Rape allegations and privacy

Published on September 2, 2004 By Solitair In Current Events

With the recent allegations of rape against sports stars being dragged through the papers and news shows this summer I wonder if it's time for countries to revisit privacy versus interest of the public laws. The US, Britian and Australia have all seen media circus' occur where the sports stars have later been exonerated.

Is it really in the interest of the public to be told that Y has been accussed rape? Surely that information should