No, it’s the media’s doing. I was talking about a woman that would make an accusation knowing it would be anonymous, but not in a world where her name would be known.
I do not understand what you are saying. Let’s say I’ve been raped and I go to the cops. I know, in this universe, that most likely nothing will appear in the papers. I also know that if, for whatever reason, the incident does get picked up, the newspaper will likely not print my name. However, lets say that in the back of my mind, I do admit that I would not go to the cops if I lived in a world where I knew the media would certainly print my name in the paper because I made the accusation. In such a case, I’d prefer a rapist go unpunished than face public scrutiny over such an intimate and traumatic experience.
You are saying that in such a case, I shouldn’t go to the cops now, because I wouldn’t be willing to if we were under a different system?
I am saying that if you were raped by Richard Roe, and you are ready and willing to expose him to the public scorn that such an accusation entails, I don’t think it is entirely unfair for the media to put your name on that accusation and for you to stand behind it.
The public doesn’t know you or him. Why wouldn’t you want to convince them that you are telling the truth?
Here’s a perfect example of why rape victims should be named. This blog post the full name, occupation, and picture of the accused. Think he’ll ever work again or have a shot at a fair trial?
People say this, but is it true any more?
I don’t think this is accurate. Not that I agree with the OP, but rapists are pretty hated.
Edit: I mean I have a tough time “hating” anyone, but if there’s a type of person I do hate…
Indeed, but the complaint is that those who are raped suffer significant social stigma. And I’m asking if that is true.
I don’t think rape victims suffer social stigma. For example, in the above Uber driver alleged rape story, I’m far more interested in knowing the name of the woman just to make sure she doesn’t have any connection with the taxi companies. That’s quite a damning story about an Uber driver coming at a convenient time 2 days before New Year’s Eve.
I’m interested in making sure there’s no hoax, not in hanging a scarlet letter on the woman
I think a lot depends on one’s community, but it’s definitely out there. A 40 year old raped by a stranger from the bad side of town? People will be sympathetic. A teenager raped by the local high school football star? She may end up driven out of town. Woman assaulted on a business trip by a colleague? That could go either way- she could get a sympathetic ear, or she could have her career ruined. Shy college boy from a conservative family raped by a man? If that gets splashed all over the news, it could cause him real damage.
It’s hard to generalize, but there are still a lot of communities in the US that do stigmatize rape victims, and any community is likely to turn on the victim when the perpetrator is someone respected.
Maybe we can reach the goals of increased fairness through some other fashion than outing rape accusers.
Instead of focusing on restricting the media, which most of us think would be an unworkable plan, we can increase the penalties for mistakes. Media naming is done through an arbitrary policy, they don’t have to name or hide any side, they do so of their own choosing. Instead of silencing media, why not allow anyone named as a rapist to reap benefits from said media in lawsuits once innocence has been proven? If some paper wants to say that John Doe was accused of rape, and he’s acquitted, he should get damages, lots of it.
While this may result in silencing the media in some ways, its better than passing an untenable law to actually censor media. If the media is intent on reporting things as news before all evidence has been established, then they should be willing to reap what they sow when they make a mistake. Furthermore, the law could be written as to establish guilt only partially based on the results of the court case. I can see the newspaper or whatever paying out lesser damages if the accused was found not guilty but his guilt all but certain. Why decides that? A judge could. There’s no way to completely remove human interaction so let’s not pretend that’s a serious recourse. I feel that there is enough checks and balances here to minimize abuse of the system
If John Doe was accused of rape and the media says so, what mistake have they made?
Resolution of this would happen after the court case. If John Doe was found innocent, he’d be entitled to punishing damages from that paper and any media outlet that printed his name. If he was found guilty, then he wouldn’t.
You said they made a mistake in saying he was accused of rape. Was he not accused of rape?
Why? If John Doe was arrested for rape an the newspaper says that he was arrested for rape, the paper is simply doing what it is supposed to do: reporting the facts.
Now, I suppose if the paper said that not only was he arrested but he is absolutely guilty of rape, then there would probably be a case. Otherwise, you are punishing free press for reporting events.
How about we prevent the media from getting involved in the first place. That way both parties would be protected.
I have a feeling some people aren’t really thinking these things through.
The expenses associated with fighting false charges bring far more ruination than anything the media can do. Most people will forget about the news story in a week or so, but an extended legal battle can end up costing a person a fortune. The accused ends up feeling the punishment even after the not guilty verdict is rendered, and he has had to spend tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars on his defense. He ends up cashing in retirement nest eggs, selling his house, or going into debt for the rest of his life. How is that in any way just?
Any time a not guilty verdict is returned, the defendant should get a check for the full amount he is out due to the trial, and that includes damages to his reputation, and loss of civil liberties due to incarceration or bail conditions. That should come from the state or federal government, whichever one prosecuted him.
The problem is this gives the state a huge incentive to not prosecute any case they’re not absolutely sure they can win. This is a really bad mindset, just ask Japan.
I’m not seeing a bad side there. Japan has lower crime rates than the US, if I remember correctly. Do they actually compensate people who are found not guilty?
Why should a person found not guilty have to bear the financial burden of the state’s wrongful prosecution? That is not justice by any definition of the word. Ensuring that the innocent remain unmolested is far more important than ensuring that the guilty are punished, in my opinion.
What do you mean “just ask Japan”?