A while back, someone started a thread called “Should the media print the names of sexual assault victims?” (or something similar), arguing that women should be held accountable for their accusations or something. I think that view is… ahem… untenable, but I was a bit surprised that no one played this angle: not printing victims’ names unintentionally reinforces the idea that rape victims have done something wrong and ought to be shunned. Personally, I’m not a big fan of dragging people into the spotlight; but large numbers of gays coming out of the closet definitely changed public opinion on homosexuality - wouldn’t sexual assault victims benefit from a movement like that?
As long as people reflexively accuse rape victims of being lying whores, then I think it is only fair to withold their names in the press.
To the OP, no.
I have no problem with the concept of protecting rape victims from shame, but it should be ordered when there is good reason, not as a general rule.
Who would make this determination and how much time would it take to make it? If it isn’t made right at the beginning, then you have a situation where the name is released and published, someone decides that the name should be withheld and, short of the invention of time travel or mass hypnotism, the name is still out there.
Plus considering the rise of the online rape-threat and doxxing as harassment methods, it would be likely even less prudent these days.
IIRC in much of the USA the non-publication of adult victims’ names is not so much a hard-and-fast legal prohibition as an ethical standard for LEAs, courts and the press.
I think names are withheld, not because the victims have done anything to be ashamed of, but because there are many people who DO still think that. Those idiots are the ones perpetuating the stigma.
I was #4, out of six total victims of a serial rapist. The local paper had my story, but I was not identified by name. The asshole who invaded my home was operating in a certain neighborhood, and that’s what the paper wanted to get out there, not who we victims were. And there were a couple letters to the editor saying that it was not the best part of town, so this wasn’t surprising.:eek:
Of course, afthe the article appeared, my grandmother called me up to warn me about it, telling me to be careful. I told her I would.
I only wish, by the third victim, that the emerging pattern would have lead to the article appearing earlier.
I do not see why the victims of any crime should be named. It is enough for the public to know the crime happened. Perhaps details like age and gender could be included as well.
If the victim wants to let it be known that they were the one victimized they can say so.
The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
So, It seems to me the question is just ‘‘When?’’.
The question is not about court. The question is about posting their names in the media.
Please disregard the beginning of a second paragraph in my reply immediately above. I got called away and am unable to finish my thought. I think the first paragraph is good but perhaps irrelevant to the thread title.
Okay, there are errors in your logic.
First, gays coming out of the closet is not remotely the same. That was a case where the gay people WANTED to be able to say they were gay, and to be able to openly live their lives AS gay. Contrast that with victims of sexual assault. Do they WANT to live their lives as victims? I don’t think so. Your proposal would be the equivalent of REQUIRING that all homosexuals be “outed,” and claiming that it was good for them.
The idea that it reinforces the idea of shame isn’t logical, because victims are not PROHIBITED from going public, they are protected from HAVING to go public.
There may be instances where people look down their noses at victims, there certainly are people who look down their noses at handicapped people of various kinds (the human race contains a LOT of garbage) as well. But I don’t think that protecting the privacy of crime victims has ever been PRIMARILY to cater to such jerks, it has been primarily to allow the victims to have a say in what happens to them after the crime occurs.
It was also the beginning of the AIDS pandemic in the US, when a lot of people “Didn’t know anyone gay,” so why should they be concerned about AIDS? The idea was to change the public perception by demonstrating that gay people were everywhere. The popular button and T-shirt and bumper sticker that said “SILENCE = DEATH” referred to the fact that letting people continue to believe they didn’t know anyone gay would hold back AIDS research.
It was still always a choice-- save for some radical groups like ACT-UP, that did actively out people unwillingly.
It is probably true that forcing women to “come out” as victims would eventually reduce the stigma, but the woman who had to be the first to be outed would have hell to go through, and there are other ways to fight the stigma. Some day, I hope, the stigma will be gone to the point that women won’t have to worry about what people in general think (there will always be outliers, but most people will look down on them once the stigma is reduced to a certain point).
Anyway, we are not to the point where we can out women yet.
Let me just clarify that I threw out the idea that the media should name names as devil’s advocate. I do think that rape should be treated like any other crime; but as long as public opinion treats it so differently, publishing names will do more harm than good.
Perhaps I should have called the thread “Does silence make rape worse?” I think it does. I hope Baker and others will forgive me for speaking without experience, but it seems to me that the stigma of rape is even worse than the crime itself. The one encouraging thing about the Bill Cosby fiasco is that so many women were willing to put their names (and sometimes even their faces) to their accusations. Of course, the discouraging thing is that there were so many - that there had to be so many before they could be sure of getting public support.
There was a huge outcry in Massachusetts when the editor of a local paper wrote that his 19 year old daughter, while walking to her car after working on the paper till 10 p.m., had been “criminally assaulted.” Everyone knew what he meant, but he had to use those words to put it on the front page.
Some people blamed the daughter for walking alone at night.
Some people blamed the editor for letting her work late and not protecting her.
Nobody seemed to blame the man who assaulted her.
I agree with your points - I expected them to be given in the thread I alluded to in my OP. I don’t think victims should be required to come out, but I think they should get more (by which I mean some 
) encouragement if they do. I’m not much of a sharer myself, but I understand a lot of people find it cathartic; probably a lot more would find it comforting to have the option of sharing without being rejected or blamed. And I don’t think talking about something that happened to you necessarily translates to that becoming your identity. When I saw an article that Teri Hatcher talked to someone about being victimized by an uncle when she was a child, I didn’t start thinking of her as a victim. I thought, “Wow! I knew she was beautiful; I didn’t know she was brave, too!” (Though she might not be very bright, what with that whole not being able to see Superman behind Clark Kent’s glasses thing.)
I know of a woman who was raped when she was 13.
Quite frankly, I wish I had not been told this. She is a strong, confident woman now in her 20’s but still it is hard for me not to think of her without thinking of this as part of her past life because the rape caused severe ramifications in her family.
Does withholding the names of sexual assault victims perpetuate the stigma of rape?
Yes. But so do a lot of other things. Changing just one of them may make things worse.