~ archived since 2018 ~

Don’t name rape suspects unless they are convicted.

antarel

April 14, 2016

592 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Don’t name rape suspects unless they are convicted.
Author	antarel
Upvotes	592
Comments	63
Date	April 14, 2016 12:15 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4equj3/dont_name_rape_suspects_unless_they_are_convicted/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dont-name-rape-suspects-unless-they-are-convicted.951818 https://theredarchive.com/post/951818

Comments

[–]Rasalom72 67 points68 points69 points 10 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]civilsaint 36 points37 points38 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonOfShem 10 points11 points12 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]piar 12 points13 points14 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonOfShem 6 points7 points8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]piar 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]speed-of-light 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YabuSama2k 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SonOfShem -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]civilsaint 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]kublan 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rasalom72 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]kublan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rasalom72 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]kublan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]kublan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]kublan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kickmekicku 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rasalom72 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Kickmekicku 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Often, there simply isn't enough evidence to convict a person of rape. This might be due to the nature of the rape (rape tends to happen in private, with few witnesses), or it might be that the police charged the wrong person, or the accuser mistakenly identified the wrong person in a lineup, or perhaps the accused might get off on a technicality due to a mistake by prosecutors.

Rape accusers should only be charged with false reporting if there's reason to believe they intentionally made a false report. For instance if the defendant can provide video evidence of consent, or if the accuser is constantly changing their story, or if there's evidence showing friendly relations after the alleged rape.

Now, rape defendants should have their names protected until after they are convicted. Rape is a special case because someone's reputation is potentially ruined even if they are acquitted.

[–]Chair_Toaster 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Rasalom72 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]bedspelling1 point 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hamacting -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Rasalom72 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconCatBug 9 points10 points11 points 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]BaconCatBug 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Accusers are anonymous under the law in some countries. Like England.

So what? I'm talking about the USA, where accusers are not anonymous.

You are deluded if you think being named helps a rape defendant.

I'm fairly certain I'm not. Having a public trial helps the defendant in many ways. It shines the light of the public on the process. It provides a chance for additional witnesses and evidence to be found. It prevents the government from levying secret charges. It prevents people from having their rights violated by an unaccountable government.

A private, unaccountable, justice system is a far, far, far more scary and dangerous animal than a public false accusation. Period.

By that logic, youth offenders are being harmed worse than adult offenders.

Youthful offenders are sometimes kept private from the media. The reason for that is because they are not actually being charged with a criminal offense and their potential consequences are far different. Being adjudicated delinquent is not a criminal proceeding. In the case of youthful offenders, sometimes the benefit of a public trial is outweighed by the benefit of getting a clean start after the delinquency is over. That is not the case for persons charged as adults.

[–]Celda 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

So what? I'm talking about the USA, where accusers are not anonymous.

Accusers are anonymous in USA, not by law, but by custom. And accusers are anonymous in England by law.

Therefore, defendants should be anonymous by law in England, and by custom in USA. That's fair.

I'm fairly certain I'm not. Having a public trial helps the defendant in many ways. It shines the light of the public on the process. It provides a chance for additional witnesses and evidence to be found.

LOL...you mean, helps the defendant get fired from their job regardless of whether the accusation was true or false.

And helps the defendant get randoms coming out of the woodwork to make allegations, regardless of whether they're true or false (e.g. Jian Ghomeshi).

It prevents the government from levying secret charges. It prevents people from having their rights violated by an unaccountable government.

Having alleged rapists publicized in the media like what happens now does nothing to prevent people from having their rights violated. We can see people's rights being violated all the time.

Youthful offenders are sometimes kept private from the media. The reason for that is because they are not actually being charged with a criminal offense and their potential consequences are far different. Being adjudicated delinquent is not a criminal proceeding.

You are quite uninformed.

Juvenile defendants are always given anonymity as a rule, barring exceptional circumstances.

And they are charged with crimes.

Why don't you go ahead and ask people who actually were accused of rape (doesn't matter whether it was true or false accusation). Ask them if they felt that the publication of their being a rapist helped them or not.

[–]AntonioGatesMcFadden 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Celda -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

This isn't true. Accusers are named in the exact same documents as the accused.

I just said that accusers are not anonymous by law, but by custom.

Meaning, for example, that most publications will not print the name of a rape victim or accuser - not because they are forbidden from doing so by law, but because that is their policy.

Just look at Rolling Stone for example - still not officially named despite being a proven liar.

That doesn't mean that accusers are never named - just that it is the custom not to. Likewise, publications should follow the same policy for not naming the defendant.

false, sealed trials would enable the state to overapply their power. just because other things happen doesn't mean that thing wouldn't happen. this is a bad wrong argument you present.

You realize that this is already the case in many countries, such as France? Last I checked, no - least of all the defendants - are complaining.

what the fuck are you even talking about, he was sixteen when this happened.

