Publish "Victims" Names in Rape Cases?

[jamesrage]

In cases of "he said, she said", the guilt of the accused cannot be proven and the only correct verdict is "not guilty".

I'll ask you what I asked jfuh "Does Kobe Bryant ring a bell?"

 

[DeeJayH]

Just because he's not found guilty doesn't mean she was lying. Worst case (but all too common) scenario is that they've accidentally released a guilty man. Other times, the jury just don't know, and are forced to find him not guilty because it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt (I think there need to be an "undetermined" verdict or something for rape and other criminal cases, so they can be tried again later if need be, but I digress...). Less than five percent of sexual assault trials result in a guilty verdict. However, only an estimated 2 percent of assaults result in a trial. Considering that roughly 1 in 4 women suffer from a sexual assault in their life, it's very harsh to assume that those other ninety-five percent of women were lying.

Besides, you need to prove her guilty of making a false report - and unless you have definite proof she was lying, you can't convict her purely on the fact he was found "not guilty".

It all comes down to reasonable doubt.

The problem is, rape is usually notoriously difficult to prove. If she's attacked in a park or her drink's spiked (as proved by a blood test), yeah - that's obviously very, very strong evidence she didn't consent. However, 80 percent of victims know their rapist. Unless he bruises her in the process, it's unlikely there'll be any physical evidence to prove she was unconsenting.

that highlighted part is shocking
do you have a link to back it up, because that will cause me to reconsider my position dramatically

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Just because he's not found guilty doesn't mean she was lying. Worst case (but all too common) scenario is that they've accidentally released a guilty man. Other times, the jury just don't know, and are forced to find him not guilty because it can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt (I think there need to be an "undetermined" verdict or something for rape and other criminal cases, so they can be tried again later if need be, but I digress...). Less than five percent of sexual assault trials result in a guilty verdict. However, only an estimated 2 percent of assaults result in a trial. Considering that roughly 1 in 4 women suffer from a sexual assault in their life, it's very harsh to assume that those other ninety-five percent of women were lying.

Thats not what I said. If a person is accused wether there sentenced or not The name is kept secret. In other words wether there is found guilty or not guilty. But if the suit is found to be knowingly false this should be fed to all media outlets with the name and an automatic jail term. Rape is a horrible act... Being falsely accused of it is also a horrible act. Because the sensitivity of this issue there should be sever penalties for those that want to use it as a revenge tool.

Besides, you need to prove her guilty of making a false report - and unless you have definite proof she was lying, you can't convict her purely on the fact he was found "not guilty".

I am not willing to give a pass to woman just because. This accusation can destroy lives. If your going to use this accusation as a threat then you need to be jailed....asap!!!

It all comes down to reasonable doubt.

Thats the same logic used in rape cases.... Maybe why there are so few convictions

The problem is, rape is usually notoriously difficult to prove. If she's attacked in a park or her drink's spiked (as proved by a blood test), yeah - that's obviously very, very strong evidence she didn't consent. However, 80 percent of victims know their rapist. Unless he bruises her in the process, it's unlikely there'll be any physical evidence to prove she was unconsenting.
Nothing can really be done about that though.

If the proof is not there then it is not there. Either way unless found guilty BOTH names should be kept completely secret.

 

[vergiss]

that highlighted part is shocking
do you have a link to back it up, because that will cause me to reconsider my position dramatically

Aiieeee. Where did I read it? Hrrm. Well, here's a site. From Men Acting Against Rape (http://asucd.ucdavis.edu/organizations/other/mar/facts.htm):

1 out of every 3 American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime.
1 in 4 college women have either been raped or suffered attempted rape.
Only 16% of rapes are ever reported to the police.
Only 2% of rapists are convicted and imprisoned. (Given that this one comes from the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's Conviction and Imprisonment Statistics, they probably mean "accused rapists").

 

[Stace]

How would you come to the conclusion who is telling the truth?What information would you use since there if there was no hard evidence?Would a person's character come into play when it came to determining if the accused or accuser is truthful?

