Really? Have you ever heard of anyone?
Based strictly on Bricker’s account, I’m thinking the girl comes off as more credible.
I am reminded of another American I’ve met here in Bangkok – from Texas, of course – who is very vocal on this same subject. But he even goes so far as to deny that most rape accusations have any merit at all. He doesn’t seem to believe there really is such a thing as rape. He’s so vocal about it that one wonders if this stems from some sort of personal experience.
So then you agree that accused rapists & sex offenders should not be publically named until after they’ve been convicted in court?
I don’t think we really want secret trials.
True, but why should the accuser have any greater right to privacy then the accused?
Well, angry mobs did attack the building of the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity house where the fictional gang rape reported by Rolling Stone was alleged to have occurred. Bricks were thrown through windows and other vandalism occurred. The brothers were forced to move out, fearing for their own physical safety. One could argue that this falls short of “ruining their lives”, but it’s quite certainly a bad thing in any situation, and doubly bad for being based on a total hoax.
As for the accuser’s name, it seems that ‘Jackie’ gave out one name to her friends in 2012; that person did not exist. In 2014, Jackie gave the Washington Post a completely different name. This person did exist at UVA, and it was easy for him to prove his innocence once the Post contacted him. So again I supposed one could agree that no lives were ruined, but it still seems quite wrong for her to falsely name a real person.
As for me, I agree with Cathy Young: false rape accusations exist, and they are a serious problem. I don’t quite agree with the solution dale proposes, but I do think more needs to be done to protect the rights of the accused.
Oh, well, if wiki doesn’t mention it, then it must not have happened at all!
We shouldn’t have alleged rape cases tried in the media either. In our current system, the moment a rape allegation happens, usually, it immediately becomes a media sensation, with the alleged perp’s name splashed in all the headlines, whereupon he is instantly indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to life in exile, in the court of public opinion.
We don’t need to have secret trials, but the names can come out when it gets into court, and not before. It’s fine to keep the accuser’s name out of the papers, which most of the media have agreed to do, but we should grant the same courtesy to the accused.
If a woman wants a man to go to prison, she shouldn’t be reticent. It is your kind of reasoning that, in a court of law, the defendant is entitled to face his accuser.
This.
What?
You mean that you cannot conceive of anybody drinking after sex???
If a woman wants a man to go to prison, she shouldn’t be reticent about having her name a matter of public record, as is the one she accuses. It is because of your kind of reasoning that US defendants have the guarantee that, in a court of law, the defendant is entitled to face his accuser.
One of these things is not like the others.
The police may investgate car payments and injury insurance claims, but the media does not report he victims’ credit or medical histories. The police should look at the complainant, but that is not a reason to broadcast the complainant’s name.
There’s no reason to broadcast the defendant’s name, either. Less reason, even. Being viewed as a victim of rape is far, far less damaging than being viewed as a rapist. If only one name should stay undisclosed, it should be that of the alleged rapist, whose life is likely to be trashed by a mere accusation. Even assuming that an alleged victim might face some level of scorn, it won’t remotely reach the level of scorn people will have for the accused.
If the name of the supposed victim must stay undisclosed to protect her from social stigma, then it seems blatantly obvious to me that hiding the name of the supposed culprit is ten times more justified. Wanting to do otherwise hints at a belief that the accused is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent, hence deserves any level of scorn, social stigma, possibly even material consequences (losing job, for instance) he gets.
I wouldn’t want my name out there if I was a victim of rape.
I think you would be surprised with how many people actually are sexually abused, but don’t come out because of fear. I know too many who have confided in me.
I didn’t really follow the Duke case on Dope, but I can see where false rape accusations can feel threating. That doesn’t mean we should punish REAL victims by releasing their names…
Surely not, when knights such as yourself stand ready.
Indeed. I would need more hands to count the women I have personally known who have been raped at some point in their lives. Of these, to the best of my knowledge and recollection, only one case ever was reported–and the result was a soft prosecution on a statutory charge only, because there wasn’t enough evidence of physical force, and he claimed consent.
Besides mocking, are you arguing that an accusation of rape isn’t a big deal, hence that it is justified to publish the name of an accused?
Or are you, as I wrote, amongst the people who think that someone accused of rape is by default guilty, and every level of scorn and every damage to his reputation and lifestyle is fully justified?
Or maybe you think that people despise more rape victims than rapists?
Which is it?
Generally, both the accused and the accusers are public knowledge. We know from history in the US that rape victims face attacks that are not the same as the victims of other crimes. When it comes to sex crimes, the victim was nearly always put on trial, so in the US certain laws arose to prevent this very particular harm, preventing an alleged victim’s sexual history from being used in the trial, etc.
Revealing the name in the media is not a matter of law, generally. It’s a matter of the policy of the media outlet itself.
Again, this is a reaction to a specific cultural problem that we had in this country. You can say that we should not have had this problem, and I agree with you, but until we don’t have this problem, just throwing rape accusers (who will include rape victims) under the bus is not necessarily a solution.
We know this happens because we have seen it happen. You and I can agree that it should not happen that a rape victim becomes the one put on trial, and yet it does happen. (People like the OP appear to suggest that anyone who accuses a famous man of rape is a gold digger, for example.)
We may not agree about publishing/not publishing the name, but let’s not act as if not publishing arose in a vacuum and that it was not/never a real concern to protect people.