Should rape suspects receive anonymity too?

posted at 11:01 am on June 22, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

Glenn Reynolds highlights a rather touchy story from across the pond, where Peter Lloyd, writing for the Telegraph, points out that the assumptions of both innocence and privacy are handled rather unequally in sexual assault cases. The primary case under discussion involves the handling of laws in the UK, but parallel debates are taking place in the United States today. Lloyd speaks rather passionately about what happened to Oxford University Union President Ben Sullivan following what turned out to be two unfounded rape allegations.

After five weeks of public humiliation, finger-pointing and gender bias – both on campus and in the media – police confirmed that he won’t face a single charge over two unfounded rape allegations.

Not one. Nothing. Nadda.

But, like countless men all over the world – including Paul Weller, Amy Winehouse’s ex-boyfriend Reg Traviss, Nigel Evans MP, William Roache and Craig Charles – Sullivan’s life has already been affected by a system that considers men’s innocence a bonus, not a baseline.

What a joke.

In a damning example of everyday sexism, Sarah Pine, President for Women at Oxford University Student Union, spearheaded a character assassination against the innocent 21 year-old, before the accusations against him had time to be considered.

While providing some historical background and analysis, Lloyd asks the central question in the debate:

So much for innocent until proven guilty.

Ben Sullivan’s prehistoric treatment not only proves that pre-conviction identification doesn’t work, but reiterates a very pertinent question: why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a not-guilty verdict?

It’s bonkers.

I suppose the first question would be, why do we – generally be default – provide anonymity to anyone involved in a pending criminal case? It seems to be restricted to sexual assault for the most part. You never see a robbery where the name of the accused thieves (or the bank, for that matter) are withheld from the public. But we can have a greater deal of sympathy for a rape victim, as such publicity can be tremendously painful on top of the damage already done.

But what about the damage to accused if the allegations turn out to be false? Ben Sullivan is one example in the UK, but America faces the same situations regularly. You don’t need to look back as far as the Duke student case, either. Ever since the #yesallwomen thing hit the social media circus we’ve seen similar eruptions. The names of four men on the Columbia campus were scribbled on bathroom walls, accusing them of sexual assault, and the media picked up on the story. The names were redacted in many, but the local news knew who they were and the word got out. Other examples may be found without much effort.

Even if no evidence turns up and nothing comes of the charges – as was the case with Sullivan – and they are never arrested, what happens to those individuals later in life? The internet never forgets, so what will a prospective employer think if they apply for a job, a quick web search is conducted, and their name pops up in link after link with the phrase sex offender plastered next to it? That’s not going to do much for your job prospects. Would anyone be held accountable? As things stand today, apparently not.

It seems as if some measure of equality is called for. If we are to deny the public information about ongoing criminal cases – and in rape trials, there’s clearly an argument to be made in that direction – doesn’t such protection deserve to go both ways?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I suppose the first question would be, why do we – generally be default – provide anonymity to anyone involved in a pending criminal case?

We provide anonymity to victims because we don’t want the media making a spectacle of their lives. We don’t for accused perpetrators because if they get out on bail we don’t want them harming anybody else if they in fact are guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

If someone files any kid of criminal charge against me I want his or her name in the papers too.

What’s worse is that someone can call the cops on you and falsely accuse you of beating your wife, and have you removed from your home even if your wife denies she was ever beaten, and even at trial (if it gets that far) the accuser’s name is secret. In fact, the accusation can be made anonymously.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM

But what about the damage to accused if the allegations turn out to be false? Ben Sullivan is one example in the UK, but America faces the same situations regularly. You don’t need to look back as far as the Duke student case, either. Ever since the #yesallwomen thing hit the social media circus we’ve seen similar eruptions.

What you need for that is another massive cultural change. The culture is by default set up to give preference to women, whether it be awarding custody of kids in divorce disputes, to believing they are telling the truth by default in rape accusations.

Even if no evidence turns up and nothing comes of the charges – as was the case with Sullivan – and they are never arrested, what happens to those individuals later in life? The internet never forgets, so what will a prospective employer think if they apply for a job, a quick web search is conducted, and their name pops up in link after link with the phrase sex offender plastered next to it? That’s not going to do much for your job prospects.

You don’t need that just for criminal accusations. The internet houses information on people over long durations, and any kind of activity, legal or not, moral or not, may be found and used by prospective employers in the future to deny employment. That Pandora’s box has already been opened.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM

We provide anonymity to victims because we don’t want the media making a spectacle of their lives. Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

This argument could be used for any crime victim whatsoever.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM

…why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a not-guilty verdict?

Someone on trial will have their name out there, assuming they are not a minor. How about anonymity ahead of an INDICTMENT? Persecution of “persons of interest” is crazy.

iurockhead on June 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM

First World Problem.™

While we have actual crises in Liberty with a capital “L” with which to deal.

In the era of social justice, institutionalized cronyism, and widespread government corruption this problem has got to be #42 on the list of top ten things that we need to fix.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

That Pandora’s box has already been opened. Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:13 AM

“You used the word Redskins in 2013, and we can prove it.”

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:18 AM

This argument could be used for any crime victim whatsoever.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:16 AM

And you’ll see some use that argument for any crime. It tends to be most invoked for rape though because it makes rape victims “re-live” the trauma.

Rape is also a special case in that it can attract additional predators. Put a name and a face on a rape victim, and you’ll get sickos on the internet who’ll say “Yeah, I’d hit that.”

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

We provide anonymity to victims because we don’t want the media making a spectacle of their lives. We don’t for accused perpetrators because if they get out on bail we don’t want them harming anybody else if they in fact are guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

So on the chance the suspect is guilty it’s ok to let the media make a spectacle of any suspects who are indeed innocent?

katiejane on June 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 22, 2014 at 11:17 AM

By this “logic” we shouldn’t bother to fix pot holes.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

So on the chance the suspect is guilty it’s ok to let the media make a spectacle of any suspects who are indeed innocent?

katiejane on June 22, 2014 at 11:20 AM

Hardly. George Zimmerman for instance I think has been horribly mistreated, and I think has grounds to sue multiple people and organizations, not the least of which is MSNBC. At the same time, denying anonymity to suspects allows the public to be informed about a potential danger.

