Other violent criminals? I’d think twice about hiring a guy I’d heard been accused of rape, but I don’t think it would give me any less pause to know the guy was accused of beating his wife to death instead. Granted its pretty context dependent, but I’d say the level of stigma for murder and rape are pretty similar.
I think the logic is pretty straight forward, the right to a public trial is important both to the defendant and the public at large for reasons stated upthread. As part of that right, it only makes sense that the press needs to have access, otherwise what exactly does public trial even mean? Again, I think the media should voluntarily exercise some restraint when reporting on these sorts of topics, but short of completely stopping them from reporting on a trial, I’m not sure how you’d stem any public stigma against the accused.
I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me that if an accuser is guaranteed anonymity that the accused would no longer have the right to confront her. Furthermore, the defense would be fatally hamstrung by its inability to investigate the crime.
I am not aware of any law that guarantees anonymity to an accuser. I am open to being corrected.
Public AFTER the fact is still public in a way. It just doesnt feed in the sensationalistic nature of the media nearly as well is all IMO.
There are plenty of judicial proceedings that are closed or limited or kept secret for “justifiable” reasons. Its ALWAYS a balance of public good vs private rights. I dont see how keeping an accused name secret is inherently and absolutely NOT deserving of any consideration in trying to balance those two factors.
If you argue that folks knowing you were raped is embarrassing, I sure as hell dont see how being accused of rape isnt either, if not more so.
Least you gave an explanation. Dio on the otherhand…
I assumed the OP was referring to the USA, since he linked to an American case.
Yes, that’s the way it should be. I don’t want secret trials.
How can it be kept secret? How can the prosecution investigate the alleged crime without letting the cat out of the bag?
How can he be processed into jail, or bailed out for that matter, if no one knows his identity? Suppose he is arrested in the presence of witnesses, or the press. How would you prevent them from revealing his ID? Would the arresting officers have some kind of blanket restraint power?
Are there any court decisions that indicate that it is a public right and not just a defendant right?
What I meant was in response to what you said about unconstitutionality and special protection.
On the surface, protecting kids violates the basic freedom of the press to publish a public trial. You said that was ok, and I agree. But since that is a special right seemingly going against the Constitution, can’t we simply place such special protections for the accused and accuser in rape cases? We already have special protections, why can’t we extend them?
Anonymity with respect to publicity in the media, not to the other side of the case, sorry. I should have made that clear.
The trial doesn’t need to be secret - only the name of the accused.
This is the way it works in NZ with name surpression - evidence will be published, along with a commentary of the trial - except rather than saying John Wayne Bobbit has been accused, the say “Defendent X, who has name surpression”
I don’t think either party should be secret by default, but I do believe that there need to be protections for the accused. It’s a commonplace that the accused loses their job etc - who wants to employ someone being prosecuted for rape? You can’t have them meeting women, can you? And it’s unfair on the company to force them to keep the accused on on full pay. But the presumption of innocence also applies. So I suggest that this is one area where the State should step in and pay the accused’s salary (within limits) until convicted or vindicated.
And what makes you think that’s a fantasy, or misogynist? Are you claiming that women are morally superior to men, and would never dream of smearing a man’s reputation? Even though they can do so while being nearly immune from any repercussions?
If we buy your “logic”, then why bother even having trials? If women never lie about being raped, just toss any man accused into prison. If rape is such a special case where there’s no such thing as a false accusation then logically that’s what we should do.
I didn’t say women NEVER lie, but it’s the great exception, not the rule. Around here the automatic assumption is that the country is beseiged with poor innocent men being falsely accused by lying sluts. Bullshit.
Ahem yourself. Gag orders on the press are illegal in the US. A court can gag the litigants, but not the media.
What makes you think a court is powerless to close a courtroom from observers? It’s done when minors testify, when potentially inflammatory and prejudicial evidence is being presented so the judge can decide whether it should be admitted, and to protect the identities of undercover investigators.
They can’t close courtrooms to the press. They still have to leave a pool reporter in there.
Witnesses also can’t testify anonymously. When the press doesn’t report the names of rape victims, they’re using their own discretion. It’s not a law.
I recall a case in Canada - an accused rapist asked for a gag order (legal in Canada) on the whole trial “to protect the identity of the underage victim”. His name could not be printed anyway because it would lead to identification of the vctim. His lawyer wasn’t stupid - having the press say “A professor of X at University Y accused of raping the 13yo step-daughter” was more than enough publicity to (a) allow anyone close to the university to identify him and (b) the publicity would bring details to the attention of the University who would fire him.
Once this was reported in the press - “rapist wants gag order” was the limit of what they could report. They resulting outcry was sufficient that the guy not only lost his gag order, but the victim went public - still couldn’t show her face, but the message was heard. She demanded that he not hide behind the gag.
I think it’s horrible that sometimes people are accused of crimes they did not commit. However, the publicity can be good or bad. The publicity storm around the Duke team certainly helped the country realize they were innocent. Imagine if the fact that the prosecutor was charged was not allowed to be reported either. Imagine that the papers could not report a politician was charged with accepting a bribe or toe-tapping in the men’s room.
When interesting things happen, innocent people get hurt or embarrassed. It may be 100% the other guy’s fault when he rams your car, for example, but you’ll still have to face the embarrassment that everyone will know you drove out in just your bathrobe. You may be the victim of a burglary, but everyone will know when it comes out in court that all your jewelry is fake. It’s the price we pay for being in the real world.
The only exception would be the tiny few we have today - for victims of rape and children.
It is better that the public see the actions of the justice system, than that they forever wonder about whether something was fair or nasty rumors go around about what may or may not be true.
Not true. The public’s right of access is broad and presumed, but not unlimited. The pre-trial hearing presents the best example. If the judge decides certain evidence is inadmissible, the purpose of such a hearing would be defeated by allowing the press to broadcast the evidence to the public and taint the jury pool, and they don’t ensure this doesn’t happen by relying on the reporter’s good graces. See Gannett Co. v. DePasquale.
Practically speaking, though, the proceedings are almost always going to be open unless a defendant can show that there is a substantial probability that an open hearing will prejudice his right to fair trial and there are no reasonable alternatives. See Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court.
It’s not that we have a majority of misogynists here.
But the Usual Suspects do show up for certain topics. (Next: Women who get pregnant to trap men!)