# Judge: Names of attackers confidential. You talk about it anyway. Free speech or contempt? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 23, 2012, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121 "2012-07-23T12:18:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/102 "2012-07-25T16:44:13Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Also, I can see a 17 years old seeing undressing a girl and taking pictures more as a fun prank than as an awful crime. Even though there’s going to be exceptions, a 47 years old is likely to have more sense than that, if only a sense of the consequences this action will entail. If you teach the 17-year-old the lesson “the consequences this action will entail” are to be soundly slapped upon the wrist and given a stern talking-to, that lesson will stay with his 47-year-old future self. I’d expect a better lesson to be absorbed by a47-year-old future self with unpleasant memories of years in prison who is surrounded by 47-year-old peers who, unlike him, have their resumes appear in HR non-circular files. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/103 "2012-07-25T16:45:05Z")
So they get a lighter sentence. That doesn’t mean they deserve anonymity. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/104 "2012-07-25T16:51:55Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > So they get a lighter sentence. That doesn’t mean they deserve anonymity. Deserved or not, minors get anonymity. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/105 "2012-07-25T16:52:14Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I think back to the moron I was when I was 17 and shake my head in amazement but even at 17 I was crystal clear on why you do not rape (or sexually assault or even any kind of assault) women (or anyone for that matter). I absolutely knew right from wrong on this and I do not think I was somehow blessed with amazing intellect or enlightenment that few other 17 year olds possessed. People behave in a manner consistent with civilized existence for one of two reasons: internal control (aka conscience) and external control (aka fear of punishment). For some people, the former fails to develop, and all that can be done is to crank the latter up to eleven to compensate. Certain behaviors (e.g. the actions of these perps) are reliable indications that we have such a case before us. Unfortunately, the system in this case failed to raise that second control up to eleven, and instead actually dialed it down to three or so. The results are likely to be unfortunate for the next vulnerable person who crosses their path. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/106 "2012-07-25T17:03:42Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Deserved or not, minors get anonymity. From the court but not from their victims. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/107 "2012-07-25T17:05:09Z")
Well, no - which is why I pointed out earlier that the mechanism that prevents victims from publicly identifying minor perps is their _own_ interest in anonymity. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/108 "2012-07-25T21:42:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Well, no - which is why I pointed out earlier that the mechanism that prevents victims from publicly identifying minor perps is their _own_ interest in anonymity. But if the victim says, “To hell with my own anonymity, I want the world to know that John Doe, aged 17, raped me” do you support her right to do so? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/109 "2012-07-25T21:49:14Z")
I suppose it depends on whether she knew his name and age already. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/110 "2012-07-25T21:53:25Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I suppose it depends on whether she knew his name and age already. I’m not seeing a worthy distinction there. If her high school friend raped her, then announce away, but if a stranger in the bushes did it and she only found out his name later through court, then no? How does this distinction further any kind of societal interest? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/111 "2012-07-25T21:55:54Z")
The court proceedings are confidential. Life isn’t. The societal interest being served is the anonymity of the minor defendant(s); however, the court can’t very well order her not to reveal things she already knew. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/112 "2012-07-25T22:17:17Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The court proceedings are confidential. Life isn’t. The societal interest being served is the anonymity of the minor defendant(s); however, the court can’t very well order her not to reveal things she already knew. The anonymity of the minor defendant is served as best as society can provide. By keeping it confidential in the legal process. When John Doe is 30 and he applies for a job, his employer won’t see his rape conviction when he is 17. Now, we both go to law school. A court only has jurisdiction over those before it. That would include parties, witnesses, attorneys, jurors, etc. Once a trial is over, this victim is back to being a private citizen. She has no more business with the judge. The judge has no more power over her that you or I would have. Judges aren’t our masters for all time because we were once a witness in front of them. In your opinion, by what authority can a judge continue to bind a witness for the rest of his/her life? What about an expungement? It serves the same legal purpose. If Mitt Romney (or Obama) for example wrote a bad check to someone when they were 24 years old, but a court ordered the record expunged, could it also order the receiver of the bad check to keep his yap shut? I think this is where it is distinguished. The law provides the anonymity, but citizens are, or should, still be free to speak. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/113 "2012-07-25T22:22:28Z")