It’s not a perfect system, but no matter which route you go, it never will be.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

And you’ll see some use that argument for any crime. It tends to be most invoked for rape though because it makes rape victims “re-live” the trauma.

This argument could be used for any crime victim whatsoever.

The trauma usually never goes away. This is like saying, “Don’t remind him that his wife died.” He doesn’t need to be reminded, does he?

Rape is also a special case in that it can attract additional predators. Put a name and a face on a rape victim, and you’ll get sickos on the internet who’ll say “Yeah, I’d hit that.” Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

This argument could be used for any crime victim whatsoever. “That car was stolen? I’d steal that.”

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

The trauma usually never goes away. This is like saying, “Don’t remind him that his wife died.” He doesn’t need to be reminded, does he?

This argument could be used for any crime victim whatsoever. “That car was stolen? I’d steal that.”

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:23 AM

Rape though involves the abuse not of property, but of another person. And when it’s the victim themselves, and it’s an assault upon their dignity that treats them as a means to an end for another person, that puts it in a special class separate from other crimes.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

Victims and alleged victims of violent and sex-related crimes should not generally be given anonymity. When the media refuses to identify a victim, it implies that she should be ashamed or embarrassed.

I recall an incident that John Walsh (the host of America’s Most Wanted) mentioned in his book. A 15 year-old who had been brutally raped was to be interviewed for a segment. As they typically do, the producer planned to have her in the dark with only a silhouette of her. She protested, saying something like, “I’m not the one who needs to hide. The monster who attacked me is the one who should be ashamed to show his face.”

aunursa on June 22, 2014 at 11:26 AM

By this “logic” we shouldn’t bother to fix pot holes.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:21 AM

You misread me. I didn’t claim it did not need fixing.

Limited resources and numerous major systemic problems call for a system of prioritization.

Large cites often go years in time of budgetary constraints where pot holes in fact are not fixed, or are fixed very slowly. There are often logical reasons for these occurrences. It sometimes involves “bigger fish to fry”.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM

Bring back dueling. That should keep the name-calling down.

ROCnPhilly on June 22, 2014 at 11:38 AM

There are often logical reasons for these occurrences. It sometimes involves “bigger fish to fry”. Difficultas_Est_Imperium on June 22, 2014 at 11:34 AM

This is why cities have budgets which are appropriated to various needs.

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:40 AM

Bring back the unfettered right to keep and bear arms dueling. That should keep the name-calling down. ROCnPhilly on June 22, 2014 at 11:38 AM

Akzed on June 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM

The issue is with false-rape-claim “victims.” When their rape is revealed as a fabrication little is done to them despite everything they publicly put their “rapist” through. Instead false-claimers should be sentenced to whatever time/punishment the accused faced. Make an example of a few and watch the culture of false accusation change.

Scottie on June 22, 2014 at 11:42 AM

Tawana Brawley

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

Yoohoo, Amanda Marcotte, what do you and Crystal Gail Mangum have to say on this subject? Remember how enraged you were when Crystal Gail Mangum’s name was uttered in the bogus rape charge case with the Duke Lacrosse players? Hmmmmmm? Do you remember? Do ya?

SouthernGent on June 22, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Rape is also a special case in that it can attract additional predators. Put a name and a face on a rape victim, and you’ll get sickos on the internet who’ll say “Yeah, I’d hit that.” Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:19 AM

One of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read on this site.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM

One of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read on this site.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Yes, you will get sickos on the internet rating victims if you put names and faces out for all to see. You’ll get some saying “Yeah, I’d hit that” and others saying “Dude, how desperate are you that you’d knock THAT up?” In particular, the availability of photos will allow a victim’s humiliation (their treatment as an objectified sub-human) to continue.

Yeah it’s disturbing, but it’s unfortunately also what you’ll see.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Put every citizen in prison just in case they are accused of a crime, except for those people who are considered correct, usually well-meaning liberals.

I always have the best ideas.

Bishop on June 22, 2014 at 11:58 AM

And when it’s the victim themselves, and it’s an assault upon their dignity that treats them as a means to an end for another person, that puts it in a special class separate from other crimes.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:25 AM

So much for equality under the law. Some victims are more special than others? What about the right to face your accuser? Innocent until proven guilty? Rape shield laws were created to do as you say, put rape/sex assault victims in a special class, at the expense of the accused, who in these cases now has very little rights. This leads to star chamber courts where only the sainted government knows whats going on (and even that will be compartmentalized). Rape shield type laws have expanded beyond their original scope. See child protective services/family law courts for more proof of corruption.

Perhaps the media shouldn’t be so quick to judge or inflame an issue to sell adverts.

oryguncon on June 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM

You have identified one aspect of modern feminism that is related to REPARATIONS.

Feminists believe that females should retain all the traditional protections of womanhood but without any of the corresponding duties. All women are to be considered virtuous in all things, and men deserve whatever they get.

If one (or a thousand) potential rapist is falsely accused, that is perfectly fine because he probably would have raped if he could manage it, goes the thinking.

Well, the arguments haven’t changed much since the days of the suffragettes, who believed once Woman got the vote, all wars would cease. Yeah, its true… we are stupid.

Dolce Far Niente on June 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Yeah it’s disturbing, but it’s unfortunately also what you’ll see.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

Provide some evidence backing up your claim.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM

One of the dumbest statements I’ve ever read on this site.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 11:53 AM

Yes, you will get sickos on the internet rating victims if you put names and faces out for all to see. You’ll get some saying “Yeah, I’d hit that” and others saying “Dude, how desperate are you that you’d knock THAT up?” In particular, the availability of photos will allow a victim’s humiliation (their treatment as an objectified sub-human) to continue.

