• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Publish "Victims" Names in Rape Cases?

Should rape "victim's" names ber made public?

  • Yes, all accusers names should be made public.

    Votes: 9 28.1%

  • No, they shouldn't.

    Votes: 23 71.9%
  • Total voters
    32
RightatNYU said:
Did I say that?
Click to expand...
No you did not say so.

RightatNYU said:
First off, the publishing of those names is a constitutionally protected right that most papers simply choose not to exercise.
Click to expand...
Which I do not argue.

RightatNYU said:
Secondly, why should rape be the ONLY crime in which the alleged victim is not named? Those accused of pedophilia are no doubt just as shamed and embarassed, perhaps unjustly so, just as those accused of raping and being raped.
Click to expand...
Could you clarify what you are saying here. I've bolded the points which are confusing to me. One is that whom is found guilty the other is the victim. There's no need to further victimize the victim of a rape.

RightatNYU said:
I would argue that by setting rape apart from every other crime, and by making the decision to publish the name of the accused but not the accuser, the system is perpetuating the stigma attached to rape.
Click to expand...
I don't see how it is in anyway perpetuating the stigma.

RightatNYU said:
Personally, I'd prefer that nobody who is being accused of a crime have their name be published until they are proven guilty.
Click to expand...
I agree completely, as I've shown in your formal post. As was the case with your friend.
Reagardless of, the victim, unless reversly accused of humiliating on falsehood should never be published and thus publicly humiliated as headline news.
 

In most crimes/claims, both the accused and the accuser are named. In the case of rape, only the accused is named. By doing this, it implies that rape is somehow different/worse/more shameful than any other crime. By doing so, it instills the notion into the populace, perpetuating the stigma.

I agree completely, as I've shown in your formal post. As was the case with your friend. Reagardless of, the victim, unless reversly accused of humiliating on falsehood should never be published and thus publicly humiliated as headline news.
Click to expand...

I'd prefer for neither to be named. If the media wants to name one, they should name both. I don't think naming one and "protecting" another is fair.
 
RightAtNYU, you haven't answered whether your friend went to trial. Did he get charged with rape, or was it all just a case of rumour and unfounded public crucifixion (which can happen for any reason to anyone), as opposed to the due process of law?
 
I'm forced to agree.

RightatNYU said:
I'd prefer for neither to be named. If the media wants to name one, they should name both. I don't think naming one and "protecting" another is fair.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty biased on this one so here's simply my opinion. AS I've noted I've no resepct nor compassion for rapists, I don't buy the whole "I wasn't in my mind" story. For any guy that would rape a woman in the first place already says that he doesn't give the amount of respect a woman deserves. Otherwise he is mentally ill.
That being said, I'm still, regardless of what any of you may think, going to say that rapists should be castrated. And of course those convicted by a jury of thier peers should be broad cast to the whole world. I'm not talking about simple sex offense, i'm talking about full montey rape (not exhibitionists).
AS for the victims, no I don't think for the slightest minute that they should ever be headline news publications.
 
vergiss said:
RightAtNYU, you haven't answered whether your friend went to trial. Did he get charged with rape, or was it all just a case of rumour and unfounded public crucifixion (which can happen for any reason to anyone), as opposed to the due process of law?
Click to expand...

The girl told her friends that he raped her, probably not planning on it going further. Unfortunately, one of her friends who was trying to do the right thing told the RA a few weeks later about the claim, and as a matter of protocol the RA had to tell her superiors, who initiated a formal investigation, etc. By the time the girl realized how much things were in action, she apparently decided she was too far in, so she agreed that she would press charges, which got the cops involved. After a week or so of police investigating/etc, she said she didnt want to press charges, and then when the cops started digging as to why, they found lots of discrepancies and then it all sort of went to **** before anything further went on. The kid still to this day says it was the worst semester of his life.
 
RightatNYU said:
I'd prefer for neither to be named. If the media wants to name one, they should name both. I don't think naming one and "protecting" another is fair.
Click to expand...

Why should the victim have to suffer the indignity of having their circumstances known?
 

Rape victims aren't named because yahoos think she deserved it, or that she was somehow wanton for letting it happen. Even in this day and age.
 


Well, it's not supposed to help the "current case". That case is supposed to be decided on the merits of the events in question, not on the perception of the jury that because there's more accusers he must be guilty of this crime, too.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why should the victim have to suffer the indignity of having their circumstances known?
Click to expand...

Don't you mean alledged victim?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Rape victims aren't named because yahoos think she deserved it, or that she was somehow wanton for letting it happen. Even in this day and age.
Click to expand...

Why should it be any different that someone who's allegedly mugged, or allegedly kidnapped? You'd propose to limit the publication of information based on how people would react to it? That's called the Heckler's veto, and its unconstitutional.
 
Why should it be any different that someone who's allegedly mugged, or allegedly kidnapped? You'd propose to limit the publication of information based on how people would react to it? That's called the Heckler's veto, and its unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
i think that no names should be published untill after trial
 
Stace said:
*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.
Click to expand...

