RAPE OF THE INNOCENT. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE?

RAPE!

THERE IS ANONYMITY FOR THE VICTIM, BUT THE SAME RIGHT IS NOT ACCORDED TO THE ALLEGED PERPETRATOR: WHY ONE WITHOUT THE OTHER? THE PRESUMPTION IS INNOCENCE UNTIL CONVICTION!

Should people charged with a sexual offence retain anonymity until after conviction?
A murder suspect who is arrested does not retain anonymity, so why should a person accused of rape be treated any differently, the argument concludes.
The reason; the sexual act only becomes criminalised if there is no consent. The act of having sex is a natural biological function. Now the water starts to get murky; exactly what constitutes consent?

Let’s look at what the law says.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 (the Act) came into force on the 1 May 2004. It swept before it most of the existing statute law in relation to sexual offences. The provisions in the Act strengthened and modernised the law on sexual offences, improving substantially the protection of individuals from sexual offenders, and sexually predatory persons.

Important provisions of the Act include, but not exclusively, what follows:

• Definition is widened to include oral penetration
• Sweeping changes to what constitutes consent
• Abolition of the Morgan defence
• Clarity in relation to children under 13, 16 and 18
• Offences to protect vulnerable persons with a mental disorder
• Other miscellaneous offences
• Notification requirements and new civil preventative orders

What is the definition of consent?

The Act (2003) has three important requirements recounting consent.

• A statutory definition of consent
• The test of reasonable belief in consent
• The defendant's belief in consent

Consent means, a person, "...agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice." Without consent, a person (male or female) is guilty of the offence of unlawfully having sex without the other party’s consent. Thus, the sexual act becomes criminalised.
Belief of consent is determined with regard to all the circumstances, and that consent must be given freely without coercion. The Act takes into account a defendant's attributes, such as disability, mental capacity, naivety, or extreme youth, any of which could exclude consent.
There is an important change in the law, the Act abolishes the Morgan Defence, whereby the defence can claim there was a genuine, though unreasonably mistaken belief that the complainant consented to having sex. This means the onus is clearly on the defendant and there is a statuary responsibility to ensure that consent was unqualified at the time in question.
It will be imperative for the police to ask the offender in interview what steps were taken to ensure the complainant had consented. The onus of proof is then on the defendant to prove that sexual consent was explicitly agreed. Until then, the Morgan ruling in the mid 1970s stated, ‘to convict a person of rape, the prosecution had to convince the jury, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a woman had not consented to having sex.’
Further, guilt depended on whether or not he thought she had consented. The crunch here, the deciding factor, is thought: what had gone on in the defendant’s mind at the time the sexual act took place, and not, what had happening to the complainant's body. This was the "Morgan Rule,” which says that a man is not guilty of rape, if he genuinely believed there had been consent, no matter how unreasonable that belief.
Deciding whether consent is reasonable, is now evaluated by considering any steps taken by the defendant in ascertaining whether there had been consent to the sexual act before it actual had taken place. Belief in consent is no longer a valid defence plea. The defendant must prove reasonableness to the jury on every account.
For the victims, it is argued, there must be anonymity. Most of the women who contact rape crisis centres have never been inside a Police Station, and it is important that their courage be respected. It is not easy or pleasant going through all the police interviews and the courts. But for all its flaws, it is argued in numerous quarters, that anonymity must be retained. Thankfully, the law is clear on this point in defending the injured party.
Victims of rape and other sex crimes, including minors, are automatically guaranteed anonymity for life from the moment they make a complaint of a sex crime in England and Wales. In Scotland, the law differs slightly, but the practice regarding anonymity is generally universal.
The treatment of the accused in rape cases must be no different from murder or child abuse, or any other crime. You cannot have special rules for the accused in rape cases. The argument to make an exception will feed the myth that women who report rape are lying, and that it is easy to report rape. And perpetuate the belief, that often rape is reported for revenge against a person already known to them, as a punishment for something else.
Equally, anyone accused of rape should not be named until charged with the offence, that is very much the stance. Sometimes, police forces do not adhere to the subscribed practice. Other times, there is a “leak,” or it is in considered in the public interest to release the information, arguing that the public have a right to know, and need to be protected.
On being charged, the name of an accused is published. The argument runs, other women, who have been raped by the same person in the past, can identify the same modus operandi from the description, and be encouraged to report the incident to the police. Even after years have passed, having seen others already come forward will give them added confidence.
Rape victims in the majority of cases are female, with males usually the perpetrators. But let us remember, eight per cent of rapes recorded last years were against men or boys. Moreover, males don’t have to have had an experience of personal rape to suffer from its after-math. Men have mothers, wives, daughters and friends, who have experienced rape, and its repercussions are far reaching, which often destroy marriages and relationships.
The way a society protects its victims of crime is a measure of the civilization of that society, and of its humanization and decency towards its citizens. The vulnerable need protection, and it is universally accepted as such.

John Yates from the Metropolitan Police once said.

“Rape is not a “women’s issue”; rape is an attempt to overpower, to weaken and to violate human dignity. It is an issue that should concern all of us.”