I’ve never really understood the point of expungement, and I don’t think it’s a valid parallel. Anonymity of a minor I understand the rationale for. The judge doesn’t have power over _her_. He has power over the subject matter of the trial - including identifying information. An employer has nothing more to do with you after you are no longer its employee, but you can still be bound by a nondisclosure agreement you signed at its behest. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/114 "2012-07-25T22:34:03Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The judge doesn’t have power over _her_. He has power over the subject matter of the trial - including identifying information. An employer has nothing more to do with you after you are no longer its employee, but you can still be bound by a nondisclosure agreement you signed at its behest. A non disclosure agreement is signed and agreed upon by both parties. The victim in this case has this thrust upon her. (And I wish I could pick a better term). A better analogy would be jurors. It’s well known that during the trial the judge can order them to not read newspapers, the internet, or watch television. He can even sequester them (which is very close to imprisonment). But once the trial is over, the jurors are free from his jurisdiction and can write books to their hearts’ content. I think your argument that the judge controls the “subject matter” of the trial is incorrect and would be unconstitutionally over broad. Could the judge at the Manson case have prohibited any discussion, in perpetuity, about the happenings there? ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/115 "2012-07-25T22:39:33Z")
Of course not. The trial didn’t involve minors. The point is that the court has the authority to close the proceedings. If he is asked to grant an exception, it can be made expressly conditional. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 25, 2012, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/116 "2012-07-25T23:46:33Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > The court proceedings are confidential. Life isn’t. The societal interest being served is the anonymity of the minor defendant(s); however, the court can’t very well order her not to reveal things she already knew. And now I know their names and have published them on my FB page. Should I be nervous? ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/117 "2012-07-26T03:24:55Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > I repeat, they should have thought about their futures before they started undressing her. And I repeat too : if you want 17 yo to be sentenced in the same way adults are, then lower the age of majority to 17, or 16 or 15 or whatever seems fitting to you. If 17 yo are assumed to be fully competent and responsible when they commit a crime, then they’re fully competent and responsible too when it comes to the right to vote or to sign a contract. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/118 "2012-07-26T03:29:24Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > And I repeat too : if you want 17 yo to be sentenced in the same way adults are, then lower the age of majority to 17, or 16 or 15 or whatever seems fitting to you. If 17 yo are assumed to be fully competent and responsible when they commit a crime, then they’re fully competent and responsible too when it comes to the right to vote or to sign a contract. We already do elevate some crimes to “adult” status without moving the age of majority in the US. Some crimes are deemed to be too awful to let someone off the hook because they are below the age of majority. When, where, how and why this is applied I assume varies from state to state and not even sure how consistently it is applied but it does happen. See: [Trial as an adult](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_as_an_adult) ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/119 "2012-07-26T15:46:47Z")
> [@kayaker](#): > > And now I know their names and have published them on my FB page. Should I be nervous? Not unless you got their names by attending a closed proceeding (or from someone who did and was under court order not to disclosure the information). Probably not even then; I’m sure their names have been published in a hundred different sources by now. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/120 "2012-07-26T15:52:02Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > If 17 yo are assumed to be fully competent and responsible when they commit a crime, then they’re fully competent and responsible too when it comes to the right to vote or to sign a contract. Who made that rule? ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [July 26, 2012, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121/121 "2012-07-26T16:34:06Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Not unless you got their names by attending a closed proceeding (or from someone who did and was under court order not to disclosure the information). Probably not even then; I’m sure their names have been published in a hundred different sources by now. Their parents must be so proud. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-names-of-attackers-confidential-you-talk-about-it-anyway-free-speech-or-contempt/629121.md?page=7)