• Please keep all posts on the Rittenhouse verdict here: Rittenhouse Verdict. Note the moderator warnings in the thread. The thread will be heavily moderated with a zero tolerance policy for any baiting, flaming, trolling or other rule breaks. Stick to the topic and not the other posters. Thank you.
  • 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

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.

Once a woman has been raped, the government has in fact "failed" it's protection of women. The government is required to provide ALL the equal protection of the laws, not set up special privileges for one gender, violating the accused's right to a PUBLIC, not semi-private trial.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
alphamale said:
Once a woman has been raped, the government has in fact "failed" it's protection of women. The government is required to provide ALL the equal protection of the laws, not set up special privileges for one gender, violating the accused's right to a PUBLIC, not semi-private trial.

Not to mention that until conviction, the accused rapist is innocent as well.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Not to mention that men are rape victims as well.....so what were we saying about only women being protected?
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stace said:
Not to mention that men are rape victims as well.....so what were we saying about only women being protected?

Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.
 

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
alphamale said:
Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.

Oh yes. Being a male yourself, I'm sure you know SO much about what women REALLY want. :roll:
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Stace said:
Oh yes. Being a male yourself, I'm sure you know SO much about what women REALLY want. :roll:

What women think is inscrutable - I only judge them by their deeds, and many of them DO want it both ways.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stace said:
Oh yes. Being a male yourself, I'm sure you know SO much about what women REALLY want. :roll:

Well I'm a woman and I'd agree with that statement. There is a double standard and most women pretend to be blind to it. It is rather shameful.
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alphamale said:
Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.

Yeah, because I'm sure men never got raped in the 70s.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
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?


If the rape was proven.... Then the accused name should be public knowledge broadcast over all airways. BUt until there is proof why would you be so willing to destroy and innocent persons life? The stigma of being a sexual predator is far greater then that of the victim .. least in my opinion. If you have been raped I would feel for you but I wouldn't think you were any less of a person. It was something beyond your control. But if I know you are a rapist your dirt. You have no real prospects and society as a whole is going to dismiss you. Now I am not goingto say this goes for everyone. And there axceptions to every rule. And there are backward *** people in the world.


vergiss said:
And who said anything about gut feelings?


Stace did... Common sense = Gut Feeling... Facts are facts feelings are not pertinent to the facts


vergiss said:
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?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
RightatNYU said:
Not to mention that until conviction, the accused rapist is innocent as well.

And if the accuseds name is aired then the stigma is attatched wether found guilty or not. The accuser however goes about there day without that public label
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
If the rape was proven.... Then the accused name should be public knowledge broadcast over all airways. BUt until there is proof why would you be so willing to destroy and innocent persons life? The stigma of being a sexual predator is far greater then that of the victim .. least in my opinion. If you have been raped I would feel for you but I wouldn't think you were any less of a person. It was something beyond your control. But if I know you are a rapist your dirt. You have no real prospects and society as a whole is going to dismiss you. Now I am not goingto say this goes for everyone. And there axceptions to every rule. And there are backward *** people in the world.

Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."

Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours. Think about if the victim's a man - imagine the stigma he'd have to face - people thinking he's gay, not manly enough to stop it, etc etc.

The people who the accused knows will already be aware of the case. The only oblivious people will be strangers - and if a stranger reads about it in the paper, he's hardly going to give a care about people he's never met.
 

talloulou

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
15,998
Reaction score
3,962
Location
Tiamat's better half
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
vergiss said:
Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."

Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours. Think about if the victim's a man - imagine the stigma he'd have to face - people thinking he's gay, not manly enough to stop it, etc etc.

The people who the accused knows will already be aware of the case. The only oblivious people will be strangers - and if a stranger reads about it in the paper, he's hardly going to give a care about people he's never met.

This whole post makes no sense to me. If a man was accused of rape and his name were made public all kinds of people who wouldn't otherwise know will know. If he gets off and is proven innocent it will still be in peoples heads. Imagine if you were going on a date with someone you just met and their name comes up on google as someone who was accused of rape? Imagine the guys family who have to deal with everyone knowing their family member was accused of rape. He could get off completely scott free but that doesn't completely wipe the stigma off his name. Now what if he really was innocent? Justice would be keeping both names private. If that can't be done then both names should be released. Courtrooms are designed to treat people fairly. Releasing the accused persons name while keeping the accuser private is just unfair and unjust, particularly since the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."

Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours.

