i think so. i believe if the accused loses the case, or is convicted, then release his identity. if the victim loses, then leave it up to the jury to determine if she falsely accused the perp or not.
Answers:
The accused persons identity is revealed but only as the accused. When someone is accused of murder they let the public know too. If there is someone that is being accused of molesting a child, you would want to keep your kids away from him right? If the accused rapist get out on bail, you are not going to want to go out on a date with him are you? If someone had information that this person was dangerous and didn't warn you aren't they just a guilty of any harm that comes to you?
Every so often the person accused of rape is innocent, (It's VERY rare)but in the majority of all cases of rape, the accused is guilty, sometimes even when they are aquitted because of lack of evidence they are still guilty. It is the most under reported crime there is and I don't think rape victims take pointing out their attackers lightly.
Yes, but unfortunately the law does not protect the accused the same way it protects the victim. However, a falsely accused person can sue the media for slander after the fact.
yes, until the case has been resolved
After the travesty with the Duke Lacrosse players, the names of the accused should be withheld as well.
Let the police and courts settle the issue, then release the names.
Especially in the case of "he said, she said.."
Yes, there is a gross double standard, according to Feminist Jurisprudence that was instigated by liberals.
Notice here how you're unwittingly saying "victim" instead of ALLEGED victim. Saying that before proven represents a presumption of guilt.
Men's rights are routinely violated and they are considered guilty by reason of gender alone, and women are presumed to not have the dishonesty gene.
The answer by Kawaii below is ridiculous. The alleged victims of burglars do not have their identities protected and they are not given special righs above the law, as women are in rape cases. The alleged burglars themselves will receive a fair trial, unlike men in rape cases.
I assure you that most of the people that have been falsely convicted in jail right now have been falsely convicted of rape.
Also, the Genarlow Wilson case is a disgrace. He's a 17 year old that was imprisoned for having consentual sex with another minor. The message is that females are above the law and males must adhere to this rule, according to political correctness.
True, but there are ways now that help maintain the innocently accused citizens. If found innocent that can often counter-sue for defamation of character, slander, libel, etc.
I think the identity should be withheld until such time the perp is found guilty. Then its fair game
What makes a person falsely accused of rape different from a person falsely accused of burglary or assault.
If they are found not guilty they will not have a record.
The accused should be withheld until they are proven guilty in ANY case. Often, the media convicts them before they even go to court, like in the Duke rape case.
Ideally I agree. There are many cases of false accusation and people don't pay attention to the word "false". That person is marked for life. I really don't see this ever happening though as the media is too hungry for people's lives to ruin.
I agree! Or they should print the alleged victim's name. Withholding it only perpetuates the idea that the victim has something to be ashamed of.
An 'accused' persons id should be withheld. A convicted rapist should be dragged outside to have his name public ally announced, before he is castrated w/ a blow torch.
yes.
The Duke case is unusual. Most often, the accused's arrest is reported in great detail- he's branded a predator before any thorough investigation, is often jailed, and loses his job. After the cgarges are found to be false, the newspapers have nothing to say- the lack of a crime is not news. And rarely are women who falsly cry "rape" charged with anything, even repeat offenders.
And no, he can't sue the newspapers for reporting an arrest. If an arrest happened, it is news. Investigating the merits of the charges is the job of the police, not reporters.
No, the accused's identity should not be withheld.
Of Course! until they are proven guilty! then they can slap there face all over the papers..but unfortunatly, it seems as soon as they arrest someone, theres a picture in the news.
In Great Britain, both the victim and the accused are kept anonymous, their names never revealed to the media. I think this is a far better way of handling these cases. I think, in America, it is felt that a woman who is raped would lose her reputation if her name were known. It is withheld to avoid humiliation.
But what they forget is that the reputation of the man suffers, too. Once he is accused of rape, there are many people who will forever think of him as a rapist. Even if he is found innocent, the stigma remains.
In many ways, males get the short end of the legal stick. Not only in rape cases, but in divorces and child custody cases, etc. Some judges are beginning to realize that men have legal rights, too, but a majority stick with the old "a child needs a mother"...and the father is forced to be an outsider in the lives of his children.
The Duke case is an example of just how the legal system is twisted. The prosecutor was a publicity-hungry fool, giving press conferences about the guilt of these men even before they were tried. The media, in many cases, felt pity for the black victim, simply because there are so many injustices in the lives of minorities. The Duke players had a reputation for high living, so the whole thing turned into a travesty of justice.
Thank Heavens these young men had the money and the prestige to fight city hall. Think of the numerous young men who would not have the money for good lawyers and would be slammed into prison, despite their innocence.
I agree, in these cases, the assumed innocence is thrown out the window in most of these cases. Even if the accused if proved innocence their lives are still screwed up, take the Duke case.
That would seem like a plausible way of going about it, but due to laws in place today it would be very hard to get something like this accomplished.
us legal concept: "YOU'RE PRESUMED 'INNOCENT' ---UNTIL "PROVEN OTHERWISE"--IN A COURT OF LAW!!"
It is the principal of law (presumption of innocence), but do remember it will only take effect in the court of law. Meanwhile, if the society wants to know the ID of that "bastard", then it is not violating the principal. We are not the judge, nor the jury, so we have nothing to do with the legal process within the case, even though we thought the accused one to be guilty, but there will be no legal effect to the court.
After all that is why the jury cannot watch nor reading any news regarding the case.
That's what i think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment