Should rape victims' names be protected by the press?

[eyesroll]

A couple of articles got me thinking about this. One is the Salon cover piece today, which discusses the decision of Globe editor Bonnie Fuller to put Kobe's alleged victim's name and picture (from her prom, showing off a garter under her dress) on the cover:
http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2003/10/31/kobe/index.html

FWIW, I think the decision to put that picture and name on the cover, with "Did She Really Say No?" as a headline, is extremely boneheaded. Distasteful. Prom pictures are irrelevant. They were trying to sell papers by making her look like "she asked for it." (I realize we're talking about the Globe, not exactly the pinnacle of journalistic integrity. But still.)

Another was from the Daily Herald, the paper from where I grew up. A 56-year-old woman (no name given) was raped. Her alleged rapist was named (he had been charged, but not yet tried or convicted).
http://www.dailyherald.com/news_story.asp?intid=37925114

And I understand the Daily Herald, like most publications, chose to protect the confidentiality of a rape victim.

But why? They publish the names of victims of all sorts of heinous crimes -- attempted murder, assaults, kidnappings. They also print the names of people charged with such crimes, including rape -- and mind you, they print names of those accused before they've been found guilty or innocent.

Many papers won't print the name of a juvenile victim under any circumstances, and I guess I understand that. But why is an adult rape victim more entitled to privacy than, say, someone who got beaten or shot?

I've heard the idea that there's a certain stigma or embarrassment that comes from being raped that isn't there in a non-sexual crime. Or that rape victims need more protection -- people who get shot or whatever don't receive threats from supporters of the accused, or get smeared for "not saying no" as is suggested in the Globe headline.

I'll admit I really can't relate to that -- I've never been the victim of such a crime. I can't begin to imagine what a rape victim or survivor would be thinking if faced by a press interview. My own instinct says I'd prefer to be named in the press, if I was in that situation, so I can at least speak up for myself. But, like I said -- I don't know. I hope I'm never in a position to know.

I guess what I'm asking -- Does keeping a victim anonymous help protect the victim, or does it (however unwittingly) contribute to that stigma it's trying to prevent? Any thoughts?

[meegbear]

1. I don't think they should ...

The main point is that, as you said, other crimes are listed. I think that a majority of violent crime is usually perpetrated by someone they know (I know that's a blanket statement).

Rape is usually a "random" crime, ie the perpetrator does not know the victim. By publishing the victim's name, the perpetrator could track the person down and "ensure he doesn't get caught".

[cally]

umm, you are wrong

Rape is not a random crime. Most rapes are someone the victim knows. The man in the bushes who rapes does occur, but not as often as a so called friend or relative who rapes women.

[cally]

2. It makes it easier for victims to come forward

and prosecute.

Remember, 15 years ago when police would not come if you said you were raped. Then they would come over and intimidate you and ask if you had ever had sex. Then the press would publish your name and every sexual act you had ever engaged in. The underlying point was that if you were not the virgin Mary than you disserved what happened to you. I sat with several friends going through this.

Then there was your family. Men divorced their wives, parents disowned their daughters, and friends just ignored the victims. We are not that far from the mores of the Middle East. Feminists, men and women, fought back and got rape shield laws. Fought to ensure that police would respond appropriately. Fought that an advocate would be available for the hospital ordeal. I don't believe that the US is not close to this same mindset, so women still need the protection to make rape allegations.

[eyesroll]

6. That's an interesting point...

Do we have statistics that prove the confidentiality is working? Do more women come forward because they know they won't be smeared in the press or stared down at work, than would come forward if they knew they'd have to go public?

I didn't think of that before.

Then again, Kobe's alleged victim is getting trashed in the press, name or not. If she tried to defend herself in the press, would her name still be kept out of it?

I really don't know if I'd feel worse about being defamed by name, or being defamed anonymously. (I am the type of person who would probably find that part more traumatic than a rape, in either case.) Horrible position to be in, either way.

[cally]

15. I no longer have statistics at my fingertips

on this. When I was actively working for these laws, then yes. Women will not stand forward if they know they will be defamed by the police and press. I heard from women telling me they will not prosecute because their family will disown them. I would tell them we need you to make a charge to protect other women, but the consequences were too awful to allow them to come forward. I'm sure that not much has changed.

[Brian Sweat]

19. If that is the case, then we need to work on society's perception

of rape victims. I believe that we have made quite a bit of progress, but we obviously have a long way to go.

[bobbieinok]

23. still negative image of the victim

She deserved it/ was asking for it

.....by her history

.....by what she was wearing

.....by being where she was

.....by going 'there' with the guy

AND family, friends, acquaintances shun her .... she is 'tainted'

I realize that many today do not believe these things, but many do and even more may have these opinions buried deep in their subconscious.

Cally is exactly right ... it was a long and hard battle to get police to even listen to rape victims and take them seriously.

There were way too many stories of rape victims being badly treated by the police who responded to the call.

[WilliamPitt]

3. Yes

[blueraven95]

4. Keep the name private

Rape is such a personal crime, much more so than many other violent crimes...there is no way for a rape to be a mistake, and the personal shame that the victim experiences is overwhelming. Its bad enough that a person who has been raped has to live with the experience for the rest of his or her life, without having to know that everyone around him or her knows about it too.

Often times, people will not report rape, because they are afraid of the backlash. Rape is a crime of power, and it is embarrasing for us to admit that we are powerless in a situation. Often, people will not believe what a rape victim is saying. Other times, everyone treats the victim with such overwhelming pity that the victim feels stifled.

I think if someone chooses to make him or herself public then the newspaper should print a name, but it should be a choice.

[Hammie]

5. Only up to a point

Any victim of a crime should have their privacy respected by the press. But when you accuse someone of committing a crime, of any nature, you loose your right to privacy in the matter. An accusation is by its nature a public act, you are asking society to apprehend and punish someone for a crime against you. The accuser for certain has a right to know who is the accuser and shielding the name of the accuser prevents others who might have pertinent knowledge from comming forward.

[11 Bravo]

7. It is not the victim's fault that rape still carries a stigma

in this country. Until we as a society mature to the point where rape is looked upon as a crime of violence rather than as a sex crime; victim's names should absolutely remain shielded.

[DrGonzoLives]

32. You lose your right to privacy?

How does that work? Is it their fault that they brought charges, or what? Should they just stay silent if they don't want to be hounded by the press? That's ridiculous.

[Rich Hunt]

35. wrong

...in a rape case, the "accuser" is the state.

[Cheswick2.0]

39. no, you are confused

Rapists know who the victim is. It is only the public who doesn't know who the victim is. Rape shield laws treat rape differently because society treats rape victims differently.

[Wellong]

8. Tough call

I can go both ways on this one. Its a tough call.

But one thing I think is that if a women files a false claim of rape, then her name should be published in the follow up stories reporting that it was a false claim.

[Brian Sweat]

13. If she knowingly filed a false claim, she should go to jail.

Sometimes it may not be as simple as that. In date rape cases, there may not be enough evidence to say that the accused is guilty, but the victim still could believe it was rape.

[Wellong]

14. There is a difference

a big difference between a lack of evidence to cause a conviction to not be obtained and the filing of a false accusation.

[Brian Sweat]

16. Who said there wasn't?

Did anyone say that if the accused was aquited, that that the accuser should be locked up?

A false accusation is a false accusation. If the accuser is charged with filing a fraudulent claim, the prosecution has to prove that the claim was false.

You did know that there are already laws on the books making it illegal to file a false rape charge didn't you?

[Wellong]

17. No one said that

I was responding directly to the single sentence in your post about it not being 'that simple'.

And yes, I know those laws exist.

And if said person files such a claim, then her name should be published, and published in large type in the news reports concerning the earlier accusations against X being false.

[Yupster]

41. agree Brian

Okay with keeping the accuser anonymous,

BUT,

if it turns out she lied, she needs to do hard time, because there's a bigger stigma today of being arrested for rape than there is for being the victim of a rape.

If it turns out the man was accused fraudulently, she deserves mucho penalties.

[boxster]

9. The only defense in many rape cases is the "she's a whore" defense.

Obviously, that's what we're seeing in the Kobe trial. The entire defense is going to be that she was very promiscuous.

In this case, I think releasing her name and pictures is unacceptable. The potential jury pool can very easily be tainted by the extraordinary media coverage, and the people who leaked her name to the media and put her picture on the Globe are likely hoping that to be the case.

[Brian Sweat]

12. You bring up a valid reason for not exposing information

at least until after the trial.

I don't think that the alleged victim's sexual history should be admissible in court in general, unless it can be shown to have a direct bearing on the case.

[boxster]

24. Well, rape is about power, not sex.

So, I'm not sure why the alleged victim's sexual history should be much of a factor.

I realize that it's really a credibility issue, but I've seen people who are vehemently defending Kobe basically equate promiscuity to "deserving" to be raped. What a joke.

