Should Rape Victims' Names be Disclosed to the Public?

[ChemEng]

Apparently, some jackass radio shock jock revealed the name of the woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape. Is it me, or should the rape shield laws apply here? I think we have taken a giant step back, and I fear that many rape victims will decide to not press charges for fear of publicity. Thoughts?

[KCDem]

1. they should never be disclosed.

Rape is such a personal and invasive issue... far moreso than any other crime I can think of. If rape victims don't have complete faith that they will be kept private, they won't come forth with their accusations.

Whoever announce this info: first of all, how did they have it? They should be fired, and kept from any sort of journalistic job ever.

What an ass.

[JewelDigger]

2. Victims names NEVER

Convicted attackers names - ALWAYS!

[jfxgillis]

3. Neither

the accuser nor the accused should be publicly indentified until the matter has been adjudacated.

[greyl]

8. Two for neither.

Difficult as hell to put into practice and enforce I suppose, but...

[Ein]

59. agreed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. How could anyone disagree with this?

How could anyone disagree with this?

[Rocinante]

4. Victims

of any crime shouldn't have their names in the media until trial unless they consent.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

5. How do you know a crime was committed?

How do you know a crime was committed? Aren't you assuming guilt?

On edit: there is nothing wrong with keeping the accuser's name from the public if the accused's name is kept from the public as well.

[ChemEng]

9. No one is assuming guilt on the accused, all I'm saying is...

Don't release the woman's name. It should be up to the woman to decide, not you or anyone else.

Just think of what could happen. Defense lawyers could threaten a woman with disclosure of her name before a trial, and maybe get the charges dropped. Is that a scenario we want to see happen?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

13. Keeping it secret just perpetuates the stigma

Keeping it secret just perpetuates the stigma. Rape is a crime of violence. Being raped is no more shameful than being robbed or beaten.

[DemLikr]

28. Absolutely agree. As long as names of accused are released,

in a fair justice system the names of the accusers must be available too.

Isn't this really a qustion only at the level of media distribution? Isn't the name of the accuser always available in court documents?

[maxanne]

31. I'm guessing

you've never been raped.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

34. Your guess is wrong

Your guess is wrong. I have been raped.

[maxanne]

38. fair enough

And I'm sorry you had to experience it.

Being raped is still treated as something shameful. Look at all the nasty stuff that's been written about the woman in the Kobe Bryant case. I see people here at DU making comments about her being in his room late at night - as though there's a license to rape in that case.

Will going public change the perceptions and the stigma? Or will publicizing names increase the shame, the possibility of violence and threats against the woman, and increase the likelihood that even fewer women will come forward?

My rape was thirty years ago. I was asked by people who claimed to be my friends, "did you ask for it?" I hope things have gotten better, but I am not at all sure they have. Our society still holds the idea that somehow the women are to blame. Until we pass the ERA and women are truly regarded as equal - I don't see this as a good choice.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. in the short run, more pain, in the long run, more understanding

I think that in the short run, treating rape as a crime of violence, and the victims of rape as victims of violence, would be very, very hard on the victims. But I think it is neccesary in the long run if we are going to change people's attitudes.

By the way, all rape victims are not women. I am a man and I was raped by a group of men.

[Nobody]

43. Rape is a horrible act of violence

And you're right, it should be treated as such.

[blondeatlast]

48. So how would you feel if your name was disclosed to the public?

No hard feelings, I hope, but the question naturally follows.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

56. Obviously I would feel like crap

Obviously I would feel like crap. As I said in post #40.

[LiberalLibra]

39. Why treat the victim like the accused? That doesn't make any......

....sense especially if you've been a victim of a sex offender.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

42. It's like you didn't even read the comment you are responding to

It's like you didn't even read the comment you are responding to - when you use the word 'victim' you are pre-supposing that there was a crime. If sex was consensual no crime was committed. Yes, anyone has the right to say no at any point. But if you say no AFTER the fact, and then say you were raped, you are not a victim.

