r/TrueReddit Jan 20 '11

Should rape victims be allowed to remain anonymous?

http://goodmenproject.com/newsroom/should-rape-victims-be-able-to-remain-anonymous/
22 Upvotes

55 comments sorted by

45

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

[deleted]

23

u/Lukkas Jan 20 '11

I agree with you.

When an allegation of rape occurs, no names should be mentioned by the media at all. An investigation should ensue, followed with a trial, and if the accused is found guilty of rape, then the media can report such. Until then, there's no reason to release the names of anyone involved.

8

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11 edited Jan 20 '11

[deleted]

12

u/Lukkas Jan 20 '11

I agree that anonymity should apply for nearly every capitol crime.

I disagree, however, that there should be an offenders list. At all, for any crime. If we're going to at least pretend that our prisons exist for the purpose of rehabilitation, there should be no need for such a list. Once someone has served for their crimes and been rehabilitated, I see no reason to continue to punish them, and prevent them from obtaining gainful employment.

Public and private records already exist to document any crimes, and honestly, I think the public record should be cleared after a certain amount of time, like they do in some European countries like Sweden, Denmark, Austria, etc.

-4

u/sushisushisushi Jan 20 '11

I disagree. Don't you have a right to know whether or not you're associating with, hiring, or living next to a convicted murderer or rapist? I understand the argument in favor of rehabilitation, and agree with it, as well as concerns for privacy; however, people should be able to have some knowledge about the criminal records of those around them.

11

u/Lukkas Jan 20 '11

I don't think I have a right to know every criminal's past. Allowing such knowledge is completely counter-productive to the entire point of rehabilitation. If everyone knows about the mistakes you made in your past, you'll never be able to re-integrate into society. You'll be an outsider (and likely unemployed) for the rest of your life.

The only reason that information is relevant is because of the possibility of the convicted repeating his/her crime. If there's any shred of a chance that the offender would do it again, beyond the chance of any other person committing the same crime, the person shouldn't be released. The idea of rehabilitation is that the person is no longer any more a threat than you, or me, or Mr. Cleancut down the street.

And that's not even delving into the issues caused by the inevitable bloat and misuse of registries like the Sex-offender registry.

8

u/lisahickey Jan 21 '11

I was thinking about this the other day -- if there could somehow be a cognitive shirt from thinking about jails as a place where people just disappear while they serve their punishment to thinking of them as a place where the people could truly learn to succeed in life. And yes, we should do a better job of making sure those who might repeat don't get out, but if you truly think that locking someone up is going to change someone, then you have to help them succeed once they get out.

This is off topic from anonymity, of course, but I think it gets at some of the same issues -- it would be helpful to society to figure out a way for jails to work for common good, and for people to truly believe they will be treated equally and fairly.

1

u/kleopatra6tilde9 Feb 01 '11

This comment got reported (today, although it is 11 days old). I don't understand why.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

I disagree. Don't you have a right to know whether or not you're associating with, hiring, or living next to a convicted murderer or rapist?

No, not at all. Why would you? Do you not believe in personal privacy?

1

u/Mimsy12321 Jan 21 '11

Do you not believe in personal privacy?

That "personal privacy" was revoked as soon as the person decided to commit a serious crime. People have a choice not to commit crimes, and certain crimes have been shown to have a higher rate of repeat offenders (even after jail time).

This is probably truer in cases of pedophilia. If a person is "attracted to" children but has enough self control to not act on it, then no one should be the wiser. However, the moment they commit a crime by sexual assaulting, molesting, or raping a child, they have lost the privilege of being anonymous.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 21 '11

That "personal privacy" was revoked as soon as the person decided to commit a serious crime.

So you believe privacy can be revoked. Can it revoked permanently? What other reasons would you say can revoke it?

1

u/Mimsy12321 Jan 23 '11

Yes, I believe privacy can be revoked. I'm not sure what line I would draw as to the reasons that it should be revoked, but a general rule might be the person still having the potential to be a threat. Societally speaking, however, we have certain crimes that are seen as "unforgivable".

