Should Rape Suspects' Identities Be Kept Secret?

TheDongerNeedsFood · 2013-05-17T22:28:48+00:00

Absolutely rape suspects' identities should be kept secret (until proven guilty). As of right now, all a woman has to do is level a false rape accusation against a man in order to completely and utterly destroy his life. Not only that, but in the vast, vast majority of cases, there are no legal repercussions whatsoever for women who make false rape claims.

The woman in the Brian Banks case is being sued by the school district, but that's only because she sued them under false pretenses and won, and she is facing no criminal charges at all.

The criminal justice system is meant to punish those who are guilty and provide justice for their victims. It is NOT supposed to be a system which can be utilized to destroy another person's life without having to deal with any consequences.

Vandredd · 2013-05-17T22:29:54+00:00

yes. if the accuser is hidden, the accused must be hidden.

HokesOne · 2013-05-17T21:59:58+00:00

No. Closed courtroom proceedings lead to unjust outcomes. Also rape shield laws should be repealed. Everything should be done in the light of day.

What should be done is to make libel charges against a sensationalist media easier to prosecute. Private entities make tons of money sensationalizing rape (and other crimes) to hype the public up to sell more adds. There shouldn't be any censorship on this but if you're wrong you should expect to pay out the nose.

RedditBlueit · 2013-05-18T01:05:28+00:00

I think the Brits are right. You can be arrested for anything, on little or no evidence. To be charged with a felony, a Grand Jury hears the evidence in secret and decides whether the case can proceed. Keep the arrest silent, but announce the name and charges if the Grand Jury moves the case forward. Originally, the arrest was announced to ensure the defendant was not held in secret. Hopefully our laws and procedures are now sufficient to prevent that.

VoodooIdol · 2013-05-18T01:34:58+00:00

I think it should be up to the accused. If they wish to remian anonymous they should have that right, and they should also have the option to make their identity public at any point.

nisior · 2013-05-17T21:46:10+00:00

Nobody gains anything from identities being out in the open for ridicule/attack/generally negative shite. Everyone should remain anonymous in criminal cases- but is this something that's realistic? I doubt it, unfortunately.

Crimson_D82 · 2013-05-18T00:57:40+00:00

Of course.

mikesteane · 2013-05-18T05:15:34+00:00

The damage done to an accused innocent is so serious that only a lunatic could think it just to publish names of those accused.

Anyone who has read a newspaper in the last ten years will have noticed the increase in mealy mouthed non-news items which only report that someone was "accused of" or "criticised for." It should be clear that such reporting implies a foundation to the accusation or criticism and the publisher/author should be subject to the laws of libel even if the statements are technically true.

We might also get a higher standard of journalism.

Raudskeggr · 2013-05-18T06:03:37+00:00

Until found guilty, I think all people accused of serious crimes deserve a certain right to privacy. The court of public opinion can pass it's own sentence that follows a person for the rest of his/her life.

jonnytechno · 2013-05-18T06:17:25+00:00

A lot of what you need to know is in the links you provided, you just need to look at it for what it is.

The telegraph link A respected newspaper with corroborating research and analysis, reason and counter arguments.

Your last link to The Sun, which is one of the trashiest, sensationalist and corrupt UK 'new' papers predominantly orientated around sex, racism and sport and owned by Rupert Murdoch is a very questionable source.

I think it's pretty obvious that we shouldn't be naming suspects but only those convicted.

Edit: forgot to mention that The Suns Weekend edition was shut down for hacking the phone of a dead kidnapped child (& many others inc celebs) and its relationship with the police ....

Edit:spelling

funnyfaceking · 2013-05-18T12:24:01+00:00

no, that would make it impossible to issue warrants and post wanted posters.

making false allegations of rape should be illegal

rightsbot · 2013-05-17T21:12:17+00:00

Post text automatically copied here. (Why?) (Report a problem.)

seego79 · 2013-05-17T21:43:02+00:00

yes, i have not seen one compelling reason not to keep them anonymous till they have been convicted

Funcuz · 2013-05-18T03:49:37+00:00

Of course they should remain anonymous. The real question is why anybody thinks it's right to publish the names of people accused (but not convicted) of any crime at all.

The argument goes that publishing their names encourages others to come forward. That's completely unfair in so many ways. For one thing , just because somebody else makes an accusation doesn't mean that they're telling the truth about anything either. Secondly , if that's supposed to count as circumstantial evidence (more like hearsay isn't it ?) then why can't we question the accuser about their sexual history ? I mean , if they have a long history of having sex with just about anybody and anybody can claim that they had sex together anyway then why can't that be used against the accuser ?

Either it's okay to publish everybody's name and investigate everybody's history for evidence of their character or it's not okay. As it stands it's just a biased system that stacks the deck against the accused.

I don't have any sympathy for rapists and I don't think anybody around here does either. Nevertheless , not wanting to see a rapist walk free is not the same thing as saying that we should all have to play by the same rules.

Bishop21 · 2013-05-18T10:52:06+00:00

nybo · 2013-05-18T13:53:45+00:00

Innocent until proven guilty or we might aswell stop calling it justice and start calling it institutionalized witch hunt.

RXRob · 2013-05-18T18:41:05+00:00

I believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty. I also believe that all innocent people have a right to keep their affairs private and anonymous.

So, until guilt is proven, all parties should have a right to anonymity in my opinion.

pakiswag · 2013-05-18T19:06:45+00:00

Until a suspect is found guilty, it is safer to keep the identity a secret.

Always_Doubtful · 2013-05-19T02:45:49+00:00

Yes. If the suspect can't keep their name private then why should the victim's name be private ?

Keep them both private till conviction, if the accused is found not guilty release the name of the victim.

2013-05-19T17:15:38+00:00

Obviously they should be fucking anonymous.

If I'm a woman with a grudge I can go to the police station and tell them you raped me. Then I can spread the word that you're a rapist.

Then you'll be brought to court and I'll tell the court you raped me. It will be dropped as there is insufficient evidence to prosecute and you'll leave innocent, but everyone you know, all the people who've ever even heard of you, will think you're probably a rapist going forward.

Oh and nothing will happen me for it. In fact, I can still go around telling people you raped me and claim that it was dropped due to misogyny.

Last_Jedi · 2013-05-18T07:09:59+00:00

No, they should not. We have freedom of press and an open court system.

You guys are looking at the problem the wrong way. The solution isn't more secrecy or controlling the press. The solution is to educate the public on the difference between alleged and proven. Fix that and you fix the root of the problem.

Title	Should Rape Suspects' Identities Be Kept Secret?
Author	schnp
Upvotes	61
Comments	48
Date	May 17, 2013 9:11 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1ejhxj/should-rape-suspects-identities-be-kept-secret/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/should-rape-suspects-identities-be-kept-secret.1612871 https://theredarchive.com/post/1612871

Comments