And your willing to ruin someones life on a gut feeling thats not hopeless it's pathetic..... I hope you learn to look a little further down the line ad not sink the ship to kill the rats. I hope no one I know ever gets assaulted... If they do I hope there is evidence to convict them. The day we use gut feelings to convict a criminal is the day this country is in a lot of trouble
 
Stace said:
No one said anything about feelings. Common sense has nothing to do with feelings.
Click to expand...

Wrong.... But you knew that... The law is facts ... you want to be able to convict someone for something on a feeling you have.... Sorry.. not the way the world works nor should it ever work that way
 
You're missing the entire point, C2C. Since I don't have the time, nor the inclination, to keep explaining it over and over again, I'm just going to agree to disagree with you here and leave it at that.
 
jamesrage said:
Don't you mean alledged victim?
Click to expand...

No, I don't. While the status of the victim may be in question, an allegation is made by one person against another. A person claiming that she's been victimized isn't making allegations against herself, so she cannot be "alleged".

I'm sure there's a more accurate word, but I don't feel like finding it right now. "Putative" works.
 
RightatNYU said:
Why should it be any different that someone who's allegedly mugged, or allegedly kidnapped? You'd propose to limit the publication of information based on how people would react to it? That's called the Heckler's veto, and its unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

So you don't think there's a social stigma attached to a rape that isn't attached to simple robberies or assaults?

I'm not going to argue the point with you, it's like my trying to argue you into understanding that the sun is up in the daytime and down at night.

Frankly, I don't care what Mr. Heckler did, but it's sounds like he should give his pen to the Presiden. I'm merely stating the obvious. The victim of a crime shouldn't have to worry about public reaction to her for something that's not her fault. The victim's name is never relevant to the crime committed and it does not serve the public interest to make that information available to all.

BTW, you must have missed my post where I said that no one's name should be published, and only the guilty's name should become a matter of public record.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why should the victim have to suffer the indignity of having their circumstances known?
Click to expand...

Why should the accused have to suffer the indignity of being accused of rape in a public manner before they are found guilty?

I think the publication of the accused name is in some ways worse. I know if I'm being honest with myself the fact that a man was "accused" of rape would stay with me long after he was found not guilty. Anotherwards I would hold him as "suspect" in my mind forever! I'd think he may have got away with it but quite possibly he is a rapist! On the other hand I will always be more sympathetic and less judgemental towards the victim doing the accusing.

So really they either have to publish both names or no names.

To say one suffers more than the other by having the crime and names made public is really unfair in my opinion.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, I don't. While the status of the victim may be in question, an allegation is made by one person against another. A person claiming that she's been victimized isn't making allegations against herself, so she cannot be "alleged".
Click to expand...


She is making the claim she has been victimized by a certian individual.Therefore she is alledging that she is a victim.As far as I am concerned neither the accuser and the accused's name should be revealed until the trial is over.If however one name is revealed then so should the other name.
 
talloulou said:
Why should the accused have to suffer the indignity of being accused of rape in a public manner before they are found guilty?
Click to expand...

They don't. Why do you think I recommend that neither party's name be released until a conviction is reached by the jury?
 

What about the victim of rape? His/her life has already been ruined. Don't you care about them? Let's assume for a minute your sister or girlfriend was raped (and I hope she never is) - would you care about the alleged rapists "privacy" then?

And who said anything about gut feelings?

RightatNYU - but thankfully, your friend did not go to trial because there simply wasn't the evidence, and the nasty girl in question wussed out. If it's actually gone so far as to go to trial, don't you think that, more often than not, it's got to be credible?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So you don't think there's a social stigma attached to a rape that isn't attached to simple robberies or assaults?
Click to expand...

Sure there is. But there's two questions you have to ask first:

1. Is it the place of the government to violate equal protection to avoid possibly labeling someone with a stigma?

2. What effect does continually treating rape differently than any other crime have in perpetuating that stigma?




Nor does the accused's.

BTW, you must have missed my post where I said that no one's name should be published, and only the guilty's name should become a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you at all. I don't really know how we got into this debate, guess it just sort of happens sometimes.
:2wave:
 
In Australia, if the victim doesn't want his/her name known, it's not. In fact, apart from prominent cases (murder, kidnapping), I cannot recall the name ever being publicised. Furthermore, the accused can also apply for his/her name and likeness to be suppressed, and a judge decides whether that's appropriate. Where children are involved, it's suppressed at all times.

Maybe you should have something similar over there?
 

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your opinion), the Supreme Court, in its more liberal days, decided that to prevent the publication of such information was an unconstitutional infringement on the right to free press. So we're stuck relying on the decision of individual papers as to what they will publish or not.
 
Notice how women demand equal rights, how feminists say the only difference in men and women is "the plumbing", but when it comes to rape, ahhh - that's different - then women have to be be protected like delicate little victorian age misses.
 
alphamale said:
Notice how women demand equal rights, how feminists say the only difference in men and women is "the plumbing", but when it comes to rape, ahhh - that's different - then women have to be be protected like delicate little victorian age misses.
Click to expand...


The only function of the government is the protection of the innocent. Rape victims, mugger victims, unborn children. The government is supposed to protect them all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…