Should the names of accused rapists be released prior to conviction?

[fried eggs]

I was reading a debate about whether it's fair that accusers are entitled to privacy while the accused get their names published.

One person argued that either both names should be published or none at all.

I like the way things are done now, but I wonder how many men share these views.

[Obamanaut]

1. Persons accused of other crimes have their names published, why

*not* accused rapists?

[DJ13]

10. I would prefer no one not convicted has their name published

If people are innocent until proven guilty their innocence shouldnt be put in doubt by pre trial publicity.

[geek tragedy]

14. That would make monitoring of police abuses almost impossible.

No statistics to show disparate arrests of minorities, etc etc etc.

[DJ13]

19. If the police and/or DA cant publicise an arrest they might not be so quick to make a false arrest

Do you remember all those daycare child sex arrests in the late 80's to early 90's, and how often the people arrested were really innocent?

It was the publicity that created that atmosphere.

A lot of police chiefs and prosecutors were publicity hounds trying to make a name for themselves, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the accused.

[Obamanaut]

23. Refer to response 15 - there is no 'innocent until proven guilty.' nt

[DJ13]

30. I read it, but

"The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice."


That is true, and as you said its not codified in our Constitution, but for all intents and purposes it has become as much a Right as the Right to privacy.

[joshcryer]

2. The court of law is a public institution and the press is free.

If the press cannot report on activities happening in the public institution known as the justice system, then there is no free press.

This, btw, is an argument against those secretive hearings that we hear so much about and no one knows squat about the proceedings (despite that our taxpayer dollars are paying to have justice dealt).

[Modern_Matthew]

18. I'd care more about my reputation than the "freedom" of others to trash my name. nt

[joshcryer]

25. And the accuser whose name is almost invariably slung through the mud during the trial?

[Romulox]

49. The public nature of proceedings is generally thought of as a protection to the ACCUSED. nt

[Bluzmann57]

3. Accused murderers names are released

As are accused kidnappers, thiefs, etc. so yes, accused rapists names should be released. The majority of the time the police have the right guy anyway.

[Kurska]

6. "Majority of the time the police have the right guy anyways" wow

I mean innocent until proven guilty is just a legal technicality anyways.

[Obamanaut]

15. There is no "innocent until proven guilty"

<snip>Innocent Until Proven Guilty
First, it should be pointed out that if you did it, you're guilty, no matter what. So you're not innocent unless you're truly innocent. However, our system presumes innocence, which means that legally speaking, even the obviously guilty are treated as though they are innocent, until they are proven otherwise.

The concept of the presumption of innocence is one of the most basic in our system of justice. However, in so many words, it is not codified in the text of the Constitution. This basic right comes to us, like many things, from English jurisprudence, and has been a part of that system for so long, that it is considered common law. The concept is embodied in several provisions of the Constitution, however, such as the right to remain silent and the right to a jury.


<link> http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

[Romulox]

43. The Presumption of Innocent is implicit Due Process.

The Presumption of Innocence is but one component of Due Process, something that most certainly IS codified in our Bill of Rights.

[Obamanaut]

47. In this snippet, one can extract a good question> If one is innocent until

'proven' otherwise, why is he or she on trial?

<snip>Aside from the related requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence is largely symbolic. The reality is that no defendant would face trial unless somebody—the crime victim, the prosecutor, a police officer—believed that the defendant was guilty of a crime. After the government has presented enough evidence to constitute Probable Cause to believe that the defendant has committed a crime, the accused need not be treated as if he or she was innocent of a crime, and the defendant may be jailed with the approval of the court. <more at link> http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Presumption+of+Innocence

[Romulox]

48. Excellent question. The answer is that PROBABLE CAUSE, as judged by an impartial magistrate, exists

to charge the person. In addition, it means that the evidence has been presented to the accused, who has had a right, after consulting with competent counsel, to enter a plea. Again, this all flows naturally from the concept of (substantive) "Due Process"--a very powerful right indeed. So it is not accurate, imo, to say that the right to be presumed innocent isn't codified in the Constitution. It is merely one component of the right to Due Process under the law.

[Obamanaut]

50. But is it really a right? Or merely a presumption? nt

[Bluzmann57]

31. Goddam!

You know, I guess I should explain in great detail each and every motherfucking post I make here because no matter what, I get challenged. So here is an explanation of my prior post since you are so concerned. I meant that almost every alleged criminal's name is released to the press and why should an accused rapist be any different? I believe that the OP may have been implying that some accused rapists are actually not guilty, which is true. And if that is not what the OP was implying, I humbly apologize to him or her.
But I still say the cops usually have it right and I will not back down on that statement. No inference of guilt or innocence. Just a statement. Deal with it.