Awwwwwwwww ...... will evewy body be mean to da poor wittle wapette?? :lol:
 

vergiss

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
2,356
Reaction score
1
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
talloulou said:
This whole post makes no sense to me. If a man was accused of rape and his name were made public all kinds of people who wouldn't otherwise know will know. If he gets off and is proven innocent it will still be in peoples heads. Imagine if you were going on a date with someone you just met and their name comes up on google as someone who was accused of rape? Imagine the guys family who have to deal with everyone knowing their family member was accused of rape. He could get off completely scott free but that doesn't completely wipe the stigma off his name. Now what if he really was innocent? Justice would be keeping both names private. If that can't be done then both names should be released. Courtrooms are designed to treat people fairly. Releasing the accused persons name while keeping the accuser private is just unfair and unjust, particularly since the accused is presumed innocent till proven guilty.

*sigh*

My post is pretty easy to understand. The friends and family of the accused will obviously know about the charges, regardless if it's published in the paper or not. That kind of gossip would spread like wildfire even if his or her identity was suppressed. That's all I'm freaking saying.

My issue with this whole debate is the insidious undertones to alphamale's attitude, putting "victims" in inverted commas in the topic title, and ignoring all reasonable debate just to repeating the same wild crap over and again, making it less than subtle that he has very little care for victims of rape. What the hell is is problem in the post just above this one? He's turned this into some kind of bulls**t men vs. women thing (which it's not), and to me the attitude displayed is a very worrying one indeed.
 

alphamale

Banned
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
1,120
Reaction score
0
Location
Southern California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
My issue with this whole debate is the insidious undertones to alphamale's attitude, putting "victims" in inverted commas in the topic title,

"Insidious"?? --BURP!!!-- (scuse me!;) ) The quotes were based on the thesis of the post, that many women make false accusations of rape.

he has very little care for victims of rape.

What chick's have doesn't wear out! :2razz:

What the hell is is problem in the post just above this one? He's turned this into some kind of bulls**t men vs. women thing (which it's not), and to me the attitude displayed is a very worrying one indeed.

This third-person mode of your's is the mark of a discussion forum wuss. And the kind of thing it is exactly is an example of how, as I said, women want equality when that's useful and old-style special privileges when that's useful.
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
alphamale said:
Although I'm guessing the courts will use the rule for both men and women nowadays, the law was used for women only for decades during the modern feminist movement. That's because women want equality when that's beneficial, and they want seperate traditional treatment when that's of use.
Physiologically no, women are not equal.
However for millenia women have been treated around the world as second class citizens, and in many instances as merely objects or vesseles for procreation.
There is no rational explaination to reduce women as infurior to men to any degree. Just as there is no such rationalization to suggest the same based on race. If you can do it, great, if not, nope.
When it comes to law even undergod, all men are created equal. Men in this sence being the adjective form which is inclusive of all human beings. So then why should women not be treated as equals?
When it comes to rape victims or where you arrogantly claim unsuiting, guess what? they are the VICTIMS! Women by far, outnumber men in cases of rape as being the victims. So is there any question as to why women would demand thier identity to be with held? Shesh use some common sense.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
vergiss said:
Just because you're so logical doesn't mean the majority of people are. If a man is accused of rape and it's gone to trial, people are going to know anyway - his family, co-workers, friends, their friends' friends... these things spread. It's not exactly something you can miss. "You're being arrested, honey? Oh, okay."

Meanwhile, the victim in question will suffer, and if you'd ever known a woman who's been in such a situation, you wouldn't doubt that. There will inevitably be people judging her, making cruel comments and spreading rumours. Think about if the victim's a man - imagine the stigma he'd have to face - people thinking he's gay, not manly enough to stop it, etc etc.

The people who the accused knows will already be aware of the case. The only oblivious people will be strangers - and if a stranger reads about it in the paper, he's hardly going to give a care about people he's never met.

Again IMO .. nothing released until a verdict is reached. The accusers identity is no more important then the accused.
 

Urethra Franklin

Folle
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
3,579
Reaction score
980
Location
European Union
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
jamesrage said:
Unless there are bruises on the alledged victim rape cases are pretty much a "her word against his".A person's character should come into play when evidence is circumstancial and there is no bruises,cuts or anything else to signal it was a forced rape case.

You can be raped at gunpoint, knifepoint, or under threat. You may not fight physically out of sheer fear, possibly for your life. Not a bruise in sight.