[Brian Sweat]

10. The supposed reason that alleged rape victims names are not publish

is that there is a stigma associated with being the victim of rape and they want to protect the alleged victim from this stigma. I think the practice is counter productive. I think it propogates the idea that victims of sex crimes should be ashamed. There was a time when rape victims were shunned by society. Things have gotten better recently, but we still have many backward idea about rape that punish the victim.

Another problem that I have is that the victim is protected, but the accused is not. Now, don't get me wrong, if the accused is guilty they deserve it. Even though most rape claims are ligit, there are still a lot of fraudulent claims and even when they are ligit, sometimes innocent people are accused. There is also a stigma associated with being accused of a sex crime and even if you prove you are innocent and are found not guilty in court, the stigma never goes away.

[Wellong]

11. Bingo

see post #8

[cally]

18. I wish we lived in the world you want

but there is a stigma against rape victims. We are not that far from when noone believed a rape victim. Look at the stories coming out of Iraq and how rape victims fear for their lives. I don't believe we're that far from that.

[Brian Sweat]

20. Reread my post.

[philosophie_en_rose]

26. Confidentiality is essential to protect victims.

The accused is already protected by a myriad of laws and rights.

If you are the victim of the crime, it is not your job to confront the accused or to stand against the scrutiny of the public. That is what prosecution is for. The victim is not accusing anyone of rape; it's the state. What benefit does disregarding a victim's privacy pose to the accused? The only result would be humiliation for the potential survivor of a crime. The defense knows who the victim is and can investigate without plastering her name in public. They can attack the merits of the case without attacking the victim.

Remember that there are safety concerns. Alleged rapists are not always kept in jail and many attract groupies that threaten the victim with harm. And it doesn't matter what society thinks of victims. Even if they threw a parade and showered the victim with affection, it is his or her choice to tell others about his or her experience.

Although we could be writing about any case, it's really unfortunate that the Kobe Bryant case is threatening victim protections based on celebrity status. To punish survivors for alleged (and damned rare) false reports or to in any way put the burden on the victim is disgusting. The defense will have its opportunity to examine the victim and other evidence.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bleedingheart]

27. the problem is the press/media

basically they troll about looking for stories and rape/murder..etc are headline news.

remember the stink over the guy who they thought was behind the olympic park bombings? the press was already trying him for the crime when it turned out he was innocent.

Our society hasn't grown up enough to behave like adults regarding rape victims....the Kobe trial is evidence enough.

[Brian Sweat]

44. You are refering to Richard Jewel and he proves my point exactly.

He was falsely accused of a crime and salacious aspects of his private live that the public had no right to know where made public anyway.

I work for a very large fortune 500 company. The senior vice president who used to head the department for which I work was accused of rape by a 17 year old girl. He was forced to resign and his life was basically ruined. The story was all over the papers, but when the charges were dropped, there was nothing in the papers.

I don't know if he was guilty or not. I don't know why the charges were dropped. One way or the other it sucks. Either a guilty man went free or a innocent man had his life ruined.

[Fish Eye]

29. well said

[DrFunkenstein]

36. No, The Supposed Reason Is

To encourage violated women to come forward against the violators.

[Brian Sweat]

40. And why wouldn't violated women want to come forward

if they didn't have confidentiality? Could it be because of the stigma and persecution associated with being a rape victim?

[DrGonzoLives]

21. Absolutely yes

In fact, how rape trials are done in this country sickens me. So what if a woman is promiscuous or wears "revealing" clothing? That does not give ANYONE the right to force themselves on her. Period.

I do not think that withholding names contributes in any way to the stigma of being a rape victim. Publishing their names and other information has only made it more difficult for women to screw up enough courage to go the cops and see that justice is (sometimes) done.

[eyesroll]

22. I would just like to thank everyone for an exceedingly civil discussion

so far, anyway. This is a tough topic, easily flammable.

This is something I go back and forth about, when I see stories about rape in the press.

Maybe I'm just wishing we lived in a society when someone comes out and says, "I've been raped," the rest of the world says, "how can I help?" instead of "AreyousurewellyoumusthavebeenwearingtightclothingorwalkingaloneatnightandnowIcantlookatyouthesameway" etc.

[MrPrax]

25. Why should the Press profit?

Afterall their motives are not justice served, but to make a buck and spread too much information that might hamper justice.