Men have a responsibility to speak out and to challenge the myths and stereotypes, which still surrounds the issue of rape and sexual assault. To show masculinity and strength does not involve dominating others. It is the opposite, to show respect for the individual.
Over the last decade, there has been an increase in the reporting of rape, which indicates that victims are more confident in coming forward than was previously the case. The proportion of cases, which go to court that result in a conviction stands around 34%, the highest it has been for ten years. But, and this is the Cruz, 66% were found not guilty, in other words, they were innocent of all indictable charges.
So what about these people, do they just leave court, say thank you, and just get on with life? No, of course they don’t, society has ostracised them, found them guilty before conviction. The press has reported on them, their pictures are in the papers. They are branded. As clearly as any criminal of old was branded on the forehead, and the scar stays, and still, they carry the tail of a rapist for the rest of their lives and are looked at askance.
What about the false accuser, what happens there? Nothing, they retain the cloak of anonymity, unless they are charged and convicted, but how often does that happen? The answer is rarely. The accuser walks away unscathed, as far as exposure in the media is concerned, and can carry on as normal, but the accused, with a life in tatters, has no such luxury. Despite being proven innocent, the turmoil still goes on, and in many cases the mental anguish actually increases, not diminishes over time.
Rape is a very serious accusation to make, one of the most serious after murder. Why, would anyone wish to argue for anonymity for a person accused of rape, and not for murder? Simply stated, a false accusation of rape is easy to make if someone is that way inclined, and wishes revenge for whatever reason, what better way of getting back at that person.
Rape is different to any other crime; every part of the act is legal, providing it is done with consent. Rape, as a crime, therefore, revolves around the sole issue of consent. The complainant, and the accused, can both agree that they have had sex. The only fact in contention: whether consent was given, or, if the act was one of compulsion, providing (this point is within the meaning of the 2003 legislative Act) that both parties were cognizant to the fact, at the time the sexual act took place.
This does not refer to child abuse, individuals of impaired mental ability, or of individuals who are under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Obviously, that can never be a legal act, because there is no facility for consent, and this is allowed for in the legislation. But even here, there should be scope, due to the nature of the crime, for anonymity until proven by conviction for the accused.
A false accusation of rape by a drunken woman should remain anonymous against the alleged perpetrator until the accuser’s guilt is proven in a court of law, and not before. In a recent court case, it took a jury 45 minutes to throw out an accusation made by a woman in her forties, who had legal training, and cannot be named because she is automatically guaranteed anonymity, against Peter Bacon, a 26-year-old student from Kent who didn’t have such safeguards.
After the case, his life was in tatters, he even lost a year at university. Where is the fairness or justice there? The woman walked away with anonymity, reputation unscathed. Perhaps it was little more than a game to her.
Another example is Clive Bishop, five police officers in three cars, lights blaring, turned up in the middle of the night outside his front door. One of the officers wore surgical gloves. He was arrested, in full view of the neighbours, and placed in a cell for several hours, photographed, fingerprinted, before undergoing a number of humiliating medical examinations, and his mouth swabbed for a DNA sample. (See my other article of how long DNA of an innocent person can be kept)
The rape allegation was made by 17 year Kristy Palmer, a passenger whom he had picked up in his taxi the previous night. Even though Clive knew he was innocent, the police didn’t believe him. Later, when he was due to appear in court his solicitor rang to say the charges had been dropped, not even a smell of an apology from the police. Not until he had made a formal complaint to the Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police, did they deem to send someone round to apologize.
His red Nissan car was seized by the police making it impossible for him to work with his taxi, and he became immobile with stress and worry, and had to undergo counselling for several months.
In April of last year, mother of two Kirsty Palmer pleaded guilty to the false rape allegation, and was jailed for ten months (should have been ten years). A man’s life is in ruins, his business in bankruptcy, he needed to undergo counselling, and on the word of a drunken, no-good, chit of a girl.
How refreshing it is that a Tribunal in Taunton last week stated that Clive was eligible to apply for compensation for his financial loss, distress and the humiliation, which he had suffered. At last, there is to be an acknowledgment of the wrong done to him, but there is a sting in the tail. It could take up to 5 years for an amount to be actually granted; even a million pounds would be inadequate for what Clive has been forced to endure.
While Kirstly Palmer will be long out of prison by then, and perhaps, plying her trade of deception on some other innocent bystander. As Clive states, “Women who make up stories like these should be put on the sex offenders’ register. Lies like these ruin people’s lives.”
Again, and now I speak from personal experience, a person whom I know, spent eighteen months courting a Thai woman, married her and brought her to his home, where they both intended to live, spending a fortune in the process. Even to the extent that his business suffered, he was in love, needed her, wanted her with him, and prepared to go to great lengths to make it so.
In the beginning, everything seemed to go well, but he had spent a lot of time and money, and needed to work long hours to get back onto his feet. But something niggled at him, his felt his wife wasn’t happy, she spent most of the day on the internet, not even trying to integrate into his culture. He had made the effort to integrate himself into her life when in Thailand, and felt it only fair that she should reciprocate.
