidence? (I trust you are aware that in a rape trial--like any criminal trial--it is the state bringing the case against the accused and that the victim is a witness)

 

[Fiona]

Are you sure about this, Ivor? In this country no case is brought unless the prosecuting authority believes there is a 50% chance of a conviction; or the case is deemed to be in the public interest. That is already in place for all crime. Are you saying that it should be different for rape? For it seems to me that if there are any cases where it truly one person's word against another then they are 50:50 in those terms.

Once the case is brought the defendant in a rape case is subject to presumption of innocence just like every other defendant. And again, many cases of all types do hang on the credibility of the witnesses as determined by the jury. Why do you think rape should be different?

It is certainly true that there are wrongful convictions in all kinds of cases for all kinds of reasons: but the approach is generally that the procedure brings the best safeguards we can and they are designed with the protection of the innocent in mind at all stages.

In this country some of those procedures, which have been worked out over many, many years, and for good reasons, are now under threat: the right to silence has been undermined, for example. I am wholly opposed to those changes, for the most part, because the protection of the innocent is hugely important.

But what you seem to be asking for is a return to a situation, only recently altered in most places, where those safeguards were bolstered by other hurdles against the complainant in the case of rape and rape only. I am very glad there have been some changes to those; and Francesca has listed some of the important ones. What we have seen is a big increase in conviction rates where that has been done.

Since they are mostly quite recent there is not much call to review this legislation at present from those of us who are concerned to rebalance this a little: I want to emphasise we do not want false convictions any more than you do and we are just as alive to the dangers of that, I think. As Prof Yaffle has shown, much of the call for change now is about putting procedures in place which combat the effects of mythology on the way cases actually go forward (or mostly don't). We have made progress. Many police officers and legal officials are better trained now than in the past: there is more understanding of the meaning of certain reactions than there used to: but it is not very wide or very deep as yet. The very different conviction rates within countries shows that quite clearly: it may be that in particular communities rates of rape are different for other reasons: but it is not a very plausible assumption without good evidence of what those reasons might be.

You have noted that the best we have seen so far is 14% conviction, but it is also as low as 2%. I do not think that difference is serving justice, and it is obvious that there is something wrong here. Since 14% can be achieved we need to look at what the differences underlying this disparity are: I assume you would accept that in those jurisdictions which have very low rates there is a major problem which is discriminating against many victims? If not, why not? And if so then can you also accept that there are changes which need to be made, and we know what they are This is not impossible, Ivor; it should not even be that hard.

It may be that you think a rate or 14% is too high and represents a lot of wrongful conviction but if that is your position can you let me see what you base it on? For I have not seen any evidence to that effect

 

[Professor Yaffle]

One of the articles I linked to (or it might have been just one I read along the way) mentioned that in some ares of the US where specialist rape teams are used, they can get conviction rates of up to 80%. Does anyone have any breakdown of US figures they could link to? It might be that the report was misleading, and the teams getting this sort of result only work with a subsection of rape (ie ones that are already more likely to get convictions). It was impossible to tell from the article.

ETA: It was in the Sunday Mail, so I think I am right to be cautious...

The move follows calls from Scotland's chief police officers and victim support groups for the introduction of specialist rape prosecutors. The United States has used specialists since the 1980s with some states achieving conviction rates of more than 80 per cent.

http://www.sundaymail.co.uk/lifesty...ning-to-put-the-victims-first-78057-20708818/

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Unsatisfactory to the point of being wholly unacceptable. And bizarre. Forensic evidence is almost always circumstantial and is subordinate to witness testimony in respect of attesting to the burden of proof, yet you apparently regard it as superior?

I did not say that. Forensic evidence often supports one version of events more than another.

Having said that, eye-witness testimony is often very distorted. There is/was a good interactive demo of this in the Human Biology exhibit at the Natural History museum in London. I identified an innocent bystander of being an armed robber!

For some reason, the evidence of sworn-in witnesses, under cross examination, with the burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt is not worth hearing in your opinion?

Not when it is the only evidence for the prosecution, there are no other unusual circumstances and the defence has exactly the same level of evidence to offer but of the opposite opinion.

Is this just for rape, or for any and every criminal trial where there is no circumstantial evidence? (I trust you are aware that in a rape trial--like any criminal trial--it is the state bringing the case against the accused and that the victim is a witness)

This is for any criminal trial where it is one person's word against another.

 

[Francesca R]

In a case where the same man is accused by several women, it would appear there is a pattern independent of each case- and that is significant, but you can't get there from one case- and you won't get there if the legal system does not declare the other cases- as they may not to a jury.

Well if someone is charged with rape then it can bring forward complaints from other victims.

Somewhat releted here, there are apparently regular backlashes against the rule that complainants in sexual offences are given anonymity, but that accused are not, once they have been charged (this excludes some abhorrent media leaks that have happened in response to accusations). But it is the general case that anonymity is not granted to people charged with criminal offences (unless they are children), and a special case (for sexual offences, and for cases involving children) that victims are granted it. I am convinced that given the high attrition rate, and the issues already raised in this thread--victim anonymity in rape cases is justified and very much should be preserved.

 

[Francesca R]

I did not say that. Forensic evidence often supports one version of events more than another.

What did you say then? I read it that witness testimony (victim and defendant only in this instance) is inferior to the presence of physical evidence in deciding if there should be a trial. That is the opposite way round to how the legal system views the two types of evidence.

Having said that, eye-witness testimony is often very distorted. There is/was a good interactive demo of this in the Human Biology exhibit at the Natural History museum in London. I identified an innocent bystander of being an armed robber!

Please note by "witness" I mean the rape victim. Unless you care to make an analogous statement that rape victims' testimonies are also often "distorted" (I.E. they think they have been raped but in fact have not), then your remark is rather irrelevant here.

Not when it is the only evidence for the prosecution, there are no other unusual circumstances and the defence has exactly the same level of evidence to offer but of the opposite opinion.

This is for any criminal trial where it is one person's word against another.

OK--well I hear that. I am glad that the legal systems in this and many countries do not agree with you. At a stroke, you would set back the achievement of justice in many crimes, but particularly rape crimes, to far behind the hardly satisfactory point it is at now.