After the mess from the Rolling Stone/Virginia phony rape allegations, it is time for the media to end the absurd policy of not providing the full name of rape accusers. The pendulum has swung too far. For the crime to have occurred , there needs to be both the criminal and the victim.
It’s very simple: The story should identify both the alleged victim by name as well as the alleged rapist. “Mary Smith alleged that Joe Jones raped her on December 1 after the two met at a nightclub.”
The media should investigate the backgrounds of both the accused and accuser.
If Rolling Stone would have find this with Jackie Coakley, the UVA case wouldn’t have spiraled out of control with ridiculous “culture of rape” accusations. There’d be no need to “open a dialogue” about something that didn’t happen.
I’m aware that the alleged victims may find it embarrassing to have someone looking into their background after they’ve made a claim of rape. However, this is a necessary trade off. False claims of rape, racism, and homophobia can go viral so quickly.
If someone reports their car stolen, they’re asked if the payments are up to date. If someone claims whiplash after an auto accident, it’s useful to know if this is the 10th whiplash claim within a year. If printing the names of alleged rape victims can help reduce the number of false allegations, so much the better.
I’m aware this won’t be a popular proposal. But, too many people are having their lives ruined by highly questionable rape allegations.
Oh? In what way? Do you have some data to back up that opinion, or just an anecdote or two from some highly publicized stories?
Here’s a worksheet for you:
What is the reason accusers get anonymity?
Is anonymity effective in achieving that goal?
Is the anonymity of accusers in rape cases abused in a statistically significant way?
If so, how do the positive effects of the policy weigh against the negative? How can it be changed to reduce those statistically significant numbers of abuses?
tl;dr: when come back, bring debate.
My version of your closing statement, from a different viewpoint.
Too many women are having their lives ruined by rape to do anything to make them LESS likely to come forward.
You act as if there is a vast over-reporting of rape, when all data points to the opposite being true. For every woman who falsely accuses someone of rape, there are dozens that go unreported because of the social stigma.
Are there holes in Jackie’s story, sure. Doesn’t mean that some type of sexual assault did not take place, only that her recollection of the chronology and details is flawed. That flawed recollection, oh by the way, is a common characteristic of someone who has suffered a traumatic event that the mind wants to block out.
So you’re right that your proposal will not be popular. What it will also not be, is a good idea.
dalej42, this is a little confusing. Are you talking only about the UVA circumstances where the accuser has not reported a crime to the police? Reporting on a crime that has been brought to the police is a very different thing.
Not just the UVA case. I think all rape accusers should be named. I’d like for the police reports to not have the accuser’s name blacked out when an actual case has been brought to the police.
What social stigma do rape accusers face in 2014? If a crime was committed , let’s get the facts and evidence out and convict the rapist.
If there’s no conviction, we should still know all the evidence. Was it a bad decision by the jury or are there too many holes and inconsistencies in the accuser’s story ?