Rape Shield: Too One Sided?

The victim doesn't have his/her name released, but the accused is plastered all over the news. Is this fair?

Posted By Fragrant_Brit on September 7, 2007

You can subscribe to this Debate if you log in.

About Fragrant_Brit

If I wasn't this good, you couldn't be that bad

Top Enemies: none
Person_60

guilty or no contest

Posted By dakotaviolet on September 26, 2008

Person_60

must agree

Posted By emmmapeel82 on August 15, 2008

08-29-07_1540

How much is your good name worth?

Posted By Fragrant_Brit on September 7, 2007

Call For Backup

Invite others to join and support you in this debate. Or maybe you just want to pick a fight! Either way...

Call for backup now!

Yes, Let them Roast. Use Them as the Example

What Ever Happened to Innocent until Proven Guilty?

08-29-07_1540

Rape is a particularly nasty charge.

-- Posted By Fragrant_Brit on September 7, 2007

Sex offenders spend their entire lives with a stigma and continue to pay for their crimes over and over again, with each knock at the door to the new neighbors house, with each registration. If they are guilty of the crime, yes, they deserve this fate. But if they aren't, even the mention of this in the local or national news could kill your credibility. And since rape is deemed private enough to withhold the name of the victim, the same right should be extended to the accused. .

I agree on the grounds that the accused could indeed be innocent.
Add Comment
Person_60

must agree

-- Posted By emmmapeel82 on August 15, 2008

While I fully understand the pull of self-protection I do strongly believe in innocent until proven guilty. Both names should be withheld.

Person_60

guilty or no contest

-- Posted By dakotaviolet on September 26, 2008

When accused of a sex crime, you have very little chance of being found not guilty at trial. This pretty much only happens when it is a high profile, national newsworthy trial (like those Frangrant_Brit mentions). Otherwise, the accused are bullied into a plea deal and then monitored for life as registered offenders with a scarlet letter on their name and address. Their families, including their children, suffer. There is no need to plaster peoples' names around unless there is evidence that the person represents an actual threat to public safety.

Quote from website http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/laws/06may04_wilson.htm: Circuit Judge Philip Kirk said the list, which now numbers more than 18,000 people, is rendered useless when it includes people like Roloff who engaged in consensual sex with underage parties.

"It's diluted," he said this week. "It has lost the purpose for which it was designed. It should apply to people like the David Spanbauers (who molested and killed children) or priests who abuse children, but it gets applied to consensual sex because it was outside the age requirement."

Supporting Links

08-29-07_1540

How much is your good name worth?

-- Posted By Fragrant_Brit on September 7, 2007

It is not fair that Koby Bryant has his name dragged through the mud when the girl probably just wanted a cash settlement. Those lacrosse players were put through the ringer for something that even the DA is being disbarred over. It is disgusting how far someone will go to make a quick buck while taking the other party for a ride. These men had their lives disrupted and for what? Lies.

I agree that if a name is given to the public, that is should be proven that he is guilty first. Once proven guilty, then there should be no restraint.
Add Comment
Rss RSS