Here we go again.
Just days after Michael LeVell was acquitted of raping a young girl, who claimed the actor had abused her when she was only six years old, we have an entire trial collapsing in the face of new evidence against the nine accused men.
According to the crown prosecutor, a Twitter feed came to light that has basically destroyed the prosecution’s case.
The precise content of the Tweets was not disclosed to the Old Bailey, but prosecutor Samantha Cohen said they had been reviewed at the ‘highest level.’
‘The consequence of the review of that material which has been conducted at the highest level is that there is no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction of any defendant on any charge on the indictment,’ she said.
‘For that reason the Crown offer no evidence against the defendants in this case.’
Wow. That must have been some Twitter feed.
Given the fact that evidence has come to light that ALL the charges all complete bullshit, you would think the media would have some sympathy for the accused. Nope. All the men’s names, who range in age from 21 to 30, are published in the reports.
The false accuser, of course, retains her anonymity.
Peter Lloyd, whom I believe may be the only journalist in the British popular press who covers issues from a men’s rights perspective, has written a column in which he discusses the very real consequences of naming and shaming men accused of gut-churning sexual crimes, who are then later exonerated.
…like thousands of men all over the world, Le Vell’s life has already been destroyed by a system which considers men’s innocence a bonus – not a baseline. And it has to end.
The case not only proved that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterated a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a guilty verdict?
It is – quite frankly – inhumane and has no place in a civilised society.
Peter quite rightly argues that people are irrationally prejudiced against certain men, for a variety of reasons, and will convict that man in their minds regardless of what a jury concludes.
Haters across the world will decide that he is guilty by default. That he is a rapist simply because he is male. Or working class. Or an alcoholic. Perhaps even all three. They will gather around the water cooler and say: ‘there’s no smoke without fire’ or ‘he looks the type’.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is precisely why a court of law, not a casual observer who is not armed with all the evidence, should convict a defendant.
In fact, the law in the UK used to extend anonymity to the accused for the simple reason that rape and sexual assault are special crimes with a unique ability to destroy the accused’s life. Prior to 1976, the accused were protected, but the law changed in 1988, ostensibly to assist police in their investigations. Not everyone in the British judiciary agreed with that change. Lord Corbett, who introduced the 1976 mutual pre-trial anonymity law, argued that:
Rape is a uniquely serious offence and acquittal is not enough to clear a man in the eyes of his family, community or workplace. He is left with this indelible stain on his reputation. The case for matching anonymity for the defendant is as strong now as ever
Julie Bindel, one of the most heartless and rabid feminist journalists in Britain had a good sneer at the idea that being accused of rape could have any negative consequences for the accused.
In reality, rape is not really seen as a heinous crime, only those cases Whoopi Goldberg notoriously described as, “rape-rape”. Indeed, the most commonplace rapes – those committed by partners, friends, acquaintances, family members and work colleagues – are often not considered rape at all, which is why the vast majority never get to court or are acquitted if they do.
A fair number of celebrities including footballers, musicians, actors and authors have been accused of rape in the past and do not seem to have suffered longer term. To say that an accusation ruins lives is perhaps a sweeping generalisation.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/may/21/anonymity-rape-defendants
No, Julie, you have that exactly ass-backwards. Rape is indeed seen as a heinous crime, which is why juries tend to require EVIDENCE before they are willing to convict a man for an offense that will haunt him for the rest of his life. Rich men tend to escape the consequences?
Really?
Tell that to Roman Polanski. Or Julian Assange.
But in the rush to protect men from the consequences of a false or unprovable allegation, I think that Peter is missing an opportunity to protect men from a false allegation happening in the first place.
Why not name the women who make the accusations?
It took ELEVEN false accusations and a decade before the delightful Elizabeth Jones was jailed for falsely accusing men she didn’t like of raping her.
While the Telegraph doesn’t name the accused, at the time the crimes were alleged, they would have been well within their rights to do so, all the while protecting Lizzie’s identity.
It took eight years and five false allegations against men who dared to break up with her before Leanne Black was finally jailed, too.
Linsey Black picked a man she didn’t even know off a Facebook page and accused him of raping her, quite nicely destroying his life in the process.