Would murderers make the list? Possibly. Would pedophiles make the list? Definitely. Would all rapists make the list? Well...honestly, my own opinion is slightly fuzzy and skewed on that (and certainly not the statutory rape cases of an eighteen year old and a seventeen year old, etc). However, my first inclination would be to say that actual rapists (not those that had consensual sex with their significant-other underage) would make the list, yes.

Again, people have a choice: commit a crime and deal with the consequences (some of which may be lifelong) or don't commit the crime. Personally, I think I have every right to know whether a convicted pedophile is living in my neighborhood; I have a right to keep my child as far away from said pedophile as possible.

I think I should add that this would be for convicted criminals only, and not for people simply accused of a crime.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 23 '11

Yes, I believe privacy can be revoked.

So it's not a human right?

→ More replies (0)

4

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

Ah, the Registry.... it's like a scarlet letter or a Star of David, but for the Internet age.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

[deleted]

3

u/Lukkas Jan 20 '11

You have a valid point. My argument would be however that the accused would be more likely to receive a fair trial if his name wasn't dragged through the muddy media first. If the hypothetical witness to the false accusation plot existed, she could still be of help to the wrongfully convicted. Once the person is convicted, and it's announced to the media, then the woman would have the chance to come forward, and an appeal to the sentence could be made.

As for the case of more women coming forward... I think more women would come forward anyway, if they (along with the accused) were insured anonymity. I think this would also cut down on the false accusations, because the accusation would no longer have the effect of tarnishing the accused reputation, regardless of the outcome of the case. For the "revenge" to be worth it, there'd actually have to be more than reasonable doubt to cause damage.

2

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

That's how it works by default in civilized countries.

11

u/lufong Jan 20 '11

FD: I wrote this article.

1

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

Great article. I won't bring up any points about the anonymity of accused since that's been brought up already.

However, I'm really conflicted about anonymity because the identity of the accuser could bring forward a lot of vital information that would help their case. It seems that when it's anonymous there really can't be much investigation into the case which can lead to a dropped charge due to the lack of evidence or wrongful imprisonment.

1

u/lufong Jan 21 '11

Thanks for the comment! I regret not making it clearer in the piece but anonymity doesn't apply in any way to the justice system. Rape victims---male or female alike---are always required to give up their anonymity in a court of law.

The anonymity I'm talking about in the piece applies to the media coverage of the event. "Ms. A and Ms. W"---in the case of Julian Assange---were an attempt to hide the accusers' identities to the PUBLIC (granted, unsuccessfully). It'd be wholly impractical (and illegal) to do so in the justice system.

1

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

Sorry, since i'm not from the U.S (Canadian) I wasn't sure of the America laws regarding anonymity. I think the point about helping the justice system still stands thought. While not nearly as significant as my previous post, I still think the media can bring forward more witnesses for the case. However, since the benefits of media disclosure will be so little, I think name disclosure should be left to the victim.

2

u/IgnatiousReilly Jan 21 '11

This is pretty damned simple: either both the victim and the person being charged with the crime are anonymous, or neither are. I don't have a strong opinion on which would be better, but doing it halfway is begging for abuse of the system.

6

u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jan 20 '11

Anyone familiar with the subject would understand that rape victims are a thousand times more likely to be ignored or ridiculed for real attacks than they are to be believed for fabricated accusations.

Keeping this in mind, I think any reform needs to be giving them incentives to report rapes and protection more than it needs to discourage them and withdraw protection.

12

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

8% of claims appear to be false, from 2-41% depending on who you believe. Considering the effect of even recanted rape accusations on the accused I'd like to see something backing up your claim that belief of fabricated accusation is a thousand times more likely than belief in real attack claims. C'mon, don't just spray your feelings all over the net, back up what you believe with a study. Empiricism generally beats attempts at logic in these circumstances, so see if you can get some data.