Do you not read? There will still be some sort of evidence, or the case wouldn't have even gone to trial. How can someone's character come into play? The jurors most likely don't know the accused or the accuser. You don't know a thing about a person's character unless you know them personally. Anything brought into play during the trial concerning character is all hearsay.

Which means that you use your freaking common sense.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

Do you not read? There will still be some sort of evidence, or the case wouldn't have even gone to trial. How can someone's character come into play? The jurors most likely don't know the accused or the accuser. You don't know a thing about a person's character unless you know them personally. Anything brought into play during the trial concerning character is all hearsay.

Which means that you use your freaking common sense.

NO .. you don't use common sense.. You use the facts and only the facts. If the facts are not enough to convict then that is the way it goes. You can not convict someone of a crime because you feel it is likely he did it in your gut

 

[Stace]

NO .. you don't use common sense.. You use the facts and only the facts. If the facts are not enough to convict then that is the way it goes. You can not convict someone of a crime because you feel it is likely he did it in your gut

*shakes head* You're hopeless. I hope for the world's sake that you or someone you're close to is never the victim of a sexual assault.....though if you/they were, I'm sure you'd change your tune then.

 

[Willoughby]

*shakes head* You're hopeless. I hope for the world's sake that you or someone you're close to is never the victim of a sexual assault.....though if you/they were, I'm sure you'd change your tune then.

i have been through it but still agree with Calm2chaos. Feeling shouldn't come into the law only cold hard facts

 

[Stace]

i have been through it but still agree with Calm2chaos. Feeling shouldn't come into the law only cold hard facts

No one said anything about feelings. Common sense has nothing to do with feelings.

 

[Willoughby]

sorry i must have read it wrong. I don't think common sense should come into it either. I think that proper proof should only rely on facts.

 

[zymurgy]

I would prefer that no names were released until a verdict was reached.

In addition, with advances in technology, I would suggest we no longer need to incarcerate people while on trial. Of course to get public sentiment for such a move we would likely need to keep the current system in tact for the most violent of offenders.

 

[Stace]

sorry i must have read it wrong. I don't think common sense should come into it either. I think that proper proof should only rely on facts.

And obviously, there has to be SOME sort of evidence or the case wouldn't have even gone to trial to begin with. Jurors should ALWAYS be using common sense to put two and two together, regardless of what the verdict ends up being.

 

[jfuh]

Does Kobe Bryant ring a bell?

WHat about it. Was there any invovlement of Kobe with the girl? absolutely. There was sufficient evidence to indicte Kobe of rape. It wasn't a he said she said ordeal.
So what now? when the "rapist" is a celebraty we give them a get out of jail free card? Geez I thought you and your conservative possee would be all on getting on the tail of Kobe.
What're you getting at James? That women with a "slutty" history deserve to be publisized? That they deserve to be raped regardless of? Sick

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I'll ask you what I asked jfuh "Does Kobe Bryant ring a bell?"

I thought I mentioned him along with OJ. Like I said, all names should be held in confidence until a verdict is reached. I don't have to know that Y was raped, I certainly don't need her name. I don't have to know that X was the prime suspect, until it's been proven that he's the guilty one.

Y's family and friends know that she's accusing X. X's family and friends know that he's been accused. Who else has to know?

 

[jamesrage]

WHat about it. Was there any invovlement of Kobe with the girl? absolutely. There was sufficient evidence to indicte Kobe of rape. It wasn't a he said she said ordeal.

What evidence?PLease enlighten me,show me the evidence that the prosecutor had that you felt was so strong that he was guilty.

So what now? when the "rapist" is a celebraty we give them a get out of jail free card?

I don't really give a **** about basketball players.I beleave no one should get
a free get out of jail card.Justice is blind and people are innocent until proven
guilty.

Geez I thought you and your conservative possee would be all on getting on the tail of Kobe.
What're you getting at James?