Eventually, Lizzie, Leane and Linsey will get out of jail, and will no doubt be looking about for their next boyfriends.
Let’s hope those boyfriends know how to use Google, huh?
Forcing women to own their accusations by making their identities public provides a valuable public service by letting men known just what their Princesses have been up to in the past. When some little chickie decided to accuse Jose Consenco of rape, he immediately took to Twitter to defend himself by revealing his accuser’s name.
I wonder what happened to that case?
Oh, look. The woman was so intimidated and frightened when Jose posted her details she withdrew all charges. Jose took a lie detector test and passed and the police closed the case.
And what happened to cupcake who claimed Jose drugged and raped her?
Nothing.
Except that now any man who decides to take cupcake for a spin knows just what cupcake is capable of, thanks to Jose.
The obvious objection to revealing the names of the accusers is that it will make women even more afraid to bring forth accusations. Is that really such a bad thing? Perhaps women should be reminded that accusations of rape are very serious indeed, and they should never, ever be alleged without evidence. Charging a man with rape should come with some serious consequences for the accusers, including being named and shamed along with the accused.
The only argument against revealing the name of the accuser that holds any water with me is that women who really were raped and who have secured a conviction against the accused may not want the details of a very terrifying ordeal made public for every person they will ever meet who has access to the internet to know about. Rape is an enormous violation and I can completely understand that women who have experienced it might wish to keep that private.
And that is what it comes down to. Privacy. Only convicted criminals should be forced to surrender their privacy, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. The very basic premise of our entire justice system is that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and it is only the guilty who should face the court of public execution.
Women who are raped and who can prove that in a court of law are not guilty of anything, nothingwithstanding having deliberately put themselves in a vulnerable position. Their right to privacy remains intact.
Which means that Peter is right. Anonymity for the accused protects the accused from being assumed guilty. It assures that justice is carried out.
The overwhelming majority of men are not rapists – not by a long shot, and the law must remember this.
It is true that affording anonymity to men accused of rape who really are guilty but walk away because there is insufficient evidence for a conviction are then free to go on and rape others, and future victims have no way of knowing that previous allegations of assault have been lodged, but that is true for accusers, too. Women who have falsely accused men of rape will not have their identities revealed, and their future victims will also have no way of knowing that previous false allegations have been lodged.
But that is the price that we all pay for adhering to the basic premise of justice.
innocens nisi probetur nocens
Innocent until proven guilty
It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer.
William Blackstone
It’s still a good idea to Google your dates, though. You never know what Twitter might reveal.
And you can subscribe to Peter Lloyd’s RSS feed here. He always has something interesting to say.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/search.html?authornamef=Peter%20Lloyd
Lots of love,
JB
judgybitch 
“Which means that Peter is right. Anonymity for the accused protects the accused from being assumed guilty. It assures that justice is carried out.”
Well, there is also that idea that forbidding the press to enter court rooms (or speaking about what they saw) under the threat of jail is a sign of a totalitarian state… Someone who was arrested once told me they would rather be named in the media, instead of being arrested and simply disappearing without a trace.
So I’m leaning towards not letting anyone be anonymous. I know the state will be sympathetic to a rape accuser, but not so for the rape accused.
LikeLike
Naming a person guilty of sex crimes in a culture of sex-abuse hysteria amounts to soul death for both the guilty party and the lynch mob around him. You may as well toss a grenade into the crowd for the widespread soul damage it will do.
What happened to the concept of forgiveness?
Mankind is nothing–nothing–without the capacity to forgive and to hope for it. That means no crime is so severe that the criminal forfeits the right to hope for forgiveness. They may never receive it, but our capacity to forgive those who have trespassed against us is precisely what it means to be human. This is what the presumption of innocence – e.g. Blackstone’s formulation – is all about.
Public disclosure in the Google age amounts to a removal of hope; an erasure-by-mob of the concept of forgiveness (remorse, repentance, redemption); a public denial of the greatest single advance in Man’s moral history – grace.
And for what do we trade such a profound concept – the right to keep beta-boys out of the honey pot.
God help us.
LikeLike
Here’s an example:
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/midshipman-describes-night-of-drinking-before-alleged-sex-assault-1.237919
Note the ostensible rape did not stop her from having consensual sex with someone that same morning and shortly after finding out that two other guys had sex with her too (she had had sex with one of them before as well).
