http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/West/06/10/california.abduction/index.html
Her name was released earlier. They are trying to hide it now?
Why?
It is standard policy not to print the identities of victims of sex crimes. Now that it is confirmed that she is a victim of sexual assault, CNN is withholding her name. But it is problematical when they try to adhere to that policy after the fact.
In this case, the girl was kidnapped, and the case was widely publicized, so the girl’s name was already out there. It was then later learned she was a rape victim.
For this policy to be effective, CNN would also have to remember to update their archives to delete any mention of her name or any link that would give it. It would be interesting to see if you could find her name by searching the site. Most websites are far from thorough in updating past items.
Other publications I have read have continued to use her name, citing the fact that it was previously released. It’s a judgment call, and each place makes its call a bit differently.
It will all come out anyway when & if she testifies. Although juvenile courts in Cal are closed, this case will be in adult court & her ID will be out there again. (Doubt judge will allow her testimony to be on TV)
It was released, but anything that’s been out of the public’s perception for more than 2 days becomes instantly forgotten by the public.
I guarantee you, within a week there will be nobody who remembers the girl’s name that doesn’t personally know the girl. So this isn’t something that will follow her the rest of her life.
-lv
I had the same thought, Reeder, but was glad they quit broadcasting her name.
Satisifing Andy Licious is right that archives should be cleaned up.
this will be traumatic for this CHILD w/o ‘inquiring minds wanting to know…’
The first video I saw of her also did not obscure her face as she was being led to a car and driven away after her return. I saw the same video later and and her face had been “pixelized”. I would have been furious if my 9-year-old’s face was plastered all over network news.
For all good intentions about privacy, unfortunately this perpetuates the notion that the victim has something to be ashamed of.
I’m not sure that’s true, Walloon. (Although that does exist and is awful.) This stuff is hard enough for the victims to deal with - it’s such an invasion. I think making it widespread public knowledge would only make it worse.
Isn’t that what the fellow in 1984 did for a living? He worked for the Ministry of Truth updating newspaper archives to reflect more agreeable views of past events.
The problem is that people who have been sexually assaulted are considered “impure” and thus may be raped with impunity. Because of this odious but widespread belief, we conceal the names of sexual assault victims.
minor7flat5, they’re not altering the story, just obscuring a detail.
Really? Did I miss a memo on this?
bayonet1976, why do you think we have the so-called “Rape Shield” laws that prohibit questioning rape victims about their prior sexual history?
I agree with withholding the victim’s name.
I also believe the suspect’s name should also be “secret” until after the trial and revealed only if convicted.
There is a stigma attached to being accused of a sex crime as well. If the accused is found innocent there is always some doubt left in people’s minds. Maybe he was really guilty and got off somehow…
I would actually extend the secrecy of defendants to all trials.
If one is innocent one shouldn’t have to fend off the stigma that one was “accused”.
MODERATOR: if you think this something more suitable to Great Debates, please move.
BwanaBob: Secret trials. Yeah, great idea, that.
I have no idea, but I did not know that it was to keep me and others from raping impure rape victims. Like I said, I must’ve missed that memo.
Hey KellyM -
I didn’t mean secret trials; just anonymity of the accused as well as the victim, to
a) avoid stigmatization of victim
b) avoid stigmatization of accused if found innocent.
I’m not advocating dragging people off the streets and running trials no-one knows about or is allowed to witness.
I feel this way for two reasons:
-
I don’t neccessarily want total strangers in my city knowing of some missery I’m going through, whether it be “my car was stolen” or “I was raped.” Its just nobody else’s damn business.
-
There are some idiots in this world who treat rape victims like THEY did something wrong - no one ever questioned the legitamacy of my story when my car was stolen a few years back or had the nerve to say, “Well, she should’ve had The Club on her 12-year-old beater - doesn’t she know a locked door isn’t enough?” But when it comes to rape, the victim’s story is questioned and you hear people say, “What was she DOING walking across campus at 1:00 in the morning by herself? What was she thinking?” That happened a few years ago at the college I wrok for.
Patty
I think you misunderstood the original statement. I’m sure the “raped with impunity” refers to the state of the victim before and during the rape–in some minds, the implication of being raped is that the victim “deserved it” or courted it in some way, and revealing that someone is a rape victim is tantamount to accusing them of being a slut. So their names are concealed to protect them from their reputations being damaged by their having been raped, not to protect them from subsequent rapes.
The rape shield laws are in place to protect victims from lawyers digging up every single sexual indiscretion (or perfectly normal behavior that could be twisted to look like indiscretion) in her past to make it look as though she “deserved” to be raped.
The argument is that concealing identity is based on the assumption that there is indeed something shameful about having been raped.
Bren_Cameron, the fact that a person is a prior rape victim used to be almost a complete bar to a conviction on a subsequent rape. (This is less true now, but still a problem.) Since such women are not protected by law, they are more likely to get raped “with impunity” (the rapist will almost certainly get off, and may not even be charged). There are rapists who target individuals known to them to be “sluts”.
BwanaBob, it is impossible to have a public trial and still keep the accused’s identity a secret. Maintaining secrecy of the accused’s identity necessitates secret trials.
Well, then it was I who misunderstood you.
That said, although I know that there do exist rapists who target people they consider to be sluts, I’m not sure I believe that that is the primary motivation behind concealing the victim’s name. It might be one aspect of “loss of reputation,” but it’s not the only one, nor, I think, the main motivator behind hiding the victim’s identity. If you have some evidence that it is, I would certainly be glad to read it. I’m not infallible, and could certainly be wrong.
I’m not sure how I feel about hiding rape victims’ identities. On the one hand, rape is hard enough to go through as it is without everyone and their dog knowing about it whether you want them to or not. On the other hand, I do think the “we have to hide her to protect her from everyone knowing this terrible thing about her” does play into the idea that being raped is shameful