He was tried as an adult given that he was 16 and the crime was serious. If he had been tried as a juvenile, his name wouldn't have been published.

Are juvenile proceedings public? No, most juvenile proceedings are closed to the public. There is an exception for proceedings involving juvenile defendants charged with a felony-level offense who are over the age of 16 at the time of the crime.

And in Canada:

An equal percentage of Canadians (77%) believe that young offenders' names should be published if they are convicted of a serious crime, contrary to the anonymity that the Act currently provides. Again, 22% disapprove of such a provision and 1% hold no opinion.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr01_1/p6.html

you're just wrong, you're presenting wrong non-facts and passing them off as truths

LOL...says the person that youths are "not actually being charged with a criminal offense"?

[–]AntonioGatesMcFadden 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That doesn't mean that accusers are never named - just that it is the custom not to. Likewise, publications should follow the same policy for not naming the defendant.

ok, you are welcome to try to convince media outlets not to name people who are accused of crimes. that will remain legal no matter what, but you can try to change the custom. it's tilting at windmills but you can try

You realize that this is already the case in many countries, such as France? Last I checked, no - least of all the defendants - are complaining.

this is again just not even kind of true. you are turning lies into facts. all the proceedings are open to the public in france after charges are filed.

Are juvenile proceedings public? No, most juvenile proceedings are closed to the public. There is an exception for proceedings involving juvenile defendants charged with a felony-level offense who are over the age of 16 at the time of the crime.

AGAIN YOU ARE AT BEST BEING MISLEADING. STOP DOING THAT.

proceedings are not the same things as records. if you find something in a record, you can report on it. since most juvenile records are defaulted public, that means what you're writing is wrong and bad.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/csj-sjc/crime/rr01_1/p6.html

polls aren't law

wrong, bad, and dumb. what you are writing is fucking stupid. stop being stupid, because right now you're being fucking stupid.

[–]Celda -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AntonioGatesMcFadden 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Celda0 points 10 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]A_BROWN_MALE 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sinsilenc 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]speed-of-light 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BullsLawDan 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheDude41 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Landjo -31 points-30 points-29 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]SonOfShem 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If they were found guilty, then they would be punished. If they were not found guilty, then they should not be punished.

If you're worried about the ability of manipulative people to game the system, and get non-guilty verdicts when they are in-fact guilty, then you should focus your efforts to fix the system, not attack people who have been found not-guilty of the crime they claimed to be.

Suppose you stumble across someone who is on the ground, not breathing. Now you, being the Good Samaritan you are, stop to help them. You attempt to preform CPR on them and check for injuries. However, the person dies, and just as this happens, the police show up and arrest you for murder (seeing you covered in their blood, and the only person near the murder scene).

Now, would you like it if every news site and twitter feed in the country just ran with the story that you are a murderer? What if you were eventually acquitted, but since that wasn't very newsworthy, no-one heard about that. Now when you go in for a job interview / rent an appartment / get a loan / get passed on the street, people just look at you and say "Oh, /u/Landjo, that's the one who killed that poor innocent person. I heard about that on the news last year".

See now, your life is ruined. Good luck finding a SO (if you have one now, they may have left you while you were on trial), a decent job, a good place to live, or friends.

On the other hand, if names are kept out of it, then when you're found non-guilty, you can just move on with your life.

That is why this type of law would be useful.

To add: I agree with /u/BaconCatBug that keeping the accuser anonymous would be beneficial as well.

[–]Lethn 8 points9 points10 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]notarapist72 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]secv808 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HotDealsInTexas 5 points6 points7 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Snowfox2ne1 2 points3 points4 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If a few people who were falsely accused suffer, so be it?

I don't think you understand, we are on the same side here. You want rape victims to have all the support they can get. We want those who were falsely accused to have all the support they can get. If there was a crime, we want to convict them. But I think the difference comes in when we believe they are innocent until proven guilty, and the other side thinks a persons word is good enough evidence to convict them.

Sorry, but people lie. People who are ashamed about their actions will deflect responsibility or blame onto others. I don't see how working against us on this is helping the actual victims. Every time you tell a reasonable person they need to be "taught not to rape", they grow more and more resentful. Any effort to instruct women of how to defend themselves or stand up for themselves is met with "victim blaming" chants. Are we trying to posture which strawman is more sexist, or are we trying to help victims and prevent new ones? Because honestly, it seems like you are only interested in using women as collateral damage in your vendetta against men.

[+]Iwilldoyogaoneday -31 points-30 points-29 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]jasonmiles2014 17 points18 points19 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Iwilldoyogaoneday -10 points-9 points-8 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jasonmiles2014 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladut 4 points5 points6 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thelandofdreams 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Archibald_Andino -3 points-2 points-1 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]xenoxonex 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link