I realize that false accusations of rape are very rare. But they do happen.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

58. I didnt say any of those things

n/t

[Wonder]

62. I did not say YOU did.

It just seemed you were hung up on this false accusation thing, using it to argue one of the reasons Kobe may be innocent (which he well might be). So I thought I would take the opportunity to summarize all the other arguments I have heard on this thread. I was not suggesting you made those arguments, those were just an assortment of the hypotheticals that have been implied since this Kobe circus emerged on the mainstream.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

64. Sometimes people lie. Unfortunate but true.

Sometimes people lie. Unfortunate but true. Admitting that reality doesn't make me 'hung up' on anything, nor does it mean I have any opinion whatsoever about the guilt or innocence or Kobe Bryant or the veracity of his accuser.

I think the whole matter, and the names of both the accused and the accuser should be kept private if possible.

[Wonder]

66. fearorcurufinewe

I am a rape survivor.

all those speculations that I have summarized have been put forth on this forum. Most have been left to stand. Now what do we have moderators censoring the valid points of rape survivors. Because yes as you say people lie.

I guess fair is fair. but is it fair my summary should have been deleted when some of the most sexist arguments have been left to stand?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

69. follow the message board rules and your posts won't be deleted

follow the message board rules and your posts won't be deleted. The rules allow us to have a discussion, instead of just yelling at each other.

[Wonder]

68. the point is a weak one.

yes we know sometimes people lie. thanks for the observation.

[Wonder]

65. I see what you are doing I just read you testamony

of having been a victim. You are being objective. My apologies. Objectivity is in order and must be extended to both sides as does presumed innocence. I would add that as a survivor it is also important to counter those arguments that work against the rights of the alleged victim, not in attempt to argue Kobe's guilt (who can any one of us comment on his innocence or guilt with certainty? we can't), but in an attempt to protect the rights of the alleged victim in the event she is telling the truth. Both accused and accuser deserve the benefit of the doublt. We are neither judge jury persecution or defense, and neither is the media or that asshole talk show host, who between them both have attempted to seriously perjudice the jury pool, and in the case of Leykeis has endangered the safety of the alleged victim in his misogynistic attempt to put forth another bogus argument "fair is fair". As if protecting her identity is special treatment.

Now even the DA himself has received death threats, I heard this on network news last night.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

67. thank you

n/t

[dsc]

16. That is a fair idea

but there is one big problem. As witnessed in the recent problems with detainees not releasing accused names could lead to disapperences and secret trials. This is a very tough thing. As one who was gay bashed I can strongly relate to the desire to keep certain crimes secret from a victims stand point. But I do also think it adds to the shame factor. This is one of those issues where I am glad I am not king.

[redeye]

6. I don't see any reason why they should

On the other hand, I see a very compelling one why they shouldn't: privacy.

[Pastiche423]

7. NO!

Doing so is raping the victim of their sense of security. For many victims, it takes years to feel safe again.

Been there, done that.

[MaraJade]

10. If the victim goes to the media or otherwise agrees to

media interviews and the like, then their name should be revealed.

If the victim goes to law enforcement only, with a view to
prosecuting the perpetrator only, and does not agree to any
interviews and does not benefit financially from the filing
charges in any way, then their name should remain secret.

If a person reveals anything with regard to any crime with a view
to benefiting financially later, then that person does not deserve
the cover of any privacy laws. That person is not really interested
in justice, but the exploitation of the tragedy that occurred.

[Wonder]

50. Women in here arguing that an alleged victims name should be revealed

should be hung. How's that for logical thought and fairness?

[JJ]

11. Alleged victims...

the name Juanita popped into my mind for some reason.
Aside from that, I do believe rape-shield laws only pertain to what may or may not be presented as evidence in a trial, like the victim's(accuser's) sexual history. I think it's poor taste and reprehensible to announce it in the media or press, but on the other hand, isn't there something in some law or something somewhere that I once heard about, mentioning the right to face one's accuser.

I think it was the Bill of Rights, but it's hard to tell after the shredding it's gone through the last 2 or 3 years.

Seriously though, rape is one crime where the presumption of innocence seems to go out the window, and Ashcroft ain't the only one doing the shredding on that one.

I just put on my asbestos suit.

[Syrinx]

14. I WOULD thank you for those words

But I would get hurt.

[jfxgillis]

20. The way around the issue

that would avoid you getting flamed and syrinx9999 "getting hurt" is to focus strictly on the Sixth Amendment "impartial jury" provision.

I just talked this out with a lawyer yesterday and he says that I might not win this argument in an Appeals Court, but it's a fair line of argument.

If it could be shown that by their very nature, these sorts of crimes are prejudicial to empaneling an impartial jury--especially in this age of instant global communication--then it could be argued that there is a "compelling state interest" in restricting the right to publish material related to a criminal case.

[Syrinx]

12. Management has advised me

To avoid this topic, because of my opinion.

[Forkboy]

15. No!!!

and this is the easiest one to answer tonight!

[mitchum]

17. No

[bunnyhop]

18. The accused deserves a fair trial, honey

There may be people out there that know something bad about the "victim", that would help the accused defend himself. How will these witnesses know to come forth if the "victim's" name is censored.

[dsc]

19. that is only a valid point

in a very famous case. In most instances both the accused and the accuser are relative unknowns and the release of a name does no real service in that regard. Also the defense knows the name and can investigate.

[bunnyhop]

35. Being famous has nothing to do with it.--nt

nt

[Wonder]

60. something bad about the "victim" may not really cut it HONEY!

another woman who isn't thinking or is it that it just pisses you off Kobe went behind closed doors with a white woman. which is it?

If you have any interest in the legal system at all, you would know that EVEN YOU CAN DIG UP ALL THE DIRT YOU WANT on this alleged victim, it means DIDDLY BUNNYHONEY.

May not ever get heard at trial, because in pre trail between the prosecution, the defense and the Judge, however dirty the dirt is on this alleged victim, may just not be considered relevant to this case and will be barred from use at trial.

But my all means you have nothing better to do with your time bunnyhop honey bunny, dig away.

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Public record

Crimes and victims are public record information that are part of a police file and subject to reporting by the press. Change that and change the First Amendment as well.

[redeye]

22. Would you mind...

...thinking in terms of what's good and not in terms of what's in accordance with the 67th book of the bible?

[Muddleoftheroad]

23. The bible

The Constitution IS one my bibles. (The Bible is the other of course.)

Freedom of the press, freedom of speech and freedom of information are the hallmarks of this nation. To allow the government to start playing with that "for the public good" has horrific potential.

There ARE cases where the name of the alleged rape victim is an important aspect of the case. Here is an interesting article on the matter from the Post today:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51373-2003Jul26.html

[Ashes]

24. no

.

[Nobody]

25. Until we have a world where

the names of rape victims aren't dragged through the mud, where the victim's sex life is not put on trial, where the defendant doesn't resort to the "she's a slut and therefore can't say no" defense, then maybe we can consider releasing the name.

But not until then.

There is never a justification for rape. No one ever rapes in self-defense.

And even if the name was released to the public, there should be restrictions on just how that name is released. We don't reveal the names of murder victims until after the family is notified. Families should never learn of the death of a loved one on the evening news.

Rape victims should not have their names revealed by morning show DJs or shock jocks. Most rapes are not front page news and names are usually buried deep inside the local section anyways if names are revealed at all.

There is no presumption of guilt about it, whether there's a name revealed or not.

[Democat]

26. As long as the accused is named, so should be the accuser

If the law allows the name of the person being accused of a crime to be released, then it must also allow the person doing the accusing to be named.

It must be both or neither.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[dsc]

63. You might wish to step of the sanctimony soapbox

for a minute since you are about as wrong here as can be.

You said:

with shit for brains. If she is also telling the truth (which I know is impossible to consider here even in the hypothetical) and is a victim of rape, especially in cases where the rapists is a borderline psychopath; the reason why alleged victim's names are withheld is for her protection in the event the borderline psychopath is acquitted. Please clear the shit from between your ears and if that doesn't help perhaps you might visit a brain surgeon and see if there is any hope that in the future you might actually exercise some real thought!

The victim's name is NOT withheld from the defendent nor his lawyers. It is also NOT withheld from public records (save the case of children). Where it is withhled is from the media. You may be able to find some very, very unusual case in which an adult rape victim's name was withhled from a defendant but by no means is that usual. Next time you write such a rudely worded rant at someone it would behoove you to know just what is and isn't the truth.

[Wonder]

72. An alleged victims NAME is not withheld from the defendant

I misspoke I meant her identity and her whereabouts because that pretty much is what has been revealed. I never argued that it was withheld from the lawyers. IF she is listed and the name is given to the defendant who may well not know it, that is an infringement upon an alleged victims safety as well.

It is withheld from the media as is her identity and her whereabouts. They do not give address and phone number to the defendant. This alleged victim was outted almost entirely to the point that she received death threats.

I generally do not speak off the top of my head, I was a rape victim, am a rape survivor, and have been through the system on this. As such I am more able to speak about the system and the process than more than half of the posters I have encountered here purveying pure mythology.

Generally I am not an advocate of rudeness, but in these Kobe threads rudeness and ignorance abounds, so chalk my rudeness up to anger. And quite frankly for the patiences that I have exercised in the last few weeks being quite civil I am also entitled to this one bout of rudeness.

After my rape I moved and was promised by the sex crimes detective as well as by the DA that my whereabouts would not be revealed. I was dragged through two rape trials, my whereabouts were withheld from the defendant that is for sure. He was dangerous and acquitted in the first trial.

I was assured though he knew my name no other particulars would be revealed. I was made to submit to a second trial, which by that time I did not want to participate in. But the DA wanted this guy, because the feeling was he would rape again and because of the acquittal the next time he raped he would kill, and if he knew my whereabouts he might come looking for me as his accuser. She threatened to supeona me.

OF course all had my name. I misspoke but stand by my opinion that it should not be revealed to the media nor should her identity be outted. As to both names remainingn on record I am not sure abuot that. After a decade I was hit with delayed post rape traum and very recently, in the process of crisis therapy I was encouraged to finally tell my family, who all these years did not know. So I did.

Unfortunately my mother did not believe me. So she had a cousin of mine a us marshall search the record by my name. nothing came up. I assumed this was because it was not listed by my name because I was a witness for the state, but instead was listed by the defendants name. Whichever the case I do not know, and telling my mother just turned out to be a futile exercise in garnering family support. It did more harm than good, which is neither here nor there.

[Wonder]

74. My sanctimonious soapbox indeed

like I suggested perhaps we should really take a step backwards and take rape off the books altogether for all the ignorant myths I have had to swallow patiently that are regularly put forth in these Kobe threads, but thanks for your worldly advise!

[dsc]

80. I will start a thread apologizing now

if you can point to any quote of mine which can at all be construed as saying "lets have no rape laws" or even critising this woman in the Kobe case at all. Stop lying about my posts.

[Wonder]

81. oh god... I wasn't refering to your posts directly

you were the one who jumped in...behind my post to post #26... you implied I did not know what I was talking about. I explained myself in post #72 and #74. In post 74 I state

"like I suggested perhaps we should really take a step backwards and take rape off the books altogether for all the ignorant myths I have had to swallow patiently that are regularly put forth in these Kobe threads, but thanks for your worldly advise!"

You see I state LIKE I SUGGESTED. I DID NOT STATE LIKE YOU SUGGESTED...COOL YOUR JETS.

If you notice I made the sarcastic suggestion below in response to the original post. In know way was I suggesting you had stated that you thought Rape should be taken off the books... My comment meant to suggest that revealing the name to the media and in turn the media revealing the name to the public... as well as Leykeis performance in revealing her identity was a step backwards.

This was not in reference to your post but in reference to those numerous posts from several other Kobe threads wherein the ignorance abounded and it seemed the posters just took the opportunity to trash all women while they argued how rape was deserved or was a consequence of wicked medusa or cleopatra type opportunitist which they then implied was behavior most women were guilty of. Standard fare on some of the Kobe threads. It was in no way a reference to you. You seemed to be coming from an actual legal standpoint... I responded to you admitting that I had misspoken, explaining what I meant, and why I was a bit angry last night.

I should have let it go without my comment regarding the sanctimonius soapbox, but sorry speaking out about rape from a legal and psychological standpoint as a survivor is in no way sanctimonious. Like Gay bashing or any other hate crime... Rape is not a sactimonious. It deserve a real discussion... not the bullshit that has been passing itself off as discussion I observed repeatedly before I finally had had it.

you misunderstood AGAIN, however it does not go over my head the lengths some will go to imply even rape survivors will go out of their way to lie as you just have by mistaking my comments as meaning that I was lying about your post. I did not contest your post. I just offered my own experience have been dragged through the judicial system twice. You are either catty or cruel. whichever it is I really do not care.

Just spare me your apologies. I really do not require one. It is very clear you misunderstand... There was nothing rude about my post to you and I accused you of nothing, nor did I lie about anything you said, or my own experience.... But thanks for the suggestion... it is always a great service to help perpetuate the myth that rape victims lie even rape survivors... wow ain't that a fact!

[Lars39]

27. No, never.

What the rape victim decides to do is up to her/him, but this callous attitude of outing victims is cruel. The rape victim is going to have a truckload of problems dealing with a non-publicized rape, why should she/he be put through more hell to satisfy some jackass' publicity spree?

[DemLikr]

29. Your question, in calling them "victims," presumes guilt, not innocence,

of the accused.

How about waiting until the jury comes back with a verdict? what a concept.

[Nobody]

33. When a crime is committed, it doesn't mean they know who did it

When a woman comes to the emergency room with broken bones, bruised genitals, black eyes, and semen on and inside her, it's pretty obvious a rape has taken place and that she is a rape victim.

If you come home to a broken window in the living room and your TV gone, it's safe to assume that you've been robbed.

If you see someone with a black eye, you can conclude that they've been hit.

The presumption of guilt or innocence has nothing to do with any of this. A crime has clearly been committed. The presumption of innocence comes in when the police detectives zero in on a suspect.

Calling a rape victim a rape victim is all we're doing here. We're not calling an alleged suspect a rapist by withholding a name for privacy reasons.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. You are ignoring

the fact that in the case of rape accusations, a crime was committed only if there was not consent. Of course there ARE cases of violent rape where there is no question of consent.

[Nobody]

41. There are plenty of other crimes that are ambiguous, too

Murders set up to look like suicide or accidents.

Thefts where the thief claims you gave it to him/her.

Muggings where the victim hands over the wallet instead of running away or fighting back. By the way, this is what people are commonly told to do in the case of a mugging. Are they any less mugged?

And even in the case of a situation where the victim has a loaded gun pressed against her head and submits because she'll get her head blown off if she doesn't may not leave any visible marks. Is she any less a victim?

When someone reports any other crime, people believe them. Why don't people believe a woman who reports a rape?

No wonder rape victims need privacy. No one makes value judgements on someone who had their house burn down by an arsonist despite all the insurance frauds. But yet rape victims not only have to deal with the aftermath of the rape itself, they also have to face judgemental people assuming that because they weren't certified virgins, they must have asked for it somehow.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

44. In every example you cited

In every example you cited, both the accused's name and the accuser's name is public knowledge, unlike rape.

"When someone reports any other crime, people believe them."

That is absolutely not true. When a crime is reported to the police, they do not ASSUME that the person reporting it is telling the truth (it might not even be a case of lying, witnesses and victims are often mistaken in identifying the perps). They investigate the charges and then act based on the results of their investigation.

You mention thefts - if someone reports a burglary, the police do not automatically assume a burglary was committed. They also have to investigate the possibility of a false report (i.e. insurance fraud.)

[DemLikr]

49. OK, so how about when there are NO signs of a struggle, and it's her word

against his?

Is she still presumed to be a victim?

[Wonder]

70. I suppose in that case we should presume she is not right

men have absolutely no capacity to force sex without causing bodily damage. what about in instances when a nice up standing college boy slips rephinol into his dates drink. This drug among others renders her incapable of moving.

what about instances two are on a date and perhaps kissing and petting but the girl makes it clear she does not go all the way but without much sweat the boy overpowers her.

have you given much thought to rape. Or do you presume all rapists fall into the category of serial psychopathics.

To say that the tenure of most of the discussions in these Kobe threads are mundane, if thought out at all, is an understatement.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

71. no we should allow the police to develop evidence and let the jury decide

no we should allow the police to develop evidence and let the jury decide the case based on that evidence

[Wonder]

73. You are preaching to the chior

because I counter bogus arguements which attempt to slur all victims of rape not only the alleged victim, in no way shape or form, suggests that I am trying to argue on behalf of Kobe's guilt I have defended his persumed innocence and have also stated more than once that this is the business for the judge the persecution, the defense and the jury.

You would rather argue that alleged victims do lie (which in no way has anything to do with this alleged victim), that is your business. Did you lie or did you not report the incident at all?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

76. all I said was that in rare cases, false accusations are made

all I said was that in rare cases, false accusations are made. That's all I said, and it's all I meant. I am not arguing that 'alleged victims lie'. In my case, well it was a long time ago. 25 years. I was only 17. I told a cop on the street what happened and he gave me a dime to call home with. So did I report it? Yes but I guess I didn't push hard enough. Maybe if it was today I would do things differently. I don't know.

[Wonder]

78. False accusations are weeded out at ground zero

when I first reported the rape which I was talked into doing I did not want to at first, I was told from the first report that was taken and at every step that the report might not even go to the DA. When finally I was interrogated by the DA it was made clear to me that Rape has a very low conviction rate and as such the DA only persecutes on those cases they believe they can win beyond a reasonable doubt. That was this DA's rule. Every case reported does not get heard is my point. Even some that the DA feels are not false reports, but simply those cases that the DA does not feel they can win. They just will not take it. Mine was a date rape, but the rapist was profiled as a power rapist early in his career. one who the DA seems to think would eventually kill if not stopped early enough.

The fact that there are false accusations does not mean those reports that are false will reach the DA at all. Based on what my DA told me I would assume that most of the false accusations are weeded out at ground zero. Even under rigorous measures certainly a false accusation can get past the sex crimes detective and even the DA, but it is not like this happens with regularity. What happens with regularity is that rapists are acquitted, particularly the date rapist.

So many people here are just talking off the top of their head.

That said, could she have falsely accused? It is possible, and too it has happened that DA's have exercised poor judgement. However, we do not know this to be a fact here as none of us know all of the facts. None of us were a fly on the wall in that hotel room. None of us saw what happened. Many of us are being led to bogus speculation based on hearsay and past dirt on the alleged victim that may or may not be considered relevant at trial and may very well be barred from trial altogether.

This means that the jury would not ever hear of it, but for the fact that the media exercises not an iota of respect for the alleged victim and has already prejudiced the jury pool, with facts that may have no bearing on this case.

[Wonder]

77. the point is I advocate for victim rights

and against RAPE. I am arguing for victim rights in general, none of my arguments in any of these kobe's have been forumlated to suggest that I believe Kobe is guilty. How could I possibly know this. I was not in that room that night. I have heard all sorts of bogus speculation as to why Kobe is innocent so I merely counter the bogus nature of the arguments themselves.

If you have the time here is where I am coming from. I took the time to articulate from where comes my argument as eloquently as I could as I had reached my level of intolerance for all the ignorant insult that I had been subjected to in just participating on this subject, wherein I remained patient and did manage to keep my cool. Tonight I had a lapse in my patience, and rudeness won out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=79544#82860

If you do not have the time no sweat. When it comes to rape so few generally do. That doesn't mean I must put up with the ignorance and not take this opportunity to speak out.

[southern_demo]

30. Consent Reputation for Telling Truth

Defendants should have a right to publication of a victim's name if there is a reasonable chance such will lead to discovery of relevant evidence.

For example, if the defense is consent, then evidence as to the victim's reputation for telling the truth is admissible. In that instance, the defendant ought to be allowed to publish the name and picture of the victim, asking for witnesses who know about the defendant's reputation for telling the truth.

[Lars39]

37. Sorry, no, this could lead to a rich defendent buying testimony.

Not to mention all the people that would/could tell stories about you just for the hell of it.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

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

[maxanne]

32. NO

Why is it that we act as if rape is an equal opportunity crime?
It's a violent crime perpetuated against women - who have a great deal to fear from attackers and friends of attackers. This occurs in a world where women are not regarded as equal - a world where violence against women is rampant.

By all means, let's make it worse for women. Let's ratchet up the fear factor a little more. Let's make it even less likely that rapes will be reported.

[newyawker99]

45. I also say NO.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

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

[Wonder]

53. yes ALL WOMEN MAKE FALSE CHARGES OF RAPE that is why

many of the women you are talking to in these kobe threads passing themself off as thoughtful debate ARE RAPE SURVIVES. Insisting, in your ignorance, that women make false charges is inappropriate in this instance because these charges have been taken up by the DA himself. He has made the charge.'

WOMEN HAVE ONLY OTHER WOMAN TO BLAME. WHAT AN IGNORANT COMMENT.

The main problem with rape is the rapist not women or those that falsely accuse, and the second problem with rape is the society at large from within come people like yourself who only perpetate bogus myths which in essence only serves to enable rape itself, by ignorant justification wherein mythology is passed off as fact.

The constant charge that women make false charges in the case of felony rape, insults all the rape survivors that you happen to be talking to in these threads. All you are telling us is that ALL OF US are liars. All we are telling you is that is an ignorant statement hardly supported by fact, just some obsessive fantasy in your own mind.

Pat yourself on the back southern demo, you should be very proud of yourself.

[Wonder]

54. ....

!

[ChemEng]

79. Thank you, Wonder,

I couldn't have said it any better!

[Wonder]

82. Well Gee Thank you Feminist Man

Seems I was a bit pissed last night and I angered some... for my bad chose of words... but I just came on DU recently without realizing that the Kobe story had hit... my very first post I spoke out as a rape survivor... my very first post... I had a female poster who's name will remain nameless respond that I was bullshitting... because she disagreed with what I said I guess... it was a bumpy ride from then on... amidst all the other crap we were subjected to.

It was clear to me that many of the women posting here were rape survivors. I read one testamonial after another... And these women were being treated like shit. Who was hysterical, who was a male basher, who hated men... unbelievable...

Man if anyone can offer a real life perspective on rape... it has got to be a rape survivor... wouldn't you say? Especially one that had been through the system... whether she got a conviction or not... one would assume she is an authority on the subject in her own right... wouldn't one? Especially those that had worked there way through delayed post trauma and the whole nine years... what an utter disregard and lack of respect I had the privilege of observing... like speaking out about rape is such a peachy keen thing to do...

I could not believe some of the cruelty they received... called liars... from posters some of which are operating on myths that are older than my mother... others having no sense of the judicial process in regard to the process we go through from initial report... to our interview with sex crimes... to if we get there... another one or two interviews with the DA... and if he DA decides to take the case... there is a pre trial with no jury... before an actual trial... and before you get to trial it might be a year passes wherein every friggin month you get a call from the system telling you your case is going to trial this month... but then it gets continued... blah blah blah blah blah...

All it seemed to be about was poor Kobe Bryant... I was a bit miffed last night I got two posts deleted ... and once again I am accused of lying about something... people don't get it... for the most part they don't get ... everyone seems to be an expert but the victim (not the alleged victim in this Kobe Trial) but the rape victims and survivors these guys are talking to on these threads... god forbid the victim should have a perspective here...

well blow me down... you know the real deal is rape is not about one lousy night of bad sex Feminist Man... that is what people think...it stays suppressed within you till something knocks it up to the surface... I didn't even feel any rage till 10 years later which actually was last summer... rage and grieve not little stuff big so that you can't function... why? it is incomprehensible the victim can not even comprehend the damage done... yet

look in these threads... look at all the experts in these threads... telling the rape survivor how it is...

[ChemEng]

83. I don't know what to say, except thanks for speaking out...

I'm a man, so I can't imagine what it must be like. But, by God, I can raise awareness about the crime, and the emotional trauma rape victims must go through. The last thing we need is to have victim's names splashed across the media. If my sister, mother, or wife were ever treated that way, I might just go ballistic.

Peace to you, Wonder.

Robert

[Wonder]

85. Well thank you for giving me the space to do just that!

your candor is appreciated.

[BiggJawn]

51. No, and frankly, neither should the suspect's name.

After they get a conviction, fine, trot out the 78-point banner headlines and hang his nuts on a string.
But in our "Trial by Press" culture, you get your name in the paper as an "alleged" rapist, hang it up, you're toast, the villagers are screaming for your head on a pole and you get told you have to register as a "sex offender" before they even empanel your jury!

And oh, what a Jury! They've seen your face splattered across the front of their glass tits 5 times a day for the past 6 month! SURE, they can be impartial....

As for the victim, there's more money to be made making the talk-show circuit if you go public, but that should be your choice.

The Air "Personality" in question here should be sued until nothing comes out but blue air...

[Wonder]

55. I KNOW LETS TAKE RAPE OFF THE BOOKS ALTOGETHER

Than I don't have to be subjected to some of these utterly ignorant rationales and arguments.

GET A FUCKING CLUE PEOPLE!

[Wonder]

75. And why not summarize ALL reasons WHY the alleged victim IS guilty

All the various speculations put forth in the Kobe threads to date by all the objective posters who seem to be CONVINCED Kobe is innocent. Most arguements based not on fact, or any knowledge of the judicial process, but on the hearsay and dark secrets the media felt it their duty to print, in a possible attempt to prejudice he jury. Let's see

she is just insane or

she hates men or

she's a racist and the KKK paid her to do it or

she figured if it all goes as planned and she can get him convicted she can than sue him for everything he is worth or

she figured if it all goes as planned and she can get him convicted people will feel sorry for her even the casting direct of American Idol might call her back and she will win because all will feel sorry for her misfortune, which will send her well on her way to fame and fortune, which she thought accusing Kobe of rape might be just the thing to achieve her life time aspirations, or

she thought herself the god of women and believed she could steal him away from his wife because she loves him dearly and was just a touch pissed when after the sex he made it clear to her he was not going to leave his wife, and this was a one night stand of all things, and not only that; she realizes that cliche wasn't just a cliche because now that she's gone black she can never go back, and now she has the most acute case of jungle fever, which upon realizing that she became livid or

she really is certifiable and she misunderstood everything because of incompetence or confusions and this in her mind is her cry for help, or

she has a habit of crying rape because of some deep ingrained guilt she has about sex, or

she is a masochist nymphomanic who is actually playing out a rape fantasy, or

she just felt so guilty after having had sex it makes her feel better to cry rape so her guilt will subside, or

she has made a false accusation like most alleged victims do.

maybe you all have other scenarios we all might like to entertain, if I have left any out. While I have argued in other threads that this is the domain of the Legal experts on this particular case, I am happy to entertain all speculations on either side, as long as I am actually talking to someone that understands the big picture here and is not pulling speculations out of thin air, or just feels the need to vomit upon every women he runs across because boo hoo hoo all women are manipulative and wicked liars.

But the identity of all alleged victims, particularly their whereabouts MUST remain confidential, as does her name, especially in the event the alleged victim's address is listed in the directory.

[Fescue4u]

84. Yes, always..

Public trials are an important part of the judicial system.

To start making things private, especially the accuser, is the first step toward secret courts.

How would you feel if you were accused of being a government seditionist, but not allowed to confront your accuser.

[Wonder]

87. A marvelous analogy... protecting the identity of ESPECIALLY an "accuser"

is the first step toward secret courts?

No voting for Bush next year will perhaps be another step toward secret government, shadow investigations, and potentially secret courts.

Protecting the identity from being publicized in the media along with the whereabouts of a witness for the state is general practice as another article clear states here in GD. It is for the protection of the accused who may prove to a victim of a felony assault.

Both deserve presumed innocence both will confront each other at trial and as one poster pointed out the accused is informed of who he has been accused by it is not a secret kept from the defendant.

In this particular case now both the alleged victim and the DA prosecuting this case have received death threats.

[Ilsa]

86. I've been there.

I was upset because the media said "a woman who lives in the 5200 block of Main st." Well, I was the only woman living alone in that block which consisted of about eight houses. Of course they knew it was me. I didn't want this information to be out and discussed among people I didn't want to know about it. I didn't want to be gossiped about. I wanted some degree of my privacy kept to myself, especially after having it violated so badly in the first place. Having to tell the story, over and over, to the police, to the doctor, to therapists, etc.

I wouldn't have bothered going to the police if I thought my name and picture were being plastered around town. Alot of people still assume the worst about rape victims, that they did something to invite their troubles. I've even heard well-educated men say these stupid things, that we're "asking for it". Victims shouldn't have to defend their honor after something so traumatic.