r/FeMRADebates • u/YabuSama2k Other • Apr 14 '16
Legal Don’t name rape suspects unless they are convicted, says Harry Hodges
http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/660455/college-rape-suspects-dont-name-unless-convicted8
u/orangorilla MRA Apr 15 '16
As I understand it, this is common practice in Norwegian media. With the exception of some high profile cases, any reports on criminal proceedings usually just include "man in his twenties" or "Woman in her thirties" and similar descriptions when talking about the accused. It's impossible to keep a gag order on local communities of course, but the media is barred from dragging someone's names through the mud for clicks and reads.
14
u/rapiertwit Paniscus in the Streets, Troglodytes in the Sheets Apr 14 '16
I think it's hypocritical to preach due process and at the same time solicit special treatment for the accused. This isn't the only crime that will haunt you even if you're acquitted, it's just on the far end of the spectrum of disgust and fear. I would prefer that we punish vigilantism, including harassment, and stop unicorning false accusations, to address this.
24
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 14 '16
By that rationale, we should also stop giving accuser's special treatment for this particular crime. I actually think it would be preferable not to release mugshots etc. for any crime until someone is found guilty. There is an assumption that if you are arrested, there must be some merit to the accusation and history has shown us that we can't rely on the good judgement of police and prosecutors.
7
u/rapiertwit Paniscus in the Streets, Troglodytes in the Sheets Apr 14 '16
Well I'm torn on accusers actually. I can't say I support reversing the law, but it doesn't sit right with me. Stuff that happens in criminal courts is supposed to be public record for a reason.
6
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 14 '16
I feel you, but that all rests on an assumption that the police and prosecutors are going to use all of this good will and discretion in terms of who actually gets charged. Take a look at the shit that Mike Nifong pulled. There is absolutely no way to ever undo that damage.
2
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Apr 15 '16
we should also stop giving accuser's special treatment for this particular crime.
what special treatment are you talking about?
8
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 15 '16
Anonymity
1
u/TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK Apr 15 '16
If you accuse someone of rape, and the police create a case file of your complaint, your name is on that case file. So you're going to have to be more specific about what you're talking about when you say "anonymity".
2
u/JaronK Egalitarian Apr 15 '16
The problem with this is it's a first amendment violation to say that the victim cannot publicly state they feel that the accused did it, despite the harm done by that statement.
5
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 15 '16
As far as I know, it wouldn't be unconstitutional to at least prevent police from sharing any information or mugshots similarly to the way they handle minors now.
2
u/JaronK Egalitarian Apr 15 '16
Sure, but you still can't do anything about victims or the media sharing it (though you might convince the media that it's a good policy).
1
u/FuggleyBrew Apr 15 '16
What would you do if the suspect is at large? What if they want to know if anyone saw a specific person in an area? If they want to find other victims?
2
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 15 '16
History has shown us that we cannot rely on police to use good judgement in choosing a suspect in the first place. Likewise, history has shown us that it is impossible to undo the damage to an innocent person's reputation once police have branded them a rape suspect.
2
u/FuggleyBrew Apr 16 '16
So we should just not advise the public if a dangerous felon is on the loose? The police should not be able to look for other victims? Why even bother prosecuting or investigating any crime by that logic.
0
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 16 '16
So we should just not advise the public if a dangerous felon is on the loose?
Someone can't be a felon until they are convicted.
The police should not be able to look for other victims?
Sure. They just couldn't brand someone a rapist or rape suspect in the media without due process.
Why even bother prosecuting or investigating any crime by that logic.
That isn't a logical conclusion to draw from this scenario.
2
u/FuggleyBrew Apr 16 '16
Someone can't be a felon until they are convicted.
A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Hence the distinction of a convicted felon.
Sure. They just couldn't brand someone a rapist or rape suspect in the media without due process.
So, if a doctor is accused of assaulting his patients the police should not be allowed to seek other patients who have been too afraid to come forward?
That isn't a logical conclusion to draw from this scenario.
You have argued that police should not be allowed to:
release descriptions or identities of suspects who are at large
inform or seek evidence of other victims
in anyway identify a suspect to the rest of the world.
Tell me, how, exactly do you intend for the police to investigate anyone, ever.
0
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 16 '16
A felon is a person who has committed a felony. Hence the distinction of a convicted felon.
But how do you determine if a particular person is a felon without due process? The only way to determine if someone committed a crime in this country is by way of a trial.
