"Suppressing the names of rape victims — to say nothing of protecting the identities of those who make false accusations of this horrible crime — is intended to liberate victims from the stigma associated with such victimization, but it also contributes to it. By insisting on anonymity, we cultivate the false belief that rape victims have something of which to be ashamed in a way that victims of other crimes do not. This goes beyond mere embarrassment: Men who have been mugged may very well feel ashamed of their inability to protect themselves and their property, and may feel that their victimization reveals them as being somehow unmanly, inadequately virile. (That this is a less intense and less intimate violation than rape should go without saying.) The victims of Bernard Madoff, many of whom considered themselves financial sophisticates, may very well have felt ashamed of having been victimized. But we do not suppress the names of people who make accusations of fraud or file armed-robbery complaints. Nor is there a political faction in the United States insisting that we “always believe the victim” in securities-fraud cases."
"And, for good reason, we do not offer anonymity to those accused of rape and other crimes. In the case of rape, this and other deviations from normal legal process creates a poisonous asymmetry and a powerful temptation: One can ruin a life while remaining comfortably cocooned in anonymity. Consider the case of Oliver Jovanovic, who was wrongly convicted of rape, and whose prosecution was enabled in part by so-called shield laws that excluded from evidence e-mails between the accused and his accuser in which she expressed her consent to, and her enjoyment of, the sexual acts that transpired between the two. In that case the accuser, a 20-year-old college student, was described by her grandmother as having a long history of having made similar false accusations. Jovanovic served two years of a 15-year prison term before his conviction was overturned."
10 comments:
Arguing this from the standpoint of accusers who have allegedly been the victim of a crime is not the correct perspective.
Due process and the presumption of innocence are the cornerstones of our criminal justice system.
Revealing the names of accusers should be mandatory.
Shielding individuals reporting to have been raped because it is shameful means, to me, that having been raped is shameful.
It keeps taking me round and round in circles.
The record shows that a lot of men who claim to be decorated war veterans are not. Ditto with concentration camp inmates and rape survivors. It's the kind of thing that attracts the fraudulent and the delusional.. There should be more not less diligence in investigating such claims.
I don't think anyone who was gang raped by Hells. Angels or the Crips would want that info common knowledge. On the other hand, rape by Bill Cosby is no disgrace--perhaps even some of the women consider it a status symbol. At any rate, there should be some common sense precautions when it comes to revealing the names of rape accusers.
The rolling paper story still up as of just now 3:41 pm.
If it looks like the accuser is a liar, yes, by all means.
Texas Annie said...
Shielding individuals reporting to have been raped because it is shameful means, to me, that having been raped is shameful.
It keeps taking me round and round in circles.
I think the original intent was to spare them more grief and humiliation.
YMMV
The presumption of shame only serves to promote the stigma of rape.
@Amartel/
Agreed..
I think that if you are going to point the finger at someone and call them a rapist, you need to stop hiding behind your finger.
A new report from the Justice Department crushes the myth that 1 in 5 women on campus are victims of sexual assault. More like 1 in 50, and that is less than non-students. Ie: college campuses are safer for women. Holding my breath to see if this new report is picked up by the MSM.
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rsavcaf9513.pdf
Post a Comment