Indeed, each month he would send a few hundred pounds over to his sister-in-law, who still lived in Thailand, and her brother, money he could ill afford. But he did it with good grace. He considered himself as part of the family, intending ultimately to spend time there himself with his wife, and to build a little house, and eventually, to spend a few months there each year, and the rest of the time in the United Kingdom working and earning. The reason he constantly needed to work such long hours was to build back his finances for his family.
He found his wife a little job selling ice cream, it wasn’t a lot, but it was something to help her integrate, and an opportunity for her to meet other people, and to get involved, so she could improve her grasp of the English language.
Still the niggle prevailed, something he felt was wrong. He couldn’t sleep, always he felt down, and he could not put his finger on why he felt this way. She said she loved him, and knew he loved her. Initially, he thought she found the different cultures debilitating, sometimes he thought he was going mad, indeed, his behaviour became irrational.
His wife seemed happy, what was wrong with him? Occasionally, she stayed over at her friend’s house, another Thai woman, saying she needed a little space, and needed someone to talk to in her own language. He tried to understood, didn’t like it, but felt if she needed to do that and it helped her to integrate into her new country, so be it, he would put up no protest.
One day he returned early from work, and waited near his house. Eventually, his wife emerged through the front door on her way to work in Cardiff, his pangs towards his disloyalty to his wife intensified. He had to stop himself from approaching her, but he held his ground and stayed hidden, and caught the same train as her to Cardiff, to see where she was going. His mind needed to be cleansed on the negativity, which constantly hounded him.
She alighted off the train, but not to sell ice cream, but to a house in a not so salubrious part of the City. If a knife had pierced his stomach, the pain would have been less. His wife, who he cherished, he discovered, was working in a brothel, and sending the money home to Thailand for her sister to keep for her.
He waited, wondering what to do next, decided to confront her head on at her place of work. He entered the brothel pretending to be a customer, the madam, full with smiles offered him a coffee, and told him to take a seat.
He asked her if she had any Thai girls available.
She knowing smiled at him. “I have just the one, been working here for a while. Would you like to see her?
Out came his wife wearing the clothes of her trade. He went mad, kicked at a door, and ran out, for him to stay, he felt sure he would hit her. Later, she had to return home and face him.
She brazened it out, telling him she could earn more there in a night than she ever could in vending ice cream for a month, and she needed the money to buy a house in Thailand, and he should rejoice in her good fortune.
He felt used, abused, a fool, and placed his hand around her neck. One squeeze and it would be all over. He felt like doing it, he phoned his friend, said he would, his mind was not his own. But instead, he just left and marched out of the house.
He returned a few hours later and she was gone, a little later the police turned up and arrested him, he was charged with physically hitting his wife, and with raping her. He was already on bail for another trumped up charge and taken into custody.
A girl from years past, who had been caught driving a car with no tax and insurance when caught by the police, made us a story that he molested her in a swimming pool when she was fourteen, and had her two friends to say the same. He had only ever met this one person, the other two he didn’t even know that they existed, but the three made statements to the police, and he was arrested, charged, and bailed to await trial. This other charge meant he had broken his bail conditions and incarcerated, where he spent seven weeks behind bars.
The charge was for molestation of three wayward women, which they alleged happened over ten years ago. The other charge consisted of violence and rape towards his wife, whom he still loved. He was on the verge on a nervous breakdown, everyone knew who he was, but no one knew who the three women were, they of course had anonymity.
The first case went to trial and he was found not guilty by his peers on every account, the statements from the three women were so inconsistent, to make the case laughable, and yet, they still retained their anonymity for telling lies, with the police stating there was not enough evidence to prosecute them for perjury.
He was so incensed, that he intended to sue them for damages, but the three women were financially destitute, female chancers, out to make a few pounds from the Criminal Compensation Fund, and he was forced to swallow his pride.
The charges against him levied by his wife, when the facts became fully known, were also dropped by the Public Prosecution Office. His wife wanted him incarcerated. She just didn't care what happened to him, as long as she could carry on plying her trade, which is all that mattered to her – money – money – money.
She had been caught, she knew her game was up and the marriage was over. Now, she wished only to make money before her deportation. There was no way he would renew her visa, and she wanted her husband tucked away safely in prison not for him to get in the way of her nocturnal gyrations.
Her claim against her husband meant she was given a place to stay, “a safe house,” by the authorities at the taxpayers’ expense. What was even more galling to him, the police believed her, and not him, her deceived husband! They jailed him until the case was thrown out by the Public Persecutor’s Office.
In the interim, he lost his house. Upon release from prison, he was forced to take refuge with a friend, and left to pick up the pieces of his shattered life. To my knowledge, his wife is still plying her trade while awaiting extradition back to Thailand, and he, an innocent man, who is slowly, under counselling, now trying to rebuild his shattered life.
Where is the fairness there, any views?
And.
Should those charged with rape also have anonymity, similar to the victim, until guilt is actually proven?