There is apparently some sort of law in some states that sounds like it prohibits the media from publicizing an alleged rape victim’s name in public, as a means of protecting the accuser. It also seems to have become an unspoken rule amongst the media, even if it isn’t a law in all places.
So my question is if someone goes to court with a false “rape” claim, and is unable to win in court, does the defendant have the option of publicizing the name once he or she is found not guilty? In other words, does the law that protects a rape victim’s privacy null and void if unable to prove that rape occurred.
It just seems to be a rather lopsided situation, as the accused can have their name dragged through the mud, while the accuser gets to relish their annoyminity. I would think someone falsely accused could turn around and reveal who took them to trial, or at the very least, get the information out by countersuing for slander or somesuch.
Just to add, while I know there are many cases where the rape victim is indeed a victim, there are also cases where the charge is a false one.
The belief that there are more false rape charges than there of any other crime is not true. Just because the guy got acquitted doesn’t mean he was innocent; it means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict. Why should the guy be allowed to publicize the victim’s name? He got acquitted. I’d be really curious as to how the OP is so sure that he knows those ‘false’ charges are in fact false.
Granted, there are gonna be cases in which the defendant in a rape case will be found guilty. There will also be cases where a rape occurred, but due to insufficient evidence, the defendant will be aquitted, or found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. There are also gonna be some cases in which the defendant is falsely accused. There is no way of knowing the exact number of cases that end up this way, but they are there. There are certainly incidents in which the accuser has later admitted to having made it up.
So, what I’m really referring to are those cases in which no rape occurred, but the accuser is protected for claiming to be a rape victim. It seems that those people should be revealed to the public if the case ends with the accused being found not guilty. Being found not guilty, means that there is reasonable doubt.
How do you know so certainly that no rape occurred, though? Your definition appears to be the defendant ‘not being found guilty’ but that doesn’t mean he’s not guilty. Being found not guilty just doesn’t mean he’s innocent.
False allegations of rape almost never make it to trial. It’s a hard enough crime to prove as it is and most rapes never even get reported much less prosecuted.
Being found not guilty does not mean innocent. There is still a good chance that the victim truly is a victim. How would you determine the difference between those who were legitimate victims but couldn’t prove it in court and those who are just making it up? Do you think there’s an epidemic of false rape charges being prosecuted?
What would be the point in releasing her name anyway? What purpose would it serve?
Alzarian - It’s not just rape. Blotters often carry the name of someone one who was questioned or arrested, without mentioning the person who made the complaint.
These laws stand on shaky Constitutional ground. The Supreme court held, in Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohen (1975), that “The state cannot, consistently under the 1st and 14th Amendments, impose sanction on the accurate publication of a rape victim’s name obtained from judicial records that are maintained in connection with a public prosecution and that themselves are open to public inspection.”
In a similar case, Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989), the high court declared that a Florida law which prohibited naming the victim ran afoul of the First Amendment.
The OP goes on to state that there is “an unspoken rule amongst the media” against this sort of thing.
It is more than an unspoken rule. Most newspapers have a stated policy against naming the victim, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has held laws to the same effect unconstitutional.
Even the Florida Star had such a policy. But I guess someone at the Star messed up.
Perhaps not of any other crime, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that there are more false rape charges than, say, assault charges, since it’s usually clear that an assault did in fact take place, even if the accused is not guilty.
You’re assuming, and that’s never good. The FBI says that the false report rate for each of the four major violent crimes is between two to six per cent, and that includes rape. The belief that women falsely report rape is one of those rape sterereotypes that make it so difficult for women to report rape.