« Rise of the Supercentenarians | Main | Today is... »

October 27, 2004

Shielding names of accusers

Joe Grossberg brings up a good point when discussing publicly bringing up names of alleged rape victims. Victim's rights groups are advocating that her name be anonymous indefinitely. He asks:

Yeah, I feel really, really bad about the shit she's been put through (death threats, a permanently tarnished reputation, etc.) ... but we don't do it for (adult) victims of other traumatic crimes.

If people accusing others of fucked up shit like attempted murder, (non-sexual) assault or hate crimes have to accuse their assailants publicly or not at all.

So why do those that allege rape get this special treatment? Why is their victimhood elevated above others'?

Is rape truly the worst thing you can do to another adult human being? Is it worse than system(at)ic torture, violence, hate crimes, attempted murder? Genocide? Is there no other crime that can destroy or alter lives the way that rape can? Is it because women are usually the victims? And if you respond, please do not start with the "you're a man, you can't possibly understand" line. If you do, I can guarantee that I will never understand. At least try to say something that makes sense, and there's a chance that I might agree.

I guess women are a protected group, like some visible minorities, or Arctic foxes. I don't necessarily disagree, either, depending on what we are talking about, but that's probably best handled in another post.

Another thing: if Kobe hasn't been convicted, then is there a legal victim? I know it's just semantics, but is calling her a victim, specifically his victim, strongly implying that he is guilty? Do we know that yet? I haven't been following the trial, so I know very little. I do know that whenever I hear about these celebrity rape cases I immediately get really suspicious for two reasons. One reason is that there is a HUGE opportunity to extort money from a very rich man, like it or not. When large sums of money are involved, people act very differently than they normally would. Kobe stands to lose lots of it if convicted, so if he is guilty, he'll start slinging bullshit around even more. If innocent, he will try to protect his money, family and career from someone who wants to steal from him by abusing the legal system.

On the other hand, men with lots of money, especially athletes and certain businessmen, forget that the same rules apply to them as they do to everyone else. If they weren't so powerful, they might not act the way they do. They probably get away with all kinds of stuff because people let them. I'm not saying that he decided to rape this girl, but that he may have lost sight of what he was doing because he didn't believe that there were any consequences for him. Of course, this is probably worse.

Posted by JonasParker at October 27, 2004 1:41 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.cheeseorgy.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/506

Comments

Let me try to understand this. You don't see a difference between publishing the name of a murdered woman and a woman that needs to live with the stigma of a crime perpetrated against her for the rest of her life?

Seriously?

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 26, 2004 2:42 PM

But now you're thinking of revamping journalism as we know it.

You mention attempted murder. There are programs to hide you so another attempt might be thwarted. This is the same thing.

An attempt to hide an innocent person.

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 26, 2004 3:34 PM

Would revamping the system be a bad thing? And wouldn't it be fair to have the same courtesy to someone presumed to be innocent?

Posted by: JonasParker at October 26, 2004 3:36 PM

They always mention that the person "allegdly" committed the crime. But journalism is about reporting what happened. Unfortunately, there is more demand than there is news, so shortcuts are taken. The system isn't perfect. But why would you want to make it even less perfect by revealing the names? Or hiding the names of those that may very well be guilty?

Though I do think celebrity "news" should be trashed altogether.

Posted by: Elizabeth at October 26, 2004 3:40 PM

And the accuser may very well be a liar. Especially when only the accused is a celebrity.

I would prefer to reveal no names, but generally if names are revealed, then I think that all should be revealed. The word "allegedly" doesn't really help someone in my opinion. Even if they are found innocent, people think they are lying, and this could reasonably screw them up in terms of work, etc. I know that I worry about being accused of things I didn't do. They way it is now, anyone could say anything, and I would have to not only defend myself in court, but everywhere in my community.

"Hey there's the guy that got away with X!" No, I don't think so.

Posted by: JonasParker at October 26, 2004 3:49 PM