Accusor's and Accused Right to Anonymity

[TheNoNamedOne]

When a person is arrested and named as a suspect in a crime, their identities become available to the public even before a trial and conviction. This can destroy a person's present life regardless of guilt or innocense. In contrast, a victim's right, or that of the accusor is shielded regardless if their accusations are true or not.

Let's use rape as an example:

Mz Doe accuses Mr. Smith of a brutal rape, and police arrest and charge him for that.

The police taking their time to book him down at the station and go through some of the innitial interviewing process allows more than a few hours to pass; Smith gets that 5 O'clock shadow and that tired look, and then with that appearance has his mug shot taken. Well, we know all those don't look very well. He may also be paraded in front of the press with a perp walk, and then his name is released to reporters. Possibly photos of his perp walk and mug shot are also shown in media. His identity is now linked to and associated with his gruffy looking self and the word "rapist."

The accusor on the other hand has her name and identity protected. There have been more than a few cases where for personal reasons such as revenge, a hidden agenda, not careful reflection on the facts, that an innocent person has been wrongly accused of rape and their lives destroyed. But, the accusor, if the DA thinks that they did not accuse with intent to be malicious, do not file charges against them for false charges or perjury. In essence, they are free to get on with their lives. The accused will have a difficult time, though.

Do you think the accusor's name should also be released, or perhaps the accused should be afforded the same privacy of the accused until after a conviction?

[Asshat]

It is not a perfect system. First off, rape is largely an unreported crime. I haven't googled the stats. Forcing the victim to reveal her identity would only make it worse.

A good example of the accused and arrested being falsely charged lays in the recent Duke incidents. The DA was disbared, (sp) and received a day in jail.

The victims are or were suing the entity which arrested them. Therein lays the justice I suppose. One comment which stayed with me, is one of the accused stated that he was an afluent man- and he pondered what the outcome might have been if a less-afluent person had been arrested.

It's hard to answer your question directly, because the police use information in various ways to solve crimes. No doubt the innocent are arrested, convicted and even executed.

Depends on the crime. If you raped me, I definitely would not want to see you again. :) Either that, or marry you.

I can not recall a "sensational" news story about someone being arrested without the accusor also being mentioned.

[socalheart]

Tough call. :confused: If it was myself or a loved one accused of a heinously violent crime, I would want our privacy protected. If it was someone who lived in my neighborhood, I'd want to be warned about their release within feet of my family. In the end, I suppose I'd side with withholding the name of the accused from the public until the trial at least.

[TheNoNamedOne]

I can not recall a "sensational" news story about someone being arrested without the accusor also being mentioned.

Often in the beginning stages of an arrest or trial, the media will not publish the identity of the accusor. And in some places the victim has privacy laws that protect that:

...only two states (http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/24/204052.shtml), Florida and South Carolina, still outright prohibit the publication of rape victims’ names, and the future of those laws is uncertain.

But no exhaustive discussion, democratic or otherwise, of the rape victim name disclosure issue can dismiss the law outright. Today, all 50 states have passed some form of a statutory crime victims’ bill of rights, and 29 have amended their constitutions to include rights for crime victims.

At the federal level, the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990, along with other laws, gave victims of federal crime many of the rights accorded at the state level. Many of these statutory provisions touch and concern the victim’s right to – and, indeed, need for – privacy. ...

There was a state of Georgia code that “makes it a misdemeanor to publish the name or identity of a rape victim.” ...

Research by NewsMax of Colorado law (the venue of the alleged offense and the looming criminal trial) indicates that the name of a rape victim in Colorado, by statute, may be shared only with the defense team, the prosecutor and the victim-witness folks responsible for the well-being of the victim.

Ergo, the media would not be able to obtain the accuser’s personal information from “official and public records.”

My personal opinion on the matter is that lives, regardless of the truth of the accusations or not, are at stake in publishing identities of alleged criminals before they are convicted, so, therefore, out of fairness, either both parties to the crime should have the identities equally open to the public or closed. One or the other. I would prefer the latter.

[DoctorP]

This is a double edged sword. On the one hand, if the accusers name is available, then people would be less likely to come forward.

If you keep the accusers identity a secret, then false accusations are possible in order to foster revenge or other plans. I realize this sounds kinda hollywood, but it is possible!

I personally think the accusers should be identified...it is only fair to the accused.

[DougP]

I think the identity of both should be kept confidential until a verdict is reached. If the procecution has a real case against the accused then it really doesn't matter.

If the defence attorneys and the accused wish to make their identity publicly known then that's their prerogative. They should be allowed the same rights of anominity as the accusor(s).

In the case of a repeat offender ie the accused has already committed rape, murder, child abuse etc. Then by all means let his/her name go to print. There are already laws in place that allow the public to know the where abouts of persons accused of such crimes.

There needs to be laws inplace that protect the falsely accused long after the trial is over like the Duke case for example. Public apologies should be in order along with a public acquittal. The record should be set straight and any public record of the person(s) being accused of said crimes should be wiped out.

If the accused is truely innocent until proven guilty then they should be afforded the same rights as any innocent person. Repeat offenders, I feel, do not fall into the same category. Once you give up your "innocence" so to speak you never really get it back. But it should be determined case by case because not all crimes are committed equal.