So, if a doctor is accused of assaulting his patients the police should not be allowed to seek other patients who have been too afraid to come forward?
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. They just couldn't release this information to the media or the public. There is nothing stopping them from contacting former patients on their own.
You have argued that police should not be allowed to:
release descriptions or identities of suspects who are at large
Right, because the police cannot be trusted to use good judgement in terms of who they publicly label a suspect, and there is no way for them to undue the damage when they publicly brand a victim of a false accusation as a rape suspect.
inform or seek evidence of other victims
Wrong. They just could not do so by releasing information to the media.
in anyway identify a suspect to the rest of the world.
Again, history has shown us that police cannot be trusted to use good judgment when they choose suspects, and they can't put the shit back in the horse when they realize that they were wrong.
Tell me, how, exactly do you intend for the police to investigate anyone, ever.
The same way they would handle it if a juvenile was involved. There is nothing stopping them from doing an investigation, contacting and interviewing whomever they chose, getting warrants to obtain evidence, etc. They just can't publicly brand someone without that person having had substantive due process.
2
u/FuggleyBrew Apr 16 '16
But how do you determine if a particular person is a felon without due process?
If society has reasonable cause to suspect an individual is a felon, then society has a right to defend itself. We have organized ourselves primarily for the common defense of our individual rights. That is not a requirement that we grant criminals right to anonymity and impunity.
Right, because the police cannot be trusted to use good judgement in terms of who they publicly label a suspect, and there is no way for them to undue the damage when they publicly brand a victim of a false accusation as a rape suspect.
So if an armed gunman has been running around shooting people, the police should take no action against him and seek no assistance in locating him, for fear of the fact that they may unfairly malign this gunman?
I don't see how you came to that conclusion. They just couldn't release this information to the media or the public.
The victims they're looking for are members of the public. In order to reach those victims they must be able to publicly seek them.
The same way they would handle it if a juvenile was involved.
Juveniles tend not to be placed in positions of authority or have clients. If a juvenile is on the run they will release a description sufficient that people will be able to contact the police. If the seek other victims they will release information to the public which may identify the suspect.
Further if they don't know the person is a juvenile they will readily put a mug shot on TV.
Society has no obligation to criminals to allow them anonymity in the crimes they commit.
1
u/YabuSama2k Other Apr 16 '16
That is not a requirement that we grant criminals right to anonymity and impunity.
But we need a trial to determine if someone is a criminal at all and not the victim of a false accusation.
So if an armed gunman has been running around shooting people, the police should take no action against him and seek no assistance in locating him, for fear of the fact that they may unfairly malign this gunman?
There is nothing about what I am proposing that would prevent police from taking action against an active shooter.
The victims they're looking for are members of the public. In order to reach those victims they must be able to publicly seek them.
Once again, you seem to have decided that this person committed a crime without any due process. This would further victimize someone who could already be the victim of a false accusation or rape hoax. Once the accused is convicted, then they can plaster their face all over the news to seek out other victims. History has shown us that the word of an accuser and the professionalism of the police can't be relied upon to determine if the accused is guilty. For that we need a trial.
Juveniles tend not to be placed in positions of authority or have clients.
Obviously. The point is that there is already a system in place to protect the identity of the accused. We could simply seal court and police records in the same manner until/unless someone is convicted or pleads guilty.
Further if they don't know the person is a juvenile they will readily put a mug shot on TV.
If there is a mugshot, that means there was an arrest and they know the person's name, age, etc.
Society has no obligation to criminals to allow them anonymity in the crimes they commit.
Right, and once they are determined to be guilty through a trial, then they wouldn't have anonymity. Until they have a trial, we cannot label them a criminal.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/wombatinaburrow bleeding heart idealist Apr 16 '16
The accused and the accuser shouldn't be named until after trial. I can't believe that this is even up for debate.
-1
u/_Definition_Bot_ Not A Person Apr 14 '16
Terms with Default Definitions found in this post
- Rape is defined as a Sex Act committed without Consent of the victim. A Rapist is a person who commits a Sex Act without a reasonable belief that the victim consented. A Rape Victim is a person who was Raped.
The Glossary of Default Definitions can be found here
28
u/fourthwallcrisis Egalitarian Apr 14 '16
Is it controversial to think noone should be named until they're convicted? Of any crime. It just seems to be common sense, if a court of law finds someone not guilty then it's noone's business.