[fried eggs]

9. Many years ago, I saw a poll

Where respondents overwhelmingly said that rape is worse than murder.

[digonswine]

4. This is a no-win-

if accusers are named-I assume fewer rapists brought to trial. If accused rapists are named, their reputations are tarnished for all time, regardless of guilt. I know this is no help at all.

[joshcryer]

7. There is civil action for false accusations.

And criminal even.

[digonswine]

20. I know-but how would one come back from that?

Your own mother would look at you funny.

[joshcryer]

26. "Hello, I was not found guilty of those charges, they were a false accusation, here is the...

...police report and civil suit."

[fried eggs]

27. True. Many still view the Duke lacrosse team

As guilty rapists.

[joshcryer]

29. Yes, I've seen one of those commentators, but they aren't relevant and cannot...

...economically or morally affect the team.

[stuntcat]

13. oh true

accusers need to be kept private, and to do that the whole story must be kept quite.

But after conviction the criminal should be exposed, to the whole world, and shunnnnnnned. No kidding, I'm for forehead-branding for creeps like that.

[geek tragedy]

16. The Aldo Raine treatment? nt

[fried eggs]

21. The only problem is that

The rich and powerful could potentially rack up a huge number of victims before they're finally called out and convicted.

[digonswine]

24. I have a similar visceral reaction-

Shunned ain't gonna cut it. Rapists have no business walking the street. I am against the death penalty-but I would not mourn for a second a rapist who is no longer with us.

[robinlynne]

5. interesting question. because of the possibility of innocence.

[pnwmom]

8. By releasing the names of the accused you give other victims

a chance to come forward.

[stuntcat]

that's true too

hm!

[pnwmom]

22. Some women finally get the courage when they realize that the attacker

has hurt other women, too; that it's not just them.

[geek tragedy]

11. Rape victims are unique in that they get smeared by defense attorneys and those

sympathetic to rape suspects far more often than robbery or mugging or murder victims.

No one asks someone who gets stabbed whether he was asking for it, or whether the guy who got hit over the head with a brick consented to it.

Defense lawyers (and political supporters) of accused rapists ALWAYS try to smear the victim as a lying, golddigging whore.

So, it's only fair that they prevent rape victims from being violated again by the rapist's posse.

[etherealtruth]

35. + infinity

[udbcrzy2]

41. Defemse attorney are also liars

The attorneys are not under oath and they can tell lies and make it seem to appear as the truth. That really pisses me off. They try to make it appear as though the raped person asked for it to happen or the person murdered - had to be killed. I like it when a Judge makes clear to the jurors that what the attorneys say is not evidence or even factual, but many times they don't even mention it.

[Modern_Matthew]

12. Haven't really thought about it before. But my official position is now no. nt

[Withywindle]

17. Suspects and "persons of interest" of other crimes get their names printed all the time.

why would rape be any different?

[joshcryer]

28. But, but, but, reputation!

[Withywindle]

33. But but but but

Being inaccurately accused (I won't say falsely, because that's too loaded) of embezzling or robbery or heroin possession is pretty damaging to an innocent person's reputation as well. Yet no one gets all up in arms about mug shots in the paper for those crimes.

I guess some people think that rape is "subjective" in some way that pickpocketing or assault isn't. I am not one of those people, so I don't understand or respect the OP's premise.

[joshcryer]

36. Exactly. Basically if the person can get the case thrown out they should not be even thought of...

...as someone who was suspected of such a crime. Yes there are a few vindictive evil people out there who would make false claims, and indeed, some of them might even win and innocent people go to jail, that should not dissuade us from seeking justice.

[Romulox]

44. Generally, so are their alleged victims. nt

[Brickbat]

32. If charges are filed, yes.

[Ikonoklast]

34. As soon as it becomes part of the public record, yes.

I agree.

[joshcryer]

37. Exactly.

[patricia92243]

38. The boys at Duke University is an example of how an innocent person can be smeared for life - for

something they didn't do. It also hurts the families of the accused rapeist. I say withhold the names.

[fried eggs]

42. But I wonder if that sort of thing happens

Enough to justify changing the system.

[mia]

39. Absolutely not. n/t

Innocent until proven guilty.

[bemildred]

40. Everything should be public, secrecy is a curse, the truth sets you free. nt

[L0oniX]

45. Names and pictures are in public domain as soon as they are booked in jail.

[Motown_Johnny]

46. Innocent until proven guilty

[Obamanaut]

51. 'Presumed', but not actually innocent. The presumption is what allows

for the accused to be released on bail, or house arrest, or something similar - unless the accusation is for something heinous or the accused is a flight risk.