No means no when it is said clearly, regardless of anything that has gone before. A person's character has **** all to do with it. You presumably believe that prostitutes, lap dancers, any woman who's had multiple sexual partners can't ever be raped? Meanwhile, the preacher's wife can cry wolf and get away with it because she's of "good character"
Worst of all is the "she said no but she meant yes" How f***ing stupid. Some guys don't even have the intelligence to say "oh I misheard I thought she said yes" If a woman (or a guy for that matter) says no, it's no - doesn't matter how (s)he's dressed or what you might think (s)he wants.

It's because of guys like you and your atitudes that rapists walk free.
 
Last edited:

Stace

Boobie Jubilee
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 9, 2005
Messages
7,254
Reaction score
364
Location
Clarksville, TN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Urethra Franklin said:
You can be raped at gunpoint, knifepoint, or under threat. You may not fight physically out of sheer fear, possibly for your life. Not a bruise in sight.

No means no when it is said clearly, regardless of anything that has gone before. A person's character has **** all to do with it. You presumably believe that prostitutes, lap dancers, any woman who's had multiple sexual partners can't ever be raped? Meanwhile, the preacher's wife can cry wolf and get away with it because she's of "good character"
Worst of all is the "she said no but she meant yes" How f***ing stupid. Some guys don't even have the intelligence to say "oh I misheard I thought she said yes" If a woman (or a guy for that matter) says no, it's no - doesn't matter how (s)he's dressed or what you might think (s)he wants.

It's because of guys like you and your atitudes that rapists walk free.

Right on, Urethra!!!
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Urethra Franklin said:
You can be raped at gunpoint, knifepoint, or under threat. You may not fight physically out of sheer fear, possibly for your life. Not a bruise in sight.

No means no when it is said clearly, regardless of anything that has gone before. A person's character has **** all to do with it. You presumably believe that prostitutes, lap dancers, any woman who's had multiple sexual partners can't ever be raped? Meanwhile, the preacher's wife can cry wolf and get away with it because she's of "good character"
Worst of all is the "she said no but she meant yes" How f***ing stupid. Some guys don't even have the intelligence to say "oh I misheard I thought she said yes" If a woman (or a guy for that matter) says no, it's no - doesn't matter how (s)he's dressed or what you might think (s)he wants.

It's because of guys like you and your atitudes that rapists walk free.

Let me add to this, it's the attitude that women who live a particular lifestyle deserve to be raped. Look at what the great senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota said upon thier new law against abortion:
A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.
So if the girl was not wholesome by Bills standards, even if the girl were a victime of brutal savage rape she deserves the punishment of rape and then the physical and psychological effects of a pregnancy? WTF?
 
Last edited:

DeeJayH

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,728
Reaction score
1,688
Location
Scooping Zeus' Poop
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
jfuh said:
Let me add to this, it's the attitude that women who live a particular lifestyle deserve to be raped. Look at what the great senator Bill Napoli of South Dakota said upon thier new law against abortion:

So if the girl was not wholesome by Bills standards, even if the girl were a victime of brutal savage rape she deserves the punishment of rape and then the physical and psychological effects of a pregnancy? WTF?
love the way you read into someones statements something that is not there
so it fits you twisted agenda
It says nothing of the sort, and you can not prove that it does
 

jfuh

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 10, 2005
Messages
16,631
Reaction score
1,227
Location
Pacific Rim
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
DeeJayH said:
love the way you read into someones statements something that is not there
so it fits you twisted agenda
It says nothing of the sort, and you can not prove that it does
Well that is just your perspective isn't it? I could very much say the same for you as well. Does such an argument serve anything purposeful?
Since you know me so damn well, tell me dj, what is my twisted agenda? Forcing my far leftist liberal ideology down your throat?
Perhaps you would like then, instead of pointless ad homenin attacks to a) participate in the actual discussion; then b) give an actual rebuttle to my statment and point out where I've erred.
Perhaps you can start with where I've been dishonest about, or misrepresented senator Napoli's statments?
 
Last edited:

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,975
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No I do not beleave only slutty women get raped.

Now if you a juror in one of these cases and there is no hard evidence what so ever the accused raped the accuser, how do you come to the conclusion who is telling the you truth?

You make it sound as though each (victim and accused) has equal motivation to lie.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
35,029
Reaction score
16,592
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
You make it sound as though each (victim and accused) has equal motivation to lie.
As far as I am concerned they both do have equal motivation to lie,it up is up to both of them to convince a juror that they are telling the truth.The juror does not know the accused and the accuser.A perfect case would have all the hard evidence pointing to the accused.But from what I have been told, often times there is no hard evidence so it does come down to who do you believe is telling the truth.A person's character is very important in helping you make that determination in who is telling you the truth.
 
Top Bottom