The media should name all rape accusers

Great Debates
101

Japan isn’t a terrible place, but its legal system and police force lacks a lot of confidence. It has around a 99% conviction rate, which sounds good, but tends to be endemic of the fact that a lot of crimes are never pursued or looked at. At its worst, the conviction-hungry prosecution forges evidence or coerce confessions to feed their records.

Here’s and article focusing on assault on foreign women – police have a tendency to shrug and say “what can ya do?”

There’s also a (deliberately stylized) video game series made about the Japanese judicial system, and this article analyzes how startlingly close it is to the real thing. There’s a lot

Wikipedia also has a decent section on the justice system. Some of the sections are undercited, by they do agree with other things I’ve read. One cited section says:

Essentially, a system that places such a huge value on being sure before even beginning investigation leads to a hugely imbalanced system that resorts to coerced confessions, and outright ignoring real victims if the evidence isn’t 100% solid.

That’s not to say Japan is a hellhole, it does legitimately have a low crime rate, and maybe we can partially credit their justice system with that. Miscarriages of justice and lack of investigation happen in any system. However, everything I’ve seen indicates that reliance of “sure convictions” impedes investigation and hides true crime. I know that most Japanese people I’ve talked do don’t exactly have… confidence in their judicial system. Though admittedly polling expats is a shitty way of getting info on a country’s government.

102

So, how often have you been to Japan and how long have you spent there?

103

I have not had a chance to. However, of several friends that live there, all of them have expressed this sentiment. Especially the one who was getting regular death threats via graffiti on his apartment door that the police mostly shrugged off, suggesting he move.

104

I disagree. After all, the money doesn’t come out of the prosecutor’s pocket when the defendant is acquited.

105

Awesome. Get a couple friends and a lawyer, and you’ve got yourself a money printing machine.

106

I misspoke, I’ll clarify:

Suppose the media has no rules except self-policing ones like now. And suppose they decide to name someone who has been accused of rape. The mistake I’m referring to is the naming of someone who hasn’t been convicted. In this case, if the media named the accused and he’s eventually found guilty, then no problems, we go on with our lives. But if he was named and then later found innocent, then he gets damages

I’m not agreeing with dalej42, I’m just coming up with a new, possible better way of handling media name releases pertaining to rape. It seems clear that the names of people accused of rape being reported causes some injustice that we’d all like to avoid. My plan would tie it into guilt. Its ok to name guilty people, less ok to name people not guilty who may be tied to the accusation and be harmed. So while the media is reporting the facts, I’d create a special section for rape cases just like we have for national security. And that special case would be: the media is still free to name those accused of rape or not, depending on their preferences, but once guilt has been established, those who are innocent have the right to receive damages from the media that released their names early due to the fact that harm is done on someone who’s innocent by accused of rape, moreso than other crimes in general (to get out of the way all the “so what about other people accused of crimes?” arguments)

What the plan would do is punish people for making mistakes. If a person is found innocent, then it was a mistake. If guilty, then no mistake. Since we can’t go back in time, this plan is to make the media treat such accusations more carefully, weighing the validity of the claim and the public’s right to know. I believe this way, things will likely change to where just because someone’s accused, the media will wait on releasing names, but they will still do it when the probability of guilt is high, therefore creating less mistakes

107

But the news aspect is naming someone who has been accused. It is not a mistake. You want to create a form of libel law that says you cannot say a true thing.

But there is no mistake in reporting that the accused is accused. Just as there is no mistake in reporting who did the accusing. The media isn’t incorrect in saying who is accused.

In the US, this would require a change in the law (and the Constitution, probably) that says that truth is a defense to libel.

108

But it’s not the news outlet’s mistake, it’s the prosecution’s mistake.

“Today in Superior Court Section 637, Mr. Schmuccarelli was charged with 7 counts of lewd conduct against an intern” – it was the State’s Attorney that presented the charge. Not Newsday. They are just stating a patent truth: dude WAS charged. At the end of the trial they could say “Well, the State’s Attorney once again screwed over the wrong guy, Schmuccarelli has been exonerated on all counts” (just that they usually don’t do so very prominently).

109

I understand what you’re referring to, but I think that you’re (or probably I am) too focused on the word ‘mistake’. Can we both agree that its not a good thing to have someone who’s not a rapist be named as an accused rapist? So if the guy’s innocent, its probably better for him to have never been dragged through the mud of a public shaming and possibly a court case. We both agree on that, yes?

On the other hand, if the guy’s a rapist, and ultimately gets proven as one later on, then I feel its no harm no foul, because as an actual rapist, he deserves to be publicly shamed.

So to me, if we’re not going to call what the media does a mistake, which you’re technically right that its not, at least can we describe it as “premature”, or “has a statistically significant chance of being erroneous”, or “information that might be best disseminated when more facts have come out”? Wouldn’t you think its better if only rapists are ever named, and innocent people never get named?

So my plan is for the media to act with more thoughtfulness. Decrease the chances they report something for the sake of reporting it, or report something because they know they will never feel the consequences of shaming an innocent person. Basically, make them weigh the decision of reporting someone’s been accused because that could ruin their life, and increase the chance that innocent people won’t have their names dragged through the mud

I seem to remember a case where the truth is a defense. It was a few years ago, happened to someone like Cameron Diaz or Gwenyth Paltrow, some celebrity. Anyways, some magazine or something had published fake nude pictures of them and the actress was suing. The actresses defense is that since she never posed for those pictures, they were lies and slander (or libel, whichever is the printed one) and she wanted damages awarded and for the magazine to retract them. She said that had she actually posed naked, then the magazine would have the right under the 1st Amendment to publish them. Anyway, I don’t remember the exact details of the case nor the outcome, but I bring it up because I think it would not take any large change in the law to have this be applied to rape cases:

If you’re actually a rapist, proven in a court, then anyone can publish that. But if you eventually get acquitted, then the publications were done hastily, and your good name damaged, and therefore deserve to be awarded compensation.

