When their names are released, shouldn’t the accuser’s be as well? Charges are merely allegations, they are not proof. Why should the accused’s name be public but not the accuser’s?

Because rape has a conviction rate of around five percent. And despite the fact that most of these are due to “insufficient evidence for a conviction” rather than “conclusively proven innocent,” society in general will accept a “not guilty” verdict as “she lied,” not “inconclusive.” Such a verdict coupled with society’s prejudices regarding rape (and everything else related to the case) would result in the victim being vilified, without the “innocent until proven guilty” benefit of the doubt which people are all too happy to extend to the men involved.

That makes for, statistically, around a 95% chance that any given rape victim (especially in a well-publicized case) will be the one blamed for the whole mess. She is also, incidentally, overwhelmingly likely to be the only person involved who didn’t have a choice in the original incident. To release her name is to put her at risk of having people make her name synonymous with “lying slut” and “false rape accuser” for nothing more than asking for justice—a risk that is, given the difficulty of successfully prosecuting rape, extremely high.

Feminist reporters are making the case that the unfairness of naming the accused and not the accuser has given platform to those who make outsized claims about the number of false charges of rape, and that shielding the accuser might well inflame still further the cruel search for dirt about her. It’s fine in this day and age apparently to raise questions about, for example, the mental stability of the accuser and it’s fine apparently in this day and age for much of the nation to hear and read all sorts of irresponsible charges against her — charges that are never filed against her, as her charges have been filed in the legal system against the accused. One leading advocate for releasing the name of the accuser who edited a paper that won a Pulitzer for telling the story of a rape victim with her consent to name her puts it this way: “The responsible course for responsible media today is this: Treat the woman who charges rape as we would any other adult victim of crime. Name her, and deal with her respectfully. And leave the trial to the courtroom.”

I followed the link provided in the Tawana Brawley comments and was rewarded with not only the victims whole name, but also her criminal history.

Also, MSNBC has shown pictures of her on-air (though blurred).

the alleged victim has been forced into hiding following publication of her photograph by MSNBC and NBC 17 WNCN. She has received threats from Duke Lacrosse team supporters and been forced “to stay with different friends almost every night.” The intense media pressure on the victim has even led her to consider dropping the charges, according to a family member.

In the latter, I personally feel that the media did more to harm justice than to protect it. But that is, as I said, my own personal opinion.

I’m for letting journalists into the courtroom to ensure the openness of the proceedings, but when Court TV and E! and others drag cameras into the courtroom and the trial becomes daytime veiwing to rival soap operas — that is what I object to, because those are only seeking to sensationalize an already horrible event. Yes, the press should have access but there should be a serious return to ethical journalism that has been lacking in the past several years.

Not publishing the accuser’s identity has simply become customary for the press, as was said above.

In any case, I would agree with you if your view could become reality — but I’m afraid it just can’t. The media isn’t going in that direction but the opposite.

Not naming anyone without their consent would likely work best as they can decide for themselves whether the press will aideor hinder them. I also don’t believe you should be able to go to a civil court after a criminal one, seems like being tried twice for the same crime or lack of to me.

Question: When their names are released, shouldn’t the accuser’s be as well? Charges are merely allegations, they are not proof. Why should the accused’s name be public but not the accuser’s?

as the ever popular ‘Don’t Two Wrongs Make a Right?’ arguement.

In this case, I wonder if naming the accused actually helps the defense? It is a high profile case being defended in part by Bill Bennet, a master of public leaks. This case won’t get to trial for a long time. By releasing the defendants names, the defense attorneys can use media pressure behind their evidenciary leaks to their advantage. A judge needs to publicly squelsh all attorneys involved immediately.

If the defenants’ identities remained secret, there would be more public scrutiny of the intentions of evidence leaks by the defense. The entire team has already publicly suffered the taint of the accusations and circumstances.

If the DA later finds significant evidence of the guilt of one of those not fingered that admonishes one of the two, there would be a public outcry of abuse to the innocent by the DA. This is why two were arrested, allowing the DA some flexibility based upon evidence that he now has greater rights to collect.

Not to lose anyone, ask yourself this:

What if the accused identities were kept secret and out of the press? Then, what if the DA later announces that charges were dropped against these two because of evidence later found, but that evidence leads to three new players being charged?

