Does name shielding 'protect' rape victim?

snip

Most people think it's against the law to make public a rape victim's name. Not so. The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled 6-3 in a 1989 case involving a Florida weekly newspaper that the First Amendment permits such disclosure.

But historically, the press voluntarily has "protected" rape victims' identity. Despite that, a number of prominent females have gone public with how they endured rape and coped with it. Among them are Susan Estrich, a professor of law at Southern Cal and author of the book Real Rape, and Karen Jurgensen, editor of USA TODAY.

They and others feel that if rape victims speak up and identify themselves, it might help people better understand its prevalence and brutality and the need to punish perpetrators.

How rape rates in reported cases annually among the three most ghastly crimes based on most recent available statistics (2000):

Murder 15,586

Child sexual abuse 87,480

Rape 92,440

tad more...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&ncid=742&e=14&u=/usatoday/20030808/cm_usatoday/11535113

I guess the questions this article poses for discussion is:

1-Is it so? Would publicly identifying alleged rape victims help people better understand its prevalence and brutality and the need to punish perpetrators?

2-Would it more so jeopardize both the alleged victims safety, as well as the STATES case in bring the alleged rapist to justice?

3-would identifying alleged "accuser" than also open the door for character assassination and smearing wherein alleged "accuser" may feel the need to defend her/himself in the media and at trial even in those instances where neither the accused or the accuser is a celebrity or well standing member of the community?

4-what other ramifications can this have on rape conviction rates, positive or negative?

It's not fair that the accused who is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY gets slammed while the victim (who isn't a victim until it's proven) is shielded.

Just hide both names until the trial begins and we everything becomes public information.

crime reports are a matter of public record, I believe.

The one you express in your post blue chill is do you feel the same about not revealing the identity of someone accused and then charged of homicide or car hijacker or serial murder, or is this opinion of yours specific only to those accused or rape?


Why would revealing the name of somene charged with homicide be different than revealing the name of someone charged with rape? Based on your opinion should the idenities of those charged with other felonies also remain undisclosed by the media. Or again, is your opinion solely specific to those accused and charged with rape?

They seem to believe the rape victim "deserved it" or did something to cause it to happen.

It can also affect someone's chances of marriage/partnering.

revealing identities of those charged with homicide and/or robbery, or car theft does not seem to pose as much of a dilemma that revealing the identity of one charged with rape.

why should the identity of someone accused of rape be especially protected over someone charged with homicide?

This is my dilemma.