Yeah it’s disturbing, but it’s unfortunately also what you’ll see.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:56 AM

There is no crime so heinous that it justifies committing another crime and turning the innocent into victims.

oscarwilde on June 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM

So much for equality under the law. Some victims are more special than others? What about the right to face your accuser? Innocent until proven guilty? Rape shield laws were created to do as you say, put rape/sex assault victims in a special class, at the expense of the accused, who in these cases now has very little rights. This leads to star chamber courts where only the sainted government knows whats going on (and even that will be compartmentalized). Rape shield type laws have expanded beyond their original scope. See child protective services/family law courts for more proof of corruption.

Perhaps the media shouldn’t be so quick to judge or inflame an issue to sell adverts.

oryguncon on June 22, 2014 at 11:59 AM

Yes, some victims are more special than others. A person who is the victim of a rape has suffered a more severe trauma than someone who had some litter thrown on their lawn. Yes, crimes are inherently different from one another. That’s why some people only go to jail for a few days, and others are executed. Justice is proportionate to the crime, and we shouldn’t pretend that all crimes are equal.

As for facing your accuser, that’s different. That happens in a court room, and that the accused should have the right to know. That does not mean however that that information should be disseminated to the general public.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:03 PM

I’m not a lawyer, so I seriously don’t know: Is this policy of naming the accused but not the accuser universal in the US? Or does it vary by jurisdiction? Does it only apply to the media? Or is it also in court documents? I just did a quick search to try to find out, but I’m still confused.

WhatSlushfund on June 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Provide some evidence backing up your claim.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:00 PM

Remember the left talking about how they’d love to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin? You really don’t think people with those sorts of ethical standards keep their commentaries focused just on politics, do you?

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM

@Scottie
“Instead false-claimers should be sentenced to whatever time/punishment the accused faced”
Sounds like a great idea.
This concept exists in Jewish Law. False witnesses get whatever punishment they lied about. (almost. besides death, which I think gets a huge monetary fine).
Libs will say that this will discourage rape victims from coming fwd. I disagree.

Yitzchokm on June 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I’m not a lawyer, so I seriously don’t know: Is this policy of naming the accused but not the accuser universal in the US? Or does it vary by jurisdiction? Does it only apply to the media? Or is it also in court documents? I just did a quick search to try to find out, but I’m still confused.

WhatSlushfund on June 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM

You have a right to face your accuser in the US (although in non-court forums, such as college disciplinary boards and corporate boardrooms where you can face non-governmental punishment this isn’t necessarily the case).

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM

The initial reason rape victims identities were kept secret was so women wouldn’t be ashamed to report the crime. I am not so sure the underlying assumption here holds true anymore. But be that as it may, I think continuing to withhold the victim’s name is a good thing. We should ABSOLUTELY withhold the alleged perpetrator’s name until a guilty verdict.

And we should codify false rape accusations as a serious crime.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 12:11 PM

I would submit that no anonymity should occur for arrest for any crime, whether it is the anonymity of the victim or the accused.

Here in the United States the accused has the right to face his or her accuser(s) in court, and our courts are currently quite public in their deliberations.

Making the identity of the accused be anonymous is, in my mind, the first steps toward a police state in which arrests can occur anonymously — with anonymous accusers and anonymous accused.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Remember the left talking about how they’d love to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin? You really don’t think people with those sorts of ethical standards keep their commentaries focused just on politics, do you?

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM

Did someone actually attempt to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin?

I must have missed that.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Did someone actually attempt to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin?

I must have missed that.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM

Did someone miss my point? Looks like it.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:19 PM

We provide anonymity to victims because we don’t want the media making a spectacle of their lives. We don’t for accused perpetrators because if they get out on bail we don’t want them harming anybody else if they in fact are guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

I submit that in the above statement there is an assumption that the accuser is being truthful and that the accused is guilty.

Indeed, in the McMartin trials the accusers were anonymized and the accused were made public. Seems in the aftermath that the opposite should have occurred if we were truly talking about retribution and justice being correctly visited.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM

Make us into euroweenies, why don’t you? They even protect the rapists after they are convicted. Look at those two who murdered the toddler. They were later given new names and free housing ans support. One’s a heroin addict and the other has been arrested for child porn.

Blake on June 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

why, in our best-ever age of equality and human rights, are men still being denied their right to anonymity ahead of a not-guilty verdict?

Because you live in a Western culture that has been indoctrinated into radical feminism (which ironically while trying to elevate women to equality in effect maliciously debases their value and uniqueness). Men are denied a number of fundamental aspects of equality. For example, if it is perfectly okay for a woman, without the man’s agreement, to terminate a pregnancy, why is it not okay for a man to terminate his own parental obligations? After all, having a child is a very serious commitment, and if a woman can ‘abort’ that commitment by killing the child, why can’t a man legally ‘abort’ any potential commitment on his part?

Now, I’m a conservative guy and a father of six, so I think that would be idiotic, but I also believe that abortion is murder AND that if progtards want their ideology to be ascendant, they should be forced to hold to it unequivocally. In that case, men should have the same ‘termination’ rights as women.

xNavigator on June 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Again, I could be wrong these days, but most woman don’t want to be thought of as a rape victim. We don’t want to humiliate a woman for reporting a crime.

We also shouldn’t be ruining the life of a guy who’s ex acquiesced so that she could get some sleep, only to decide 6 days later that he was a jerk.

Stupidity is it’s own punishment.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

We provide anonymity to victims because we don’t want the media making a spectacle of their lives. Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Feminist claptrap. We provide anonymity to alleged rape victims because of the high likelihood of false accusations. We don’t provide it for the accused, because we don’t give a damn about men falsely accused.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I submit that in the above statement there is an assumption that the accuser is being truthful and that the accused is guilty.

Indeed, in the McMartin trials the accusers were anonymized and the accused were made public. Seems in the aftermath that the opposite should have occurred if we were truly talking about retribution and justice being correctly visited.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM

There’s certainly dangers of those assumptions being made. I pointed to George Zimmerman’s case previously, since there was a media-led lynch mob out to get the guy who, when you look at the evidence, is likely innocent.

At the same time, if people post bail who are guilty, and go on to commit other crimes while out on bail, you’re going to get a public outcry denouncing the government for releasing dangerous predators back into the public. And if the police are simply looking for a suspect who they can’t find (say he’s on vacation), then again you’re stuck with whether you put out an APB or if you risk it.

As I said, no system is perfect.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Now, I’m a conservative guy and a father of six, so I think that would be idiotic, but I also believe that abortion is murder AND that if progtards want their ideology to be ascendant, they should be forced to hold to it unequivocally. In that case, men should have the same ‘termination’ rights as women.

xNavigator on June 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

Really want your blood pressure to blow? Most courts still enforce child support, when, at divorce proceedings, it is discovered the child isn’t related to the “father of record”.

4-5% of all children born in the US.

Men most assuredly don’t get fair treatment.

Despite that, women’s names should be kept anonymous in rape cases. So should the men’s

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Feminist claptrap. We provide anonymity to alleged rape victims because of the high likelihood of false accusations. We don’t provide it for the accused, because we don’t give a damn about men falsely accused.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM

I think that’s total bogus. We do not provide anonymity because alleged rape victims are likely to be liars. Save for a few demented feminists, people don’t want to string up the innocent.

I do agree that for those who are falsely accused, more needs to be done to make reparations to them for the harm done to them in terms of time, money, reputation, etc. But we shouldn’t allow a desire to see the wrongly accused fully restored to lead into a lack of protection for real victims.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

You have a right to face your accuser in the US (although in non-court forums, such as college disciplinary boards and corporate boardrooms where you can face non-governmental punishment this isn’t necessarily the case).

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:06 PM

In other words: “No, you don’t have a right to face your accuser in the US.” Sex crimes come under the “female imperative” exception to unalienable and equal rights.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:30 PM

In other words: “No, you don’t have a right to face your accuser in the US.” Sex crimes come under the “female imperative” exception to unalienable and equal rights.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:30 PM

You’re certainly right when it comes to college disciplinary boards and corporate boardrooms. It’s also why I think that criminal complaints shouldn’t ever be adjudicated by those entities. Neither colleges nor companies are courts, and they should stop behaving as such.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM

I think that’s total bogus. We do not provide anonymity because alleged rape victims are likely to be liars. Save for a few demented feminists, people don’t want to string up the innocent.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

Statements completely belied by facts.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Tawana Brawley

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 11:44 AM

She identified herself. She wasn’t id’ed by the media until the good Reverend decided to make hay with her “story.”

Look, I think there’s a special place in hell for people who hurt women, children and small animals. There’s no place in a civilized society for people who victimize the most vulnerable.

But until you can prove such intentional cruelty, the courtesy of anonymity should go both ways. In fact, such cases shouldn’t be covered by the media until they are resolved.

Conservative Mischief on June 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM

Statements completely belied by facts.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:33 PM

The accusation about the reason behind why we provide anonymity to rape victims was completely bereft of facts. That is a statement about people’s intentions when they pass laws, and if that’s what you think is true about most folks in society, then I think you’re nuts.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Did someone actually attempt to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin?

I must have missed that.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM

The thought of Sarah Palin having an attempted rapist taxidermied and mounted on the wall next to a moose is delicious.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:36 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:25 PM

But a really public system, in which all parties in a putative crime are identified, works much better in a free society than keeping some parties secret. Allowing secrecy of accusers permits them to levy false accusations with impunity; allowing secrecy of the accused allows them to potentially continue similar crimes while the trial is underway — with impunity.

Either we buy into anonymity for eveyone concerned until conviction — which allows for police state actions in which arrests are kept anonymous — or we buy into non-anonymity for everyone concerned — which makes our justice system maximally public.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:42 PM

The accusation about the reason behind why we provide anonymity to rape victims was completely bereft of facts. That is a statement about people’s intentions when they pass laws, and if that’s what you think is true about most folks in society, then I think you’re nuts.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:34 PM

If you for one minute honestly thought about why there is this quite unusual exception accorded to women, you would retract what you say, Stoic. If you applied a modicum of logic to your assessment of the rationale for the current state of jurisprudence as applied to rape instead of engaging in solipsistic emotionalism, you would apologize.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Until DNA evidence happened along those innocent yet accused or convicted had little means to prove their innocence. That technology also made it possible for the actual perpetrator (if applicable) to be determined. Sometimes that has helped the wrongly accused / convicted finally go free.

Modern Junk Justice needs blackmail to maintain its pernicious profitability since the idea is to cause a settlement (protection racket) not a trial. So the threat of character assassination works to exploit the innocent for profit just as effectively as against the guilty.

So I doubt the Legal Swindle / Bar Association will be letting anonymity shield potential targets when there’s big loot to be made whether that Justice thingy perchance ever happens, or not.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Hardly. George Zimmerman for instance I think has been horribly mistreated, and I think has grounds to sue multiple people and organizations, not the least of which is MSNBC. At the same time, denying anonymity to suspects allows the public to be informed about a potential danger.

It’s not a perfect system, but no matter which route you go, it never will be.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:22 AM

I expect that MSNBC and CNN both have already had their lawyers cut Zimmerman very large checks to stop any potential lawsuits from him.

Johnnyreb on June 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Allowing secrecy of accusers permits them to levy false accusations with impunity; allowing secrecy of the accused allows them to potentially continue similar crimes while the trial is underway — with impunity.

Either we buy into anonymity for eveyone concerned until conviction — which allows for police state actions in which arrests are kept anonymous — or we buy into non-anonymity for everyone concerned — which makes our justice system maximally public.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:42 PM

I disagree, particularly with the first sentence of this. Making false allegations under anonymity does not grant impunity from prosecution for making false accusations. Police do maintain records of accusations, and should be able to assemble multiple accusations from one source into a central database, in which case they should stick out like a sore thumb for being liars. Anonymity in regards to the general public also should not prevent the accused from knowing their accuser, giving them the full ability to recount their version of events and poke holes in the accuser’s case. Finally, the standard of justice is still “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not “more probable than not” when it comes to criminal justice, meaning that the burden of proof still lies on the accuser, not the accused, meaning that in a he-said, she-said case the default should be not guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM

Again, I could be wrong these days, but most woman don’t want to be thought of as a rape victim. We don’t want to humiliate a woman for reporting a crime.

We also shouldn’t be ruining the life of a guy who’s ex acquiesced so that she could get some sleep, only to decide 6 days later that he was a jerk.

Stupidity is it’s own punishment.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 12:23 PM

I submit that if a woman truly believes she has been raped, she will do the rape kit thing and lodge the accusation.

In hindsight, it would have been better for our national deliberations to know the name of the 12 year old girl that Hillary dragged through the mud. Right now, Hillary’s crew only has to claim that the now 52-year old woman is hiding her hatred for Hillary behind a shield of anonymity, and her accusations about Hillary are diminished by that. We Americans understand fully the reason why anonymous accusations are often made, whether in times of election or in cases of crime.

That allowance of anonymity for the victim is a very big reason why some — including those on these pages — assume that most rape victims falsify their accusation. Accuser anonymity certainly allows that to occur without consequence.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM

We don’t for accused perpetrators because if they get out on bail we don’t want them harming anybody else if they in fact are guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 11:10 AM

So much for “innocent until proven guilty.” There used to be a reason for this, to keep people from being convicted in the court of public opinion, before receiving a fair trial. Once the media has convicted someone, there’s tremendous pressure to make good on their dirty work. False accusations, once publicized, become “truth” to many, and lives are frequently ruined as a result.

Harbingeing on June 22, 2014 at 1:00 PM

If you for one minute honestly thought about why there is this quite unusual exception accorded to women, you would retract what you say, Stoic. If you applied a modicum of logic to your assessment of the rationale for the current state of jurisprudence as applied to rape instead of engaging in solipsistic emotionalism, you would apologize.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 12:47 PM

I have thought about it. And while you may regard my position as “emotional” (and I won’t deny that I harbor a certain amount of righteous indignation), I don’t see it as solipsistic (a philosophy in which people think the entire world revolves around them).

What you have said is that legislators allow accusers to remain unknown to the general public because legislators want to let false accusers go. I think the level of cynicism you harbor has distorted your perception of others’ motives.

I happen to think that it’s accorded because rape is a crime that humiliates the victim. This is not the same as guilt or shame since humiliation involves the forcible lowering of another person’s status in how they are treated.

Rape, by using another person as a means to the end of one’s own pleasure, is an act which treats the victim as sub-human, inferior and subservient to the rapist. Because people are moral equals and not objects to be used, this is completely counter to any kind of just or equitable treatment.

When this information is made public, what is also made public is that the violation of that person’s status as an equal becomes public, and with the pairing of name and pictures, allows further opportunity for harassment and abuse, which while not as severe as the initial crime, is nonetheless a continued abuse of someone who was already victimized. The law exists to protect victims, and deliver justice to perpetrators, not enable further traumatization of victims.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:00 PM

I disagree, particularly with the first sentence of this. Making false allegations under anonymity does not grant impunity from prosecution for making false accusations. Police do maintain records of accusations, and should be able to assemble multiple accusations from one source into a central database, in which case they should stick out like a sore thumb for being liars. Anonymity in regards to the general public also should not prevent the accused from knowing their accuser, giving them the full ability to recount their version of events and poke holes in the accuser’s case. Finally, the standard of justice is still “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not “more probable than not” when it comes to criminal justice, meaning that the burden of proof still lies on the accuser, not the accused, meaning that in a he-said, she-said case the default should be not guilty.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM

I call Tawana Brawley to the stand. Tawana, were you ever prosecuted for making a false rape accusation in which you publicly named perpetrators?

I rest my case. [Brawley was sued in civil court, and ordered to pay damages. She was never brought to trial for perjury. In fact, it is very rare for a trial on the basis of perjury to occur.]

Anonymity of the accuser prevents the accused from proper discovery — and discovery is quite important to a proper defense. The accused cannot easily obtain mitigating testimony from the public, who may know facts about the accuser which anonymity would prevent disclosure.

If I were to mitigate my stance at all, it would be to say that it should be totally the choice of the accused as to whether all aspects of the alleged crime are kept secret or not prior to the outcome of the trial.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:51 PM;

Making false allegations under anonymity does not grant impunity from prosecution for making false accusations.

But prosecuting false rape accusers is so rare — and false rape allegations so common — that there is practically de facto immunity.

Finally, the standard of justice is still “beyond a reasonable doubt” and not “more probable than not” when it comes to criminal justice, meaning that the burden of proof still lies on the accuser, not the accused, meaning that in a he-said, she-said case the default should be not guilty.

As even you pointed out, there is, in fact, a “more likely than not” for many adult males in this allegedly free country, and the burden of proof is on the accused. This is being allowed to exist in the United States and it is an outrage.

Likewise, that a female rape accuser is not named is an outrage. It works to encourage false accusations. I do not see how any reasonable person can deny this. Was this an unintended consequence? I am not that naïve. The stated reasons are too weak to take seriously.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I expect that MSNBC and CNN both have already had their lawyers cut Zimmerman very large checks to stop any potential lawsuits from him.

Johnnyreb on June 22, 2014 at 12:48 PM

They just consider that a cost of doing business. The ratings bump they got from their smear campaigns, convicting Zimmerman in the court of public opinion, probably paid them many millions more than they had to pay Zimmerman to stop the lawsuits. They very likely still made money doing it, even after paying Zimmerman off.

Harbingeing on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 12:52 PM

I disagree. Rape, I believe, really is under-reported, even today. The way to solve this is by making the accused also anonymous. And severely punishing false accusations.

Despite all the feminism, there is still a stigma around being raped. Unfair or not, it exists. Anonymity is an attempt to deal with it.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:06 PM

But we shouldn’t allow a desire to see the wrongly accused fully restored to lead into a lack of protection for real victims.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

But the wrongly accused is the real victim.

wifarmboy on June 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM

So much for “innocent until proven guilty.” There used to be a reason for this, to keep people from being convicted in the court of public opinion, before receiving a fair trial. Once the media has convicted someone, there’s tremendous pressure to make good on their dirty work. False accusations, once publicized, become “truth” to many, and lives are frequently ruined as a result.

Harbingeing on June 22, 2014 at 1:00 PM

When someone is accused, there is a certain extent to which you have to treat them differently from just any other guy. Genuinely guilty people do exist, and sometimes they continue to pose threats. That’s why we arrest the accused — because there is a suspicion that they may be guilty and we want to protect the public if they are. We then release them on bail once we think that there is sufficient public awareness of who they are that the public is on notice, and that we have an assessment that they are not so dangerous that they can’t be released back into the general public between their initial arrest and eventual trial.

Before we take any severe action we make sure that they get their day in court, and require that our prosecutors prove their guilt, putting no burden on the innocent to prove anything.

Ideally we’d never arrest anybody who’s innocent. But the police aren’t perfect, which is why we use the trial as an independent review of the grounds on which the police conducted an arrest, and allow a body of our peers to render a final verdict.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM

We provide anonymity to alleged rape victims because of the high frequency of character assassination of the victims. See Hillary Clinton, defense lawyer.

“…Clinton’s legal strategy of attacking the credibility of the 12-year-old victim.”

Actual rape victims are least likely to come forward when they can expect public accusations for being a victim. “She was asking for it…. She has a history of inappropriate behavior…”

“Clinton wrote that she had been informed the young girl was “emotionally unstable” and had a “tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing”, likely engaged in exaggerated behavior, “in the past made false accusations about persons, claiming they had attacked her body”, and she “exhibits an unusual stubbornness and temper when she does not get her way.”

A person already crushed by rape, who will certainly be ruthlessly questioned in court by the defense’s legal team, will find public identification the last straw, deterring them from ever pursuing a case.

People who are falsely accused of rape should have the option of pursuing retaliatory charges against their accusers; they should also be subject to a thorough public reparation of their characters. But that would take laws to correct the present system, and who wants to bother with that, when they can just pressure media outlets to hide the names of all accused rapists?

momodoom on June 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM

After seeing the behavior of Lance Ito, Michael Nifong, Angela Corey, the Zimmerman trial judge etc. the concept that the courts and lawyers ultimately seek Justice instead of personal gain is pure fantasy.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:12 PM

But we shouldn’t allow a desire to see the wrongly accused fully restored to lead into a lack of protection for real victims.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:29 PM

But the wrongly accused is the real victim.

wifarmboy on June 22, 2014 at 1:08 PM

Stoic’s far too full of itself to see it. SFOS.

CW on June 22, 2014 at 1:12 PM

Anonymity of the accuser prevents the accused from proper discovery — and discovery is quite important to a proper defense. The accused cannot easily obtain mitigating testimony from the public, who may know facts about the accuser which anonymity would prevent disclosure.

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Perhaps I am missing something. Are you saying the accused doesn’t even know the name of the accuser?

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:00 PM :

I happen to think that it’s accorded because rape is a crime that humiliates the victim.

Many crimes humiliate the victims. Some crimes do worse.

This is not the same as guilt or shame since humiliation involves the forcible lowering of another person’s status in how they are treated.

This smacks of psycho-babble. Crimes do all sorts of bad things to victims. Rape is not unique. It is a heinous crime, but so are many crimes. Get over this concept that it is uniquely heinous.

Rape, by using another person as a means to the end of one’s own pleasure, is an act which treats the victim as sub-human, inferior and subservient to the rapist. Because people are moral equals and not objects to be used, this is completely counter to any kind of just or equitable treatment.

This is straight from the Feminist Manual of Bogus Argumentation. I refer you to my comment above about rape’s alleged uniqueness.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Here’s a thought let’s quit being so paternalistic …maybe teach people that if they are the victims they have nothing to be ashamed for one and then if they are harassed we as a society come down hard on the bullies. I would think that modern feminists would want it this way.

CW on June 22, 2014 at 1:14 PM

I call Tawana Brawley to the stand. Tawana, were you ever prosecuted for making a false rape accusation in which you publicly named perpetrators?

I rest my case. [Brawley was sued in civil court, and ordered to pay damages. She was never brought to trial for perjury. In fact, it is very rare for a trial on the basis of perjury to occur.]

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with you that it needs to be taken more seriously. That certainly requires cultural change, and probably requires legislative change.

But prosecuting false rape accusers is so rare — and false rape allegations so common — that there is practically de facto immunity.

As even you pointed out, there is, in fact, a “more likely than not” for many adult males in this allegedly free country, and the burden of proof is on the accused. This is being allowed to exist in the United States and it is an outrage.

Likewise, that a female rape accuser is not named is an outrage. It works to encourage false accusations. I do not see how any reasonable person can deny this. Was this an unintended consequence? I am not that naïve. The stated reasons are too weak to take seriously.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Like I said to unclesmrgol, we need cultural and legislative fixes. Scottie at 11:42 was right about making an example out of false accusers. That helps create cultural change.

And yes, we need to change the culture of jury rooms to being a genuine “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard rather than more probable than not. Unfortunately, I think that’s going to require some mainstream media & entertainment assistance, which they’re unlikely to grant because of their own cultural biases.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM

This is straight from the Feminist Manual of Bogus Argumentation. I refer you to my comment above about rape’s alleged uniqueness.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Of course, when you slice me from ear to ear you think I am as equally human…./sarc

Again, Stoic is soooo much better and smarter than the rest. Just ask it. /

Dude’s a pompous know-nothing.

CW on June 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM

Stoic’s far too full of itself to see it. SFOS.

CW on June 22, 2014 at 1:12 PM

To the contrary, I’ve acknowledged that. Yet there’s the other possibility that the accuser is telling the truth, that the accused is guilty. Anonymity guards against the re-victimization of genuine victims. And where we have false accusations, as unclesmogrl and Nomennovum have pointed out, we should engage in criminal prosecution.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Of course, when you slice me from ear to ear you think I am as equally human…./sarc

Again, Stoic is soooo much better and smarter than the rest. Just ask it. /

Dude’s a pompous know-nothing.

CW on June 22, 2014 at 1:15 PM

It takes one to know one, I suppose?

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

I must have missed that.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 12:18 PM

You seem to have missed quite a bit then. A real quick internet search would help you out.

Harbingeing on June 22, 2014 at 1:19 PM

This smacks of psycho-babble. Crimes do all sorts of bad things to victims. Rape is not unique. It is a heinous crime, but so are many crimes. Get over this concept that it is uniquely heinous.

This is straight from the Feminist Manual of Bogus Argumentation. I refer you to my comment above about rape’s alleged uniqueness.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

Actually, it’s an appeal to Immanuel Kant’s 2nd categorical imperative — a moral philosopher, not a psychologist. It’s also in agreement with something Glenn Beck said a couple of weeks ago about the proper treatment of and relationships between people and objects, and that while the proper ordering is to love your fellow man and to use objects, we often instead use our fellow man and love objects. It is that perversion of a person’s status which makes rape so horrendous.

It’s also why slavery was so terrible. People who think that the primary lesson of the Civil War is that racism is bad are misguided. The primary lesson of the Civil War is that people are not property.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Perhaps I am missing something. Are you saying the accused doesn’t even know the name of the accuser?

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:13 PM

What he’s saying is the accuser is being granted protections not afforded the accused.

That’s why I mentioned Michael Nifong (re: his attempted railroading of the Duke Lacrosse Team). The false accuser Crystal Mangum, like O.J., also is in the slammer now also for a different crime. Nifong’s error was presumption that the accused would not have the means to defend against malicious prosecution. Fortunately for the innocent he was wrong. Fortunately for Zimmerman the prosecutor and judges were not able to bankrupt him before the show trial.

Perhaps one has to be outside the legal system to notice this?

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I think we’re going to have to admit that rape has to be treated a little differently from some other crimes. The only real distinction between rape and consensual sex is the giving or withholding of consent, and that can be very difficult to establish, particularly in cases where both were drunk or high.

The other argument is that false accusations of rape are more common than other crimes, creating a greater need to allow both alleged victim and alleged rapist anonymity, at least until the case actually goes to trial.

It seems to me that might be a fair dividing line: if the accusation of rape is not credible enough to go to trial, then the name of the accused should kept secret.

Obviously, once it goes to trial, neither can be anonymous.

Of course, ‘anonymous’ refers to the general public. The accused always has the right to know the name of the accuser.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 22, 2014 at 1:23 PM

I think this whole question is raised by the attempt to keep victims anonymous, without providing a similar protection for the accused, who is still presumed innocent.

If the accuser can be given anonymity, then basic fairness requires the accused be given the same anonymity until guilt is determined, or at least until there is enough evidence for a trial. When one side has complete anonymity and the other doesn’t, then real damage can happen to the accused while the accuser is guaranteed shelter.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 22, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Of course, ‘anonymous’ refers to the general public. The accused always has the right to know the name of the accuser.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 22, 2014 at 1:23 PM

The problem is the accused typically gets paraded slow-motion in front of the TV cameras in irons and an orange jumpsuit facing a probability of bankruptcy whether innocent or not.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:27 PM

But prosecuting false rape accusers is so rare — and false rape allegations so common — that there is practically de facto immunity.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Haven’t we been told by feminists that all sex is rape anyway? No wonder theres’s de facto immunity for false accusers.

Harbingeing on June 22, 2014 at 1:29 PM

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:23 PM

also is in the slammer now also for a different crime.

That part is irrelevant.

Nifong’s error was presumption that the accused would not have the means to defend against malicious prosecution.

Unless I am mistaken, Nifong was running for reelection. He essentially pulled a Sharpton.

What he’s saying is the accuser is being granted protections not afforded the accused.

I’ve already said I agree with this.

But for Unclesmrgol’s assertion to be valid requires that the accused not know the name of the accuser. My question still stands. Is that the case?

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Anonymity guards against the re-victimization of genuine victims.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:18 PM

Stop saying this. This is not why the law exists for rape accusers. I know this, because it makes no sense. The reasoning can be applied to many crimes.

E.g.:

1. A man is visiting a prostitute in a Nevada jurisdiction where prostitution is legal. The prostitute bites off his member, thus committing a crime. Is the accuser, a man, according anonymity?

2. A father is assaulted by a gang of youths, who tie him up, taunt him, and rob him in front of his wife and children. Reliving this humiliation is surely humiliating. Is he accorded any anonymity?

I bet you can think of other examples, Stoic. Maybe one where you were mugged by some punk and didn’t fight back like a man (assuming you are a man). That must have been humiliating to relate to the cops and in front of a jury.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Did someone miss my point? Looks like it.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 12:19 PM

I asked you to provide evidence that “sickos” will hunt down rape victims and attempt to “hit that” if their names were made public.

Your “evidence” was some comment about people posting on the internet how they wanted to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin.

It would seem your hyperbole can’t even connect the dots you assert exist.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM

Actually, it’s an appeal to Immanuel Kant’s 2nd categorical imperative — a moral philosopher, not a psychologist. It’s also in agreement with something Glenn Beck said a couple of weeks ago about the proper treatment of and relationships between people and objects, and that while the proper ordering is to love your fellow man and to use objects, we often instead use our fellow man and love objects. It is that perversion of a person’s status which makes rape so horrendous.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM

Oh. Were they talking only about rape?

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:36 PM

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

So the more I think of it, are you trying to say that many, some, a handful, of false rape accusations could be stopped when a convenience store clerk comes forward and says “hey wait, she was actually with me that evening!”

I doubt that happens much.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM

also is in the slammer now also for a different crime.

That part is irrelevant.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM

Not to me or Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman or the Duke Lacrosse Team or their relatives.

The system failed them thus it required a future crime to finally lock up the perpetrators.

I could care less that Nifong was running for re-election. He tried to railroad several innocents via a perjuring accuser.

Perhaps you’ve been in The System too long to notice these things?

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:39 PM

They’re MEN, you damned sexist.

They don’t deserve anonymity.

formwiz on June 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Should rape suspects receive anonymity too?

…let me check with Bill Clinton and get back to you!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Stop saying this. This is not why the law exists for rape accusers. I know this, because it makes no sense. The reasoning can be applied to many crimes.

E.g.:

1. A man is visiting a prostitute in a Nevada jurisdiction where prostitution is legal. The prostitute bites off his member, thus committing a crime. Is the accuser, a man, according anonymity?

2. A father is assaulted by a gang of youths, who tie him up, taunt him, and rob him in front of his wife and children. Reliving this humiliation is surely humiliating. Is he accorded any anonymity?

I bet you can think of other examples, Stoic. Maybe one where you were mugged by some punk and didn’t fight back like a man (assuming you are a man). That must have been humiliating to relate to the cops and in front of a jury.

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM

The first more than the second I think is a good example, since in the second while there’s abuse of a person (the insults), there isn’t the use of a person (which results in gain, the person’s property is not the person himself, and the insults achieve no gain in welfare through the degradation of status). And on the first example, I think you have a case to be made for a change in the law to eliminate an inequality that has persisted due to the generally better ability of men to defend themselves than women.

I also think you’re confusing the concept of humiliation and shame though with the last supposition. Colloquially, yes people will use the terms in the same way. But when I invoked it, humiliation was in regards to a lowering of status brought about by another actor. If I were mugged and didn’t fight back like a man, that involves multiple aspects. Let’s ignore the taking of property for now and focus on the lack of fighting back like a man. That would work less towards humiliation and more towards shame since it relates more to embarrassment over my own actions / inaction rather than the perversion of my status induced by another.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:43 PM

I asked you to provide evidence that “sickos” will hunt down rape victims and attempt to “hit that” if their names were made public.

Your “evidence” was some comment about people posting on the internet how they wanted to “hate f*ck” Sarah Palin.

It would seem your hyperbole can’t even connect the dots you assert exist.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 1:34 PM

And your evidence that it won’t happen is to assume that people of poor character will relegate that poor character only to political candidates. If people are going to post rape fantasies about Palin, I really don’t think they’re going to have scruples about similar despicable rhetoric towards others.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

(Emphasis mine)

unclesmrgol on June 22, 2014 at 1:04 PM

So the more I think of it, are you trying to say that many, some, a handful, of false rape accusations could be stopped when a convenience store clerk comes forward and says “hey wait, she was actually with me that evening!”

I doubt that happens much.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:38 PM

Again you hoist yourself by your own petard by suggesting the accused should now hope for serendipity to prove their innocence and deliver them from false accusations in the current system / racket.

Again, you seem to have been in The System too long to view the real world from an non-lawyer perspective.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Oh. Were they talking only about rape?

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:36 PM

No, they were talking about a general principle. I’m using rape as an applied example of that principle being violated (just as I did with slavery thereafter). We could just as easily apply the idea about human dignity and the perversion of a person’s status to abortion, genetic engineering, vicariously living through one’s children, Obamacare’s individual mandate, etceteras.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Should rape suspects receive anonymity too?

…let me check with Bill Clinton and get back to you!

JugEarsButtHurt on June 22, 2014 at 1:41 PM

Hey, now.

Not everybody can set BBQ Reno, Pellicano, The IRS and Presstitutes onto their ex-girlfriends.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM

And your evidence that it won’t happen is to assume that people of poor character will relegate that poor character only to political candidates. If people are going to post rape fantasies about Palin, I really don’t think they’re going to have scruples about similar despicable rhetoric towards others.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Oh, you’re one of those folks that want to prove something doesn’t exist.

You made the assertion, rape shield laws popped up around the 1970′s, I’m sure there is a plethora of cases prior to those laws proving your assertion.

Yet you can’t come up with one example.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:43 PM:

I also think you’re confusing the concept of humiliation and shame though with the last supposition. Colloquially, yes people will use the terms in the same way.

Please. You know I am not. Stop trying to confuse matters with pseudo-intellectual nonsense.

[I]n the second while there’s abuse of a person (the insults), there isn’t the use of a person (which results in gain, the person’s property is not the person himself, and the insults achieve no gain in welfare through the degradation of status).

Nonsense. The gang members clearly increases the status both among their peers and each other at the distinct loss of status to the man. Indeed, this sort of things happens too often. The robbery is usually incidental.

I think you have a case to be made for a change in the law to eliminate an inequality that has persisted due to the generally better ability of men to defend themselves than women.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda, Stoic. It’s not going to happen. And should it, really?

Nomennovum on June 22, 2014 at 1:53 PM

Again, you seem to have been in The System too long to view the real world from an non-lawyer perspective.

viking01 on June 22, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Ummm, I am not a lawyer. It is you who are doing the hoisting here. I seriously want an answer to my question. You need to go back and read for understanding.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:55 PM

Oh, you’re one of those folks that want to prove something doesn’t exist.

You made the assertion, rape shield laws popped up around the 1970′s, I’m sure there is a plethora of cases prior to those laws proving your assertion.

Yet you can’t come up with one example.

ButterflyDragon on June 22, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Actually, my assertion was that we shouldn’t get rid of the shield laws, and in part that’s because of sickos on the internet. Given that the internet was part of DARPA in the 1970s, I really don’t think that talking about internet public comment forums at that time holds a lot of relevance.

Stoic Patriot on June 22, 2014 at 1:56 PM

Not to me or Nicole Brown Simpson or Ron Goldman or the Duke Lacrosse Team or their relatives.

The system failed them thus it required a future crime to finally lock up the perpetrators.

So…rape and mass murder are equivalent? I am sorry, you are getting too emotional here.

WryTrvllr on June 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM

Comment pages: 1 2