Amanda Bennett, editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer, seems to think so. She told her paper that a blanket policy against naming alleged victims is
Geneva Overholser, a former Des Moines Register editor and onetime Washington Post ombudsman agrees.
OTOH Court TV anchor Catherine Crier, a former judge, disagrees.
So, is it time to stop withholding the names of all alleged rape victims? If so, what should be the criteria for determining whether or not the media ought to release a particular name?
I’m saying “no,” because it would seem that a girl like the one charging Kobe would be in danger (she’s been threatened, anyway).
But we’ve also already got a thread about this: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=199875
True, but the threat is not unique to her allegedly being a rape victim; it comes from the fact that the alleged rapist is a popular celebrity. Your belief is an argument for suppressing the names of victims of crimes allegedly committed by celebrties, not those of rape victims.
True, but the threat is not unique to her allegedly being a rape victim; it comes from the fact that the alleged rapist is a popular celebrity. Your belief is an argument for suppressing the names of victims of crimes allegedly committed by celebrties, not those of rape victims.
I think that maybe we should go in the opposite direction. There are good reasons given to keep the name of the accuser secret, such as protection from danger, and so on, but I believe that the name of the accused should be secret too. After all, the accused hasn’t been convicted yet, and often times just being accused can tarnish your reputation and people thinking less of you, even if you’re innocent. So in my opinion, both the accuser’s and the accused’s names should be secret and only if the accused becomes convicted should their name be revealed, rather than dragging it through the mud with the possibility of innocence.
It’s all been discussed elsewhere at this point, but I would say that it’s at least possible rape victims are in a unique position. If you look at the other thread, you’ll see the estimate that as much as 95% of rapes go unreported. I doubt this is true of other types of crime. While there are unique factors to a case involving a celebrity, public reaction - not necessarily the entire nation - would probably have something to do with it.
I dunno.
Has there, as of yet, been a highly visible case with a guilty verdict in which the victim’s (and victim’s attorney’s) strategy and response to defense attempts to portray her as a slut (and therefore non-rapevictim) with something along the lines of “You’re damned right I was in that bar drinking and flirting and I was trying to pick up a guy so I could get laid. And yes I went home with Dickwad over there with full intention of screwing his brains out. But at some point prior to getting it on with him I got disgusted with his sorry ass and changed my mind and he forced me anyhow” – ??
If so – yes, unless there is reason to think she’d be unsafe. (And when did it happen? I’d like to read up on it!)
If not – nope, not there yet – the original reasons for keeping rape victims’ names out of the press still apply.