What I am getting at is that as far as we the public know is ,the only evidence there is in that case is evidence suggesting that they had sex.What that evidence does not prove is wether or not they had consensual sex or if it was rape.How do come to the conclusion who is telling you the truth?.Becasue I know how you liberals preach "what happened to innocent until proven guilty?"

That women with a "slutty" history deserve to be publisized?

Niether name should be publisized in court cases until a verdict has been reached.

That they deserve to be raped regardless of?

No one deserves to be raped except for child rapist,child murderers,rapist and other filthy low lives like them.





I hope you will forgive my lack of faith in people to be truthful in a court of law.I know that people can be very evil,selfish and malicious.Considering the woman in the Kobe Bryant case refused to co-operate with the prosecutor and got the case thrown out and then proceeded to try to sue Kobe's *** in civil court, what does that tell you?

 

[RightinNYC]

Legally and morally, no. She consented. Why?

Actually, you're wrong. If you are under the influence, you cannot consent to sexual activity. So lets say guy and a girl are out drinking. They've got some mutual friends, and he used to date one of her good friends pretty seriously. They've hooked up a couple times before on the sly, and are for the first time out drinking together as a quasi-couple in public. They're both getting drunk at a house party. He's smashed, she's wasted, and they go back to her place to have sex. Because she's intoxicated, she (and he) cannot legally consent to the sexual activity. However, whether or not the male (or female) is drunk, he (or she) is responsible for his actions. So, if she were to find out the next day that two of her friends were furious at her because they felt like she had betrayed the original girlfriend by sleeping with the ex-boyfriend, and the girl decided to say that it was rape because she panicked and didn't want her friends to hate her, the guy who had no idea that anything untoward had happened could be charged with rape.

Couldn't happen? That happened to one of my suitemates freshman year. He got absolutely railroaded by the bitch, who months later confessed that it was consensual. By that time, he'd been completely ostracized from most of his friends, reviled by the entire floor, and treated like **** by everyone he came across.

Now, according to the law, neither one of them could technically consent. But because he's the man and she's the woman, it was (and is) assumed that it was his fault. I think that's bullshit.

I am by no means arguing that rape isn't a serious matter (how sad is it that I have to add that to my statement anticipating people ranting about how I must hate all women or some ****). My best female friend was raped when she was younger and it's done more damage to her than I could ever imagine. But this is why I get so bothered by trumped up rape charges. Depending on who you talk to, the incidences of false rape are anywhere between 2 and 41% (And just so you know, the numbers pointing at 2 are the most circumstantial, while the numbers pointing toward significantly higher rates are the scientific studies). And that's only the percentage where the accuser actually admits straight up that the allegations were false, which is most certainly an underestimation of the number of false charges. And that does a terrible dishonor to the people who suffer REAL rape each year, by making people cynical.

So as you pile on to the bandwagon that villifies every man or woman accused of rape even before their conviction, I hope you remember the premise that this country was founded on. Better for 10 guilty persons to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be jailed. I'm not referring to this in the actual prison sense, but rather reputationally. Better for 10 shitheads to not have their reputations deservedly trashed than for 1 innocent person to be dragged through the muck.

 

[jfuh]

Actually, you're wrong. If you are under the influence, you cannot consent to sexual activity. So lets say guy and a girl are out drinking. They've got some mutual friends, and he used to date one of her good friends pretty seriously. They've hooked up a couple times before on the sly, and are for the first time out drinking together as a quasi-couple in public. They're both getting drunk at a house party. He's smashed, she's wasted, and they go back to her place to have sex. Because she's intoxicated, she (and he) cannot legally consent to the sexual activity. However, whether or not the male (or female) is drunk, he (or she) is responsible for his actions. So, if she were to find out the next day that two of her friends were furious at her because they felt like she had betrayed the original girlfriend by sleeping with the ex-boyfriend, and the girl decided to say that it was rape because she panicked and didn't want her friends to hate her, the guy who had no idea that anything untoward had happened could be charged with rape.

