when a guy is accused of rape, why does everybody know who he is, and yet the accuser is known as miss X. It s a stigma that stays with him even if he is found innocent. Is this fair justice?
2006-10-08 00:27:54 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I agree with them not telling the identity of the victim, it is for their protection. As for the person who did the raping, it is so that if there has been any other victims, they may come forward & say it happened to them as well.....to further help the case.
I think if he has been found innocent, & they pubicly that he was charged with rape...then they should pubicly announce that he was found innocent as well.....Mainly because, even if innocent, once your charged with that, it follows you.
2006-10-08 00:33:24 · answer #1 · answered by mysticfairy74 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You make a good point. That's sure something to think about.
But the first answerer also made a good point. Which is the lesser of two evils? Food for thought.
Edited to add: The asker wasn't asking about men CONVICTED of the crime. Of course their names should be made public. The question was about men ACCUSED of the crime....you know, that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? Should THEIR names be made public? If they are later found to be innocent, their name/reputation has still been tarnished for life. That's another type of psychological violation....just like rape victims are violated. I think the asker has a good point.
2006-10-08 02:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by A Veterinarian 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You are right...A person is innocent until proven guilty and should be treated as such...once accused of a crime , especially one with the stigma of rape that person is always suspect in the public eye and whether guilty or innocent his/her career and social life are pretty much over. There is no legitimate reason to release/advertise the name of the accused in the vast majority of cases.
2006-10-08 01:22:58 · answer #3 · answered by baalberith11704 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You sound as if you feel there is a certain symmetry between the parties here. That would be the case in civil law, but this is criminal law. Criminal law has very different standards, and one of them is that there is a real difference between the accuser and the accused. In order to bring the case to trial, the DA has to be pretty much convinced that the accuser is telling the truth. Certainly it does happen that they lie, lie consistently, and manage to convince DAs of their lies. But it's rare, it really is.
Victims are not people who lie. The definition of "victim" is that the person is in fact telling the truth in this situation.
So what you have is an asymmetry between the parties which is quite justified. Although, I will say that if a man is found not guilty, then the press should make note of that, as they did of his being accused. And I will also say that if he really does prove that she lied, the press probably will make much of that, because that is rare, and it is news.
2006-10-08 00:40:43 · answer #4 · answered by auntb93again 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Presumed innocent until proven guilty. That's an obligation we have and should not dismiss haphazardly. The media should be allowed to cover the trial, but they should not be allowed to report on it until the trial is over. This way, the general public would not hear any speculation, they would discover whether a person was found to be guilty or not guilty as their first news of the matter following the crime. It should be a crime to release the names of victims or those found not guilty without their permission. End of story.
2006-10-08 03:06:18 · answer #5 · answered by water boy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The victims in rape cases feel personally violated and added public exposure amplifies this. It has been deemed that if their identity is protected that they are more likely to come forward with the charges and carry out the prosicution.
2006-10-08 04:05:35 · answer #6 · answered by Ranger473 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Accusing someone of a crime is a government act. The public has a right to know .
The accused has a right to know who accused him. The public does not.
2006-10-08 00:50:55 · answer #7 · answered by open4one 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because she wasn't the one guilty of a crime he was. Victims should not be victimized a 2nd time by the public who will say stupid things like "why was she wearing that" or "what was she doing out so late" or "why didn't she close her window". And that is what will happen. Her reputation would be the one on trial. Her actions would be questioned and not his. That's why most victims don't come forward.
2006-10-08 00:36:53 · answer #8 · answered by lady01love 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's to give people a warning about someone just in case that person happens to move next door to you especially if he or she is a pedophile. I'm of the opinion that people who are hiv positive should have some sort of identifying mark. I know that sounds like giving someone a scarlet letter but in todays world people are hiv positive and know they are and yet they still sleep around and if you have no clue that a person is hiv positive, you having your health and life put at risk.
2006-10-08 00:37:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
do you feel lucky. your lawyer got you off and after about 6 or 8 years the statute of limitations runs out for a civil trial... you cannot refuse to answer questions in a civil deposition. well you could but you will lose big time for a lot of money. if you didn't do it no big wup, you know her name just post it. what your criminal lawyer should have told you is shut the ***** up. now that your lawyer got you off. , shut the ***** up
2006-10-08 10:22:41 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