She pieced together the events she was too drunk to remember via facebook, and other social networking mediums, and has absolutely no idea whether anything happened. But we now know the names and faces of the accused (not the accuser, who is sure to be a commissioned officer in the military soon, untouchable though her conduct is obviously completely unbecoming of an officer…don’t let issues like respect, even when it’s a matter of life and death, interfer with a politically motivated social experiment).
LikeLike
Now I understand… Was not Regan who was possesed by Satan. Was the right opposite.
Satan needed the exorcism. But Father Karras and Father Melvin were decieved by Regan.
Saint Paul was right: is better to a man not to touch a woman.
LikeLike
The Catholic priest of my village was right: “Vagina is Hell´s Gate”
LikeLike
Don’t know much about the sexual abuse case with the Twitter-feed. But, I think it is proper that the men were named after the case was dismissed. Assuming they had been named previously, it is better to have some public records proclaiming their innocence rather than no record at all.
LikeLike
Good point. If the media publishes the accusation, they most certainly should publish the exoneration.
LikeLike
The only argument against revealing the name of the accuser that holds any water with me is that women who really were raped and who have secured a conviction against the accused may not want the details of a very terrifying ordeal made public for every person they will ever meet who has access to the internet to know about. Rape is an enormous violation and I can completely understand that women who have experienced it might wish to keep that private.
I absolutely agree in principle, but here’s the unfortunate reality: far too many cavalier “wolf cries” from women over the last few decades have, for better or for worse, utterly destroyed the credibility of most rape accusations and those who make them. It is almost to the point (we might even already be there) where a man has to be caught in the act, in flagrante delicto, for a rape charge to deserve any serious consideration at all.
Ladies, for those of you unfortunate enough to have been on the receiving end of real rape (NOT the feminist “I-regret-having-sex-with-a-non-alpha-guy-so-I’m-gonna-hurl-a-rape-charge-at-him-the-next-morning” version so popular today), you can thank “grrrrrrrl power” for this emerging and metastasizing cynicism. I don’t know if these fruits of the feminst efforts at minimization will be overcome anytime soon.
And that is what it comes down to. Privacy. Only convicted criminals should be forced to surrender their privacy, especially when it comes to allegations of sexual misconduct and assault. The very basic premise of our entire justice system is that the accused are innocent until proven guilty, and it is only the guilty who should face the court of public execution.
Again, I absolutely agree with this in principle. However, the politicized incompetence and corruption of what passes for the “justice system” has resulted in too many “convicted criminals” who are, in fact, innocent of any crime whatsoever.
Consider, as just one example among a myriad of such, the Duke University Lacrosse players of seven years ago. Had they not been fortunate enough to hail from wealthy families who had the money to fund their defenses, they would ALL be rotting in prison today. Many, manyother men just as innocent as these young men are rotting in prison today for want of anything even close to the wealth necessary to secure basic justice from a system that is supposedly premised on such (but that anyone with an ounce of intelligence and exposure to the real world knows is a horseshit-filled myth).
LikeLike
This is just fucking sickening:
“I don’t even know what happened. I don’t remember it. But I know for a fact that they raped me, even though I don’t remember anything and don’t even know what happened. It’s my special magical vagina power to know. Yes, I’ve had consensual flings with one of the guys before. Sure, I had sex with another guy after I woke up from being horribly raped. But that’s before I even knew I was raped. You see, because I don’t remember it, I had to go to Facebook to piece it all together, and based on what Facebook says, I was totally raped. You see, I was too drunk to remember, so I must have been too drunk to give consent, right? I’m not responsible for my actions if I was so drunk I can’t remember them! What? The men don’t remember, either? Well, THEY ARE responsible for their actions, even if they can’t remember them. You see, I was too drunk to know that they were too drunk to know what they were doing. No, I’m relatively sure that I didn’t give consent. Pretty sure. Maybe. I don’t know, but I think that’s good enough to ruin their lives, isn’t it? I mean, I really, really regret that night. Shouldn’t they be punished for that? Because I feel really, really shitty about this situation. I am pretty sure that I wouldn’t have willingly slept with either of these guys if…
…well, yeah, I DID willingly sleep with one of them once before – what’s that got to do with it? You think that I might have willingly slept with him last night again, in my drunken stupor? Maybe I even told him specifically that it was cool and that I wanted him to have sex with me? Nonsense. Ruin his life. I’m pretty sure I didn’t. Well, I’m not sure at all that I didn’t, but I would like to think that I didn’t. So throw him in a jail cell and ruin him for me. Because I’m relatively, pretty sure, kinda, that I wouldn’t have said “yes” even though I don’t remember, and even though I said “yes” once before.
Fuck around, why are you so focused on blaming the victim here? You guys suck! Don’t you know that “no” means “no?” Well, yeah, I probably didn’t say “no” in the strictest sense of the term. But I said it after the fact, the next day, so I must have felt it the night before, because no one has ever willingly participated in something the night before that they regretted, or had trouble remembering, in the morning, right? Right? Guys?
Fuck it, throw them in jail.”
LikeLike
Something I always found borderline hilarious while I was on active duty (being too cynical and fatigued by the late stage of my career to waste any energy on being outraged):
Of the several female junior officers I ever served under, more than a couple of whom were of the “adultolescent” power-slut variety (two of them Academy grads), NONE of them who got themselves into the type of trouble you describe above EVER faced any charges of “conduct unbecoming of an officer.” Their male counterparts, on the other hand, who found themselves in identical situations, most assuredly did.
I would love to hear a female graduate of West Point, Annapolis, or the AF Academy try to explain away their lack of agency in such situations. The irony would probably kill me.
LikeLike
Largely a matter of trust that the government follows the law, certainly it has operatives grab people off the street. But if you’re going to have trials, I agree they need to be open. Revealing the parties is a necessary evil, maybe the innocent should get compensation for the loss to reputation. Letting the accuser remain anonymous nullifies the process. Recent case shows how “protecting the victim” spreads to keep the police investigation secret even after the victim is revealed to be the offender
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418993/Trial-collapses-men-accused-rape-police-discover-new-evidence-old-Twitter-account-14.html
LikeLike
And that’s the kind of case cited as an example of the “rape crisis” requiring major changes to the military culture, leadership, composition, and legal procedures.
LikeLike
If you’re out of the military now, you missed the stand down day. Military members on US bases worldwide had an entire day this summer, funded at taxpayer expense to do nothing but sit and talk about the no tolerance policy and watch videos about how to be a world class cock-blocker, brought to you from people who seem to have had no contact with actual humans in social situations. Ever.
“It’s the culture!” In order to do your part you have to interject yourself into the situation whenever a woman drinks at a bar and decides to go home with a man. If you don’t, you’re part of the problem. The only one not viewed as a responsible party is the actual woman who goes home with the man. It’s on everyone else in the room. I can’t make this up. Kafka wept.
LikeLike
Note the positive aspect of this business – the prosecutors actually dropped a rape case because they knew it was bogus! Amazing! That’s what happens when you don’t measure people’s performance in public office (and resulting pay) by bullshit metrics such as “you must bring X nuber of cases to trial each year” or “you must issue X number of parking tickets per month”.
I’ll bet quite a bit of the rape hysteria comes down to management by numbers, rather than by people.
LikeLike
I’ve also had reservations about the registered sex offender list. For one thing, it’s always enforced in a sexist manner. No matter what a woman does, it’s rare she ends up on the list. but also it only serves to target guys who have served their time. The excuse is recidivism, but all crimes have a recidivism rate. At what level and for what crimes is a matter of judgment. And the effect is the predictable creating communities that are concentration camps for such men as these lists are used as excuses to exile these men. and of course, some of these men have since been murdered, which you can expect from such a list.
LikeLike
These cases are precisely why we must proceed on the following grounds: If you can’t remember it, you can’t claim you were raped.
Blackout drunks often appear to be fully functioning. Some have successfully driven hundreds of miles in a blackout. Nor is it credible to claim you would never have slept with X while sober, therefore you were raped. Drunk people, and people in blackouts do things contrary to their sober intentions all the time.
This is why “She was drunk, she had sex, therefore she was raped” attitudes and laws are so pernicious. No one but the drinker should be responsible for their behavior while they appear fully functional.
LikeLike