Couldn't happen? That happened to one of my suitemates freshman year. He got absolutely railroaded by the bitch, who months later confessed that it was consensual. By that time, he'd been completely ostracized from most of his friends, reviled by the entire floor, and treated like **** by everyone he came across.

Now, according to the law, neither one of them could technically consent. But because he's the man and she's the woman, it was (and is) assumed that it was his fault. I think that's bullshit.

I am by no means arguing that rape isn't a serious matter (how sad is it that I have to add that to my statement anticipating people ranting about how I must hate all women or some ****). My best female friend was raped when she was younger and it's done more damage to her than I could ever imagine. But this is why I get so bothered by trumped up rape charges. Depending on who you talk to, the incidences of false rape are anywhere between 2 and 41% (And just so you know, the numbers pointing at 2 are the most circumstantial, while the numbers pointing toward significantly higher rates are the scientific studies). And that's only the percentage where the accuser actually admits straight up that the allegations were false, which is most certainly an underestimation of the number of false charges. And that does a terrible dishonor to the people who suffer REAL rape each year, by making people cynical.

So as you pile on to the bandwagon that villifies every man or woman accused of rape even before their conviction, I hope you remember the premise that this country was founded on. Better for 10 guilty persons to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be jailed. I'm not referring to this in the actual prison sense, but rather reputationally. Better for 10 shitheads to not have their reputations deservedly trashed than for 1 innocent person to be dragged through the muck.

Well said.

 

[vergiss]

NO .. you don't use common sense.. You use the facts and only the facts. If the facts are not enough to convict then that is the way it goes. You can not convict someone of a crime because you feel it is likely he did it in your gut

Hearsay is not admissable in court in any sort of criminal trial- you know, rumours, cases of "So-and-so told me he saw Mary bragging about (X)", etc.

In rape cases, the alleged victim's sexual history is also inadmissable as evidence, except:
1. They'd had prior sexual relations with the defendant.
2. As rebuttal evidence in response to the prosecution introducing such evidence.
3. Where relevant to attack the credibility of the complaining witness. However, it involves strict procedure - hearing out of presence of the jury, special findings required, etc. Prior sexual conduct generally is not relevant to the issue of whether the witness is to be believed, except in certain cases, e.g: where the defense makes a creditable showing she has a reason to lie and that reason relates to her prior sexual conduct.

So as you pile on to the bandwagon that villifies every man or woman accused of rape even before their conviction, I hope you remember the premise that this country was founded on. Better for 10 guilty persons to walk free than for 1 innocent person to be jailed. I'm not referring to this in the actual prison sense, but rather reputationally. Better for 10 shitheads to not have their reputations deservedly trashed than for 1 innocent person to be dragged through the muck.

So long as you're not talking in the actual prison sense. Otherwise, I agree - it's a terrible thing to accuse anyone of, and the bitches who do so need a thorough smack across the face. I assume your friend didn't have to go to court, though? As you said, both parties were technically unable to consent, therefore I doubt the police would decide that one was more unconsenting than the other. :? You're also right, in that it completely stuffs up the chances that real victims have of obtaining justice.

On the flipside, you people need to take care to remember that it's never exactly bunnies and sunshine for the victims' reputations once this sort of thing is made public. If the guy is popular and well-liked, considered more "believable" by people on the street, or the girl already has a bit of a reputation, chances are she's going to become very, very familiar with a certain s-word. If she's married or in a relationship, she may lose her partner. My mother works in a law firm, and told me about a case they worked on a couple of years ago involving a prominent buisnessman and his children's nanny. The poor woman went through hell - nasty police officers, rumours aplenty (including amongst her church congregation), her own teenage daughter was picked on, even her car was vandalised. To add salt to the wound, the bastard only got a suspended sentence (penalties in Australia for sexual assault are beyond belief, but that's another topic).

Remember people, men get raped too - sometimes even by women.

 

[RightinNYC]

So long as you're not talking in the actual prison sense.

In this specific case, its not the most applicable, but yes, as a whole it is true. For any crime, its better for ten guilty people to walk free than for one innocent person to go to prison.