110

The truth is a defense to libel currently in the US. That’s what I was saying. We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press, and that means that it takes something to curtail it. You cannot successfully sue someone for libel if they can show that what they said is true. And I cannot claim what they said is untrue if they say “jsgoddess is accused of rape” and I have actually been accused of rape.

111

Again, I wish you would not focus so much on the “accused of rape” part, I think that’s of little significance to the whole thing. Is it clearer to say that I’d like the media to take a holistic view of such cases? Understand their power and responsibility to not ruin an innocent guy’s life and hold back if circumstances of the rape are unclear, go ahead and name him if they are fairly sure, but if the guy’s ultimately innocent, agree that a rush to publish his name damages him worse than how much society would suffer if the media simply held back

112

You want someone to have the ability to sue if they are acquitted. That requires a change in the law to something that says that truth is not a defense. You are not just arguing for a holistic view but for a change in the law. I am focusing on the way you want the law to change. I’m sorry that such a focus requires me to actually focus, but you’re the one arguing this law needs to be changed.

113

I don’t agree with that interpretation but its clear to me that further discussion won’t help

114

You don’t think that as things stand right now, you cannot successfully sue the media for saying you are accused of rape if you are accused of rape?

115

I would say that we’re talking through each other. I have been trying to express clearly that I’m not talking about the existence of an accusation; this is more about the validity of the accusation. I want to tie damages to the latter, not the former.

You keep bringing back the conversation to the existence of the accusation, which, while factual, doesn’t address the problem that I feel exists. I don’t know how I can make it any more clear, which is why I think there’s no more debate to be had between us

116

Maybe someone smarter than I can explain it. I know you’re talking about the validity. You just don’t seem to grasp that you can’t just talk about the validity.

117

If we’re speaking about how we’d ideally solve the problem, sure we can. There are things that people make exceptions and special rules for. Rape can be one of them

118

So, you want a rape exception amendment to the constitution?

119

OK, some basic questions:
[ul]
[li]Who among the following should get sued: Accuser; Prosecutor; News Outlet; Entity such as employer or university who starts an internal inquiry[/li][li]If the case is dismissed by technicality issues, as opposed to a trial reaching a verdict, is there grounds to sue?[/li][li]If the case proceeds to trial, and the accused is acquitted by a jury of their peers, and the news outlets report widely and prominently this acquittal, are they still to be sued? [/li][li]If a criminal case ends in a hung jury or mistrial, what happens? What if there’s a reversal of conviction on appeal?[/li][li]If the criminal case ends in an acquittal or hung jury or dismissal BUT a civil lawsuit or the employer/school disciplinary inquiry does find that by civil/administrative standards of evidence the defendant is liable for damages or to be dismissed administratively, is there still grounds to sue?[/li][/ul]

120

It doesn’t need to be added to the Constitution. We limit firearms to felons even though there’s an amendment saying everyone gets to have one. We have the first amendment and guaranteed religious expression yet you can’t stab a dog in the heart as a sacrifice to Baal. This is what I’m trying to get across, there need not be a large movement in our laws to make this happen. Not at all

Understand that its not just the right to sue that I’m arguing. Anybody can sue anyone for anything. The plan I envision would increase punishment. So for example, suppose damages for slander is capped at $1 million. I would increase that by a lot. Or suppose the media can hide behind the fact, like jsgoddess states, that they were only reporting the facts (that being that an accusation was made). I wouldn’t allow the media to hide behind it, I’d allow the plaintiff to make the case where he was acquitted, therefore not a rapist, therefore was slandered, therefore deserves damages

As to your list:

News Outlet only. As a third party to the crime, it should be impartial they act now as a mouthpiece for the accuser. Sometimes that’s good, sometimes that’s bad. Hiding behind the guise of providing information, they are integral in moving public anger towards one side or another. I don’t want the accuser to be punished any more than they already do; false rape accusations are a serious crime and there is enough law dealing with it that we don’t need anymore. I don’t want the prosecutor to be punished because they represent the government and is doing their job as dictated by our laws. They have little leeway to inject their own opinion into this. Only the news media has disproportionate power and little accountability, they need to be reigned in and what better way to do so than with the truth?

Always grounds to sue, but depending on the reasons (for a judge or jury to decide), a suit may be brought still seeking damages. This doesn’t change the Constitution. Different cases have different standards for evidence. Note that OJ was acquitted for murder by still found guilty in civil court. I, like many people, found that odd and contradictory but we all know its because the standards in civil court are lower. Therefore, in answer to this question, the jury can decide whether the case, as dismissed by a technicality, still manages to be convincing enough to be slanderous to a possibly guilty but acquitted person

No, I only want to punish those who cause harm to someone who’s innocent. In this case, if he tried to sue, I hope the judge throws out the case

Assuming the media has already reported the name, I would hope the judge throws out the case and tells him to come back when his case comes to a conclusion. Another way that this plan would be self-policing so as to not give a guilty defendant the chance to make a quick buck, I would say that such a case shouldn’t proceed until all appeals have been exhausted. It could take years so there’s less chance of a guilty person trying to use it to profit

I would say that its a question for the judge/jury of that case to decide. They will have to decide who is more credible and if the facts support the slandering of an innocent man or if its more likely that he’s guilty and trying to make a buck