Under this scenario, the public would more easily accept the reasonable actions of investigators and the DA who merely used the system to gather the evidence necessary to bring appropriate justice.

In the current media frenzy surrounding the case, it would be near impossible for the DA to drop these charges and finger three others.

Bennet is a master of using confusion caused by the media circus to make the accused to look like victims. Strangely, this is one reason to keep their identities secret.

(1) The classic reason is that justice should be done in public - people have the right to know what goes on in their courts. It inspires public faith in the justice system.

(2) If people know who is being accused they can act on this knowledge and provide evidence to the trial. Plenty of serial rapists have been convicted because their names were made public because of a trial and this inspired other victims (or other people with relevant information) to come forward and give evidence against them. Publicity can also be useful to the defendent, even if they want secrecy. Coverage of a trial has provided people with watertight alibis and gotten them off in the past. It also hampers police investigations, if they’re prevented from publicly naming the suspect.

(3) This will be controversial. But criticism of anonymity of defendants also applies to that of complainants. Criminal trials have been thrown out because the complainant is named and people have come forward with information that demonstrates their testimony is false. I’m not saying testimony in rape cases is more false than in any other crime. I’m not suggesting that complainants be named to punish them - I think that was the logic on the TalkLeft thread, that’s just ugly, and Amp was right to call them on it. What I am suggesting is that naming complainants is justified in other trials to reduce the likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and I’m not sure that rape trials are different.

I’d been dismayed by Jeralyn’s defensive response, thought I generally appreciate her evenhanded reporting. I agree with you that the identities of the accused and accuser should not be public, and that there should be an opportunity to try the case properly.

Tit for tat does not solve the problem of disclosure (or of the dreadful situation that the drunken party-boys created when they invited scantily clad women to dance for their entertainment for money, and apparently added insults to the party fare).

I would like to remind people though, that public disclosure of basic information does serve a very legitimate purpose — for instance, it can unearth actual witnesses to the crime, victims of similar crimes perpetrated by the same person, or even exculpatory witnesses who wouldn’t necessarily realize that they had important information.

It also places DAs and lawyers under a microscope. While this can be bad when it happens to the degree that it did in, say, the OJ Simpson case, it is generally a good thing for the court system to be absolutely and publicly transparent. One of the really corrosive developments in criminal law has been the pleas of government officials to trust them that information only they know implicates people in terrorism cases. Well, the government’s desire to impress the public with high profile terrorism cases (in order to justify their power to overlook normal civil rights protections) clearly outstripped any supporting evidence they had. This was certainly true of the Detroit prosecutions where it turns out the prosecutor had seriously compromised the integrity of the entire process.

It’s unfortunate that someone who is found not guilty nonetheless lives with the stigma of having been accused but if the trial occurs in the light of day with a complete public airing of evidence, fair minded people are in a much better position to realize when an innocent person has been unjustly accused and prosecutors are much less able to distort the public’s perception.

I’m also reminded of the Kobe Bryant case. The media did their best not to name the accuser, but it got out anyway. (Pamela Mackey, Bryant’s attorney, was admonished by the judge for referring to the accuser by name.) People went after the accuser mercilessly, threatened to assault her, to kill her, to harm her family for having the gall to accuse the great Kobe Bryant of rape. In fact, three men were *jailed* for threatening her. That alone gives me pause about suggesting we should identify rape victims.

Secondly, I’m not opposed to keeping the accused names secret in theory, but I must say ginmar has a point about how it actually works in practice.

The last rally I went to in college was in response to a rape that had happened at another school nearby. On the top of the list of our demands was that the accussed be temporaraily suspended from his non-wage earning job as security for dorm parties. The same job he was doing when the (alleged) rape occurred.

Who the hell doesn’t do that right away anyway? And would he have never been suspended if we hadn’t been able to name names?

Yes, us knowing details about the accused in a local rape case is far different from everyone knowing the names of the accused in a national rape case, but it still makes me wonder what other stupid things people would do.

Not guilty =/= innocent.

Revealing both sides names or neither sides should be the game plan, to do otherwise is realistically not fair or equal. Personally I would have no one named with naming them (or using images) as contempt of court.