There presdence for this:
"In Connecticut, a secret docketing system was so hidden that not even the chief justice knew of its existence. Any party could choose to file a case under three different levels of secrecy. In Level 1 or "super-secret" cases, all information, including the case number, the parties' names, the nature of the case, and all court documents remained off the public docket. Level 2 docketing permitted disclosure of the case number and parties' names, but sealed all other information. And Level 3 cases were open to the public except for certain sealed documents contained in the court file. This secret docketing system is not found in Connecticut court rules or statutes, but was established as an internal administrative procedure to assist court clerks in processing sealed files."...
http://www.rcfp.org/secretjustice/secretdockets/pg2.html

Apparantly the justice system is very very capable of 'keeping' secrets if they have to...and no doubt this practise is very widespread.

[Fish Eye]

28. Both Names or

none at all. If the alleged victim's identity is to be kept secret then the accused should remain secret also.

Ditch the double standard.

[onebigbadwulf]

30. Ditch it

Who is saying that there is a stigma associated with rape victims and NOT the accused???!

Either both face the stigma or we wait until the trial is over to release the name of the convicted. It's the only just thing to do.

[smirkymonkey]

31. Yes, they should be protected

and as far as her sexual history being relevant, when was the last time you heard a court determine that an alleged murderer was innocent because his victim had a history of being a wanton, super-mega asshole? Did the victim bring it on himself?

Rape is a murder of the spirit - although there are a lot more gray areas, i.e. a dead person is dead, a rape is a bit tougher to prove. However, I don't believe in victimizing somebody twice.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

33. More than rape victims have their names protected by the press.

Children are never named when they are the victims of crimes and often times the victims of gang violence are not named when they are perpetrated against.

I DO think it should be left to the alleged victim if she CHOOSES to come forward.

In San Diego a few years back, a flight attendant was raped in her home. There was a serial rapist on the loose in the Ocean Beach area. The San Diego police department refused to set up a task force even though there had been approximately 30 rapes in the area.

The victim very courageously went public in order to get the press to pressure the police department to allocate the resources and community to catch the offender.


Perhaps the MAIN reason I feel that the alleged victim's name should NOT be revealed is due to EXACTLY what has occurred in the KOBE case, which is that through the press, the victims sexual history which is NOT relevant to whether she was raped or not is used to poison a jury pool with archaic sexual attitudes towards women and their sexuality.

I could have sex willingly right now, walk to my car and get raped. Does the fact that I had consensual sex a moment prior result in me being any less raped?

[Logansquare]

34. Why is it useful to know the name of an accused criminal?

Publishing the name of any surviving violent crime victim could not only potentially lead to more emotional distress for the victim, but also allow them to be identified and "eliminated" before a trial.

Using this logic, why is it the public's right to know the name of the accused? Won't his/her family be stigmatized or endangered? If it bleeds, it leads--the old yellow journalism credo, I guess.

[DrFunkenstein]

37. Rape Is Violation - So Is Media Scrutiny

I'm not willing to take the chance that someone that has just gone through hell has to make a u-turn.

[Ilsa]

38. Yes, there is stigma

I was was told to "Get over it; he didn't really hurt you." I remember that line line coming from my boss more clearly than almost anything else about that time in my life. I don't think I've ever quite forgiven the Stanford grad Harvard MBA for his stupidity.

Woemn need to be able to decide who they want to tell, not stupid newspaper editors.

Victims deserve to be protected from such insensitive comments until people finally understand what rape is.

[BadFaith]

42. Also...

In all instances, to be sure, protection of the accusers identity from the general public's knowlege, even AFTER any resulting trial has come to conclusion, for the reason of securing the testimony of a highly traumatized victim. And in the general sense, since victims of rape are more likely to not speak out against their assailant. There must be a sense of confidence in the abilities of the prosecutor's office in order for a rape or sexual assault victim to feel comfortable enough to stand in a witness box, even though such an act would seem relatively easy to accomplish to those whom have never gone through such assaults.

However there is an additional reason in the Bryant case that requires a hightened awareness of these situations, because of the simple fact that Kobe Bryant is a very popular sports celebrity. Not to cast any aspersions on Laker fans, or NBA viewers in general, but there is a distinct possibility that, should Bryant's accuser's name become public (and, to my profound distaste, it apparently has), her safety, as well as the safety of any participants in the trial on the part of the prosecution, will be in danger. Both before the trial, during, and after, regardless of its conclusions.

Remember, the Cubs fan who caught a foul ball, inadvertantly preventing his preferred team from winning, had to be escorted from the stadium and recieved death threats. It stands to reason that a young woman who puts in jail the star player of a major NBA, a team that has won many championships in the past few years, would recieve similar treatment regardless of her own circumstances.