Otherwise, I agree - it's a terrible thing to accuse anyone of, and the bitches who do so need a thorough smack across the face. I assume your friend didn't have to go to court, though? As you said, both parties were technically unable to consent, therefore I doubt the police would decide that one was more unconsenting than the other.

That's the problem: In our society, its automatically assumed that the man is more guilty than the woman, and as such nobody really cared whether or not he was drunk. They actually looked at it as worse, like "You got drunk and attacked that girl."

On the flipside, you people need to take care to remember that it's never exactly bunnies and sunshine for the victims' reputations once this sort of thing is made public. If the guy is popular and well-liked, considered more "believable" by people on the street, or the girl already has a bit of a reputation, chances are she's going to become very, very familiar with a certain s-word. If she's married or in a relationship, she may lose her partner.

Then lets not make an issue of reputation at all out of it. It sucks for all involved no matter what, especially if the accused is innocent.

 

[vergiss]

In this specific case, its not the most applicable, but yes, as a whole it is true. For any crime, its better for ten guilty people to walk free than for one innocent person to go to prison.

Woah. What if those ten guilty people go on to rape, muder or steal from more people? Then you're effectively punishing more innocent people than just one by not proecting them.

That's the problem: In our society, its automatically assumed that the man is more guilty than the woman, and as such nobody really cared whether or not he was drunk. They actually looked at it as worse, like "You got drunk and attacked that girl."

I suppose it's due to some primitive instinct to protect our womenfolk? Definitely sucks if you're the innocent accused, but you can't avoid giving the guilty their just desserts as a result. That's just illogical - what's more important, one wrongfully accused person, or ten victims of crime?

Besides, you're talking about public opinion in regards to your college friend, not due process of the law - both vastly different things.

Then lets not make an issue of reputation at all out of it. It sucks for all involved no matter what, especially if the accused is innocent.

Especially if the accused is innocent? I daresay rape victims aren't guilty of anything, either.

 

[jfuh]

Especially if the accused is innocent? I daresay rape victims aren't guilty of anything, either.

Since you bring it up. Contrarily there's a lot of nuthead religious fanatics out there whom say that victims of rape deserved to be rape. They go along the rhetoric stating that these girls were either dressed in a seductive fashion, or asking for it by drinking alcohol, or had a "reputation" for pre-marital sex. These girls are not "wholesome" and thus deserved to be raped for their sinful ways.
This of course is a load of crap and no sane person would ever buy it as reasoning, however I've met a large crowd that actually preaches such rhetoric. Including and not limited to a few fanatical members on this site as well.

 

[DeeJayH]

Woah. What if those ten guilty people go on to rape, muder or steal from more people? Then you're effectively punishing more innocent people than just one by not proecting them.

where have you been?
that is like the core principle of our legal system
And it is better for 10 criminals to go free, than to have 1 innocent behind bars.
and even with the high bar we set, we still have some poor innocents in jail.
how would like to be one of those poor bastards?

 

[vergiss]

where have you been?
that is like the core principle of our legal system
And it is better for 10 criminals to go free, than to have 1 innocent behind bars.
and even with the high bar we set, we still have some poor innocents in jail.
how would like to be one of those poor bastards?

I'm not saying it should be guilty until proven innocent or anything. What I'm saying is that it's a bit stupid that people in this thread want to protect the accused more than the alleged victims. Would they have the same opinion in cases of murder, grevious bodily harm or theft? I doubt it.

 

[alphamale]

I'm not saying it should be guilty until proven innocent or anything. What I'm saying is that it's a bit stupid that people in this thread want to protect the accused more than the alleged victims. Would they have the same opinion in cases of murder, grevious bodily harm or theft? I doubt it.

Har! :lol: The names of the alleged victims in all cases EXCEPT rape are published, megabrain.

 

[alphamale]

Since you bring it up. Contrarily there's a lot of nuthead religious fanatics out there whom say that victims of rape deserved to be rape.

Name one that anyone's ever heard of.