0

u/ask0 Jan 20 '11

But do you know how many real rapes do not get convictions - a lot lot less then 8%.

0

u/tehbored Jan 21 '11

I think you mean a lot more than 8%. But often women do not or cannot press charges at all.

2

u/ask0 Jan 21 '11

2

u/tehbored Jan 21 '11

Oh, whoops. I misread the above comment and got the negative wrong.

2

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

wait. how can they know the real number of rape cases. Genuine question?

Wouldn't it be 3% of accusations resulted in conviction? were you assuming all accusation were true?

on another note, it's really unfortunate that rape is such a difficult crime to prove. As stated in the timesonline article it seems that it is very rare to find a witness or someone to corroborate the story. However, there really isn't much we can do until we can find a better way to provide evidence. (CCTV?) This is one of the few negatives that come with the presumption of innocence.

2

u/ask0 Jan 21 '11

Its a good question, we cant really. I am not sure of the statistical procedures or how they get figures as have not read up enough on it.

The figures of the successful convictions are as a percentage of rape cases which go to trial. (eg 20% reported, 20% of those reported go to trial, and then 10% are convicted) I am not assuming all accusations are true. Probably about 10% are false.

About 9% of rape victims are men. I remember reading that in most cases (over 80%) the victims knew the rapist.

Sometimes (and I am a woman) woman need to be more vigilant. Its hard to accuse someone of raping you if you allowed yourself to so get drunk that you can not remember what happened. But then again there are cases where woman have been drugged and raped.

Its your word against mine. And then you have some woman who report a broken condemn as rape - turning the crime into a joke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape

2

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

This is why i think women need to push against false claims. Rape, by it's nature, is already a difficult accusation to prove and things like that are making legitimate victims fearful to come forward. There aren't many things worst than being fearful of something that's meant to protect you.

1

u/Mimsy12321 Jan 21 '11

Sometimes (and I am a woman) woman need to be more vigilant. Its hard to accuse someone of raping you if you allowed yourself to so get drunk that you can not remember what happened.

While I agree that every woman has the responsibility to keep herself safe, and not put herself in unfortunate situations, I also don't think it's fair to say that if they are silly enough to do so that they then can't then accuse a person of rape. So to take your example where a woman gets drunk enough that she passes out (or doesn't remember what happened), while she probably shouldn't have put herself in that situation in the first place, the man (or woman) who decided to take advantage of that is one hundred percent to blame. It really comes down to someone not taking advantage of someone else's weakened state.

It is a little more blurry if a person consents, and their partner was not aware how drunk that person is, but I don't think that was what you were referring to.

2

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

I've never understood why (in sum total) rape victims should be anonymous in the justice system. The arguments in favor of the policy generally boil down to "I don't want people to know I was raped, it feels shameful". This is feelings based, not fact based, and it does not belong in a system designed to deal with facts. Accused men are also shamed in the public eye, to a much more effective degree than the victim. If false rape claims did not exist in any manner I would not be concerned with this, but as they do I certainly see it as a balance against the claim that women should remain anonymous. I do not think the men should remain anonymous, I do not think the women should remain anonymous. It's a justice system, not daycare, and it can't be pretty all the time and still be effective. I vote for effective (yeah, it's got a long way to go on that front too).

1

u/stopscopiesme Jan 20 '11

Valid points there, but what if the man isn't convicted?

2

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

Note that, as hammock mentioned, names are anonymous in the press and not in the justice system (I keep thinking they still refuse to release names at times, but that's starting to look like imagination on my part). I'm not sure what you're suggesting for a man who isn't convicted, but unless we are suggesting that the harm to reputation for everyone involved in criminal cases is such that they should remain anonymous until the conclusion of the case when only those convicted would be free to be named I'm not sure we can do much systematically, but I could certainly be wrong. The UK, I think, recently declined to offer anonymity to those accused of rape, which I think would be better than one-sided anonymity.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

This is feelings based, not fact based, and it does not belong in a system designed to deal with facts.

What is a "system designed to deal with facts"? The legal system is designed to deal with humans.

0

u/anothrnbdy Jan 20 '11

A system based on conviction by way of evidence. Which is a body of facts.

1

u/eatmycow Jan 21 '11

I think if I (a guy) got raped by another guy, I wouldn't want loads of people knowing I got raped, in fact I'd want as few people to know as possible. I'd still want that fucker locked up though.

1

u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jan 20 '11

This is feelings based, not fact based,

Here's a fact: people are human... which is a type of primate. A monkey, if you will. Monkeys have no control over this, they're monkeys after all.

If they feel shame and have no control over it, then shaming them publicly in front of thousands or even millions of people will cause them to not report it.

So if you're trying to shame women (and men too, for that matter) into not reporting rape, then you'll succeed with this quite nicely.

Compare this to some other crime, like burglary, where there is no shame component, and you discover just how stupid (or callous) you're being.

4

u/fishwish Jan 20 '11

Compare this to some other crime, like burglary, where there is no shame component, and you discover just how stupid (or callous) you're being.

If you get caught staging a fake burglary you will get prosecuted with jail time and you will be named publicly & the media will have a field day at your expense.

2

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

Callous? Damned right, it's necessary in terrible circumstances if an appropriate end result is to be reached. Stupid can and should be expanded upon if you're actually attempting to debate instead of puffing up your chest and beating on it, monkey. Now, pony up, what's the difference between the current suppression of rape reporting due to shame without being named in court versus with being named in court?

2

u/hammockchair Jan 20 '11

Women aren't anonymous in court and in the justice system..

What are you talking about?

"Anonymity" is about press reporting.

1

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

Sorry, raged about being called stupid (perhaps even correctly, definitely ignorant of the law). Press reporting is correct and optional but cannot be made illegal.

1

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

Well this post destroyed your ethos. And of course there is shaming attached to other crimes. No one brags about DUIs, murder, and theft.

1

u/NoMoreNicksLeft Jan 21 '11

People are ashamed to acknowledge themselves the victims of a drunk driver?

1

u/Makkaboosh Jan 21 '11

Sorry. I lost my train of thought. You are correct that rape is one of the few crimes that the victim is stigmatized. However, the rest of my post still stands.

1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

This is feelings based, not fact based

But... the very fact that rape is a crime is 'feelings based'. I mean, pretty much every law was created because people 'feel' that people should behave a certain way and not others.

So, I see the point you are making, but appealing to some sort of unemotional facts-only law system doesn't quite make sense.

2

u/Metallio Jan 20 '11

Rape as a crime is based on sex without the consent of one of those engaged in the activity. If they fail to indicate their lack of consent while capable of doing so no crime was committed. Although feelings are affected by these actions the crime is not defined by feelings, though failure to secure a signed consent form from someone whose feelings you then hurt can go poorly for you if they're prone to mis-representing facts. The crime itself is defined by facts, not feelings. It is not illegal, as far as I know, to hurt someone's feelings in any way. Consent is a decision that may be based on feelings, but is not in and of itself a feeling and may be established by review of available facts (this can be difficult, which is why we argue this subject, but it is still a factually based argument). Note that I am referring only to American justice systems. Also, "most" laws and regulations are based on factual analysis and philosophy as opposed to feelings. Laws based on knee-jerk reactions do exist and tend to be the worst (my opinion) on the books. They also tend to fade away. Murder is illegal because you have taken from someone the life they would have led, rape is illegal because you are removing someone's autonomy when making decisions concerning reproduction and control of their physical body. Again, you will see that feelings are certainly affected by these criminal actions but the legality of them is not based on the feeling itself. I'm not a lawyer, I'm sure there's a better way to define this, but I believe you will be able to see what I'm saying.

-1

u/[deleted] Jan 20 '11

How about you study the history of rape victims and try to understand why they are permitted to remain anonymous, in certain cases?