Why sex crime victim's names are not publicized

Great Debates
1

OK, the thread title is a bit misleading, but I didn’t want a three paragraph title.

The Kobe Bryant case has brought to the forefront one major issue with sex crimes and how they are reported in the media. Specifically, most of the major news organizations in the US refrain from reporting the name of victims of sex crimes.

An interesting article on CNN touched on many aspects of this issue that I had been mulling over. One quote in particular from a Kelly McBride, an expert on journalism ethics, kinda hit the nail on the head for me: (not reporting the victim’s name is) “good because it protects them from unwanted stigma and scrutiny, it’s bad because it possibly feeds into the cycle that there is something to be ashamed of.”

Now, I am fully aware that this practice (not law, as pointed out in the article) was put into practice to ensure that victims felt more secure about coming forward. However, this was a full 30 years ago. Does anyone really feel that rape victims face the same ‘she had it coming, she asked for it’ type of thinking that they may have 30 years ago? Just in looking and talking to the people around me, I simply don’t see that. With the Kobe Bryant case, there are certainly some people who feel that it is a case of a woman taking advantage of a superstar - but that a case of people questioning whether the said assault actually took place. Quite different from the argument that she was ‘asking’ to be raped.

Anyone and everyone I talk to agree that rape is a) an act of violence, power, and aggression towards women, and as such as not about sex, and b) that victims of crimes of any nature (not just sex crimes) deserve our compassion and sympathy.

I have several family members in the police force. You would not believe the training and workshops they are put through to ensure they are properly handling sex crimes and dealing properly with sex crime victims. Most major police departments have female officers specifically assigned to handle sex crime victims. In most major cities the infrastructure put together solely to work with sex crime victims is fairly extensive. All told, I think there is a considerable infrastructure in place to encourage women to come forward, and to assist them when they do.

Quite frankly, I can not see what ‘stigma’ being attached to sex crime victims that any Joe Blow Redneck wouldn’t attach to any crime. Isn’t this just another example of how paranoid the US is when it comes to anything even remotely related to sex? Isn’t this just an example of many people believing there is a ‘stigma’ attached to the crime, even if most people personally don’t hold such a stigma?

The flip side also works, of course - if we assume that there is still a signficant stigma attached to sex crimes, it is safe to assume that the accused also suffer the same stigma - in which case the accused should also not have their names publically reported until they are found guilty in the courts.

I firmly believe that given the (justifiably) heavy sentences given out for sex crime convictions, adult accusers should shoulder the responsibility for their claims.

I also believe we have moved beyond the factors that started this practice some 30 years ago; I believe that the bad (perpetuating the image of a ‘stigma’ being attached to sex crime victims’ outweights any extra good (encouraging women to come forward) that the practice may be responsible for.

I am open to arguments that I am wrong on this - but note that any argument that includes ‘would you want your mother/daughter/wife’s name reported’ is, in my view, a bad argument–to me, it is a telling sign that the practice is wrong, because a good practice does not depend on one’s personal situation.

So go on - convince me I’m wrong.

2

You’re not wrong. Ideally, neither party should be named until the truth is established. Lives can so easily be ruined both by the crime and the spurious allegation of the crime.

But, in reality, how are you going to stop people making their accusations publically, especially with a celebrity involved?

I would have thought it’s the alleged victim’s loved ones doing most of the legwork, and these things get out of hand very quickly.
Cheers.

3

Oddly enough, I think the Kobe Bryant case is an excellent example of just why these kinds of “practices” are in effect. Consider just how much mud-slinging the alleged victim in this case has gone through in the press already. The defense team has tried, over and over, to paint her as a promiscous nut-job who is probably a racist for accusing a prominent black man. The press has been rife of accusations about her sleeping with 3 men prior to Kobe, to her treatment for mental health disorders, and how she wasn’t shaken up enough to suit them.
What woman wouldn’t want to go through that?

It’s not just the “she was asking for it” stereotype, it’s all these other kinds of things that defense teams do to try and influence the jury before they’re selected and to make the victim rue the day she ever had the audacity to come forward. These are the reasons for these practices as well.

Although I agree the “she was asking for it” stigma is not as prevelant as it was 30 years ago, but there are still plenty of people who have feel that since she was in a hotel room with him, since she was making out with him, she should have expected to have to have sex with him. That kind of thinking is still out there.

And FWIW, it wasn’t the victim who went to the press to spray Kobe Bryant’s name all over the papers. I’m guessing she would have been more than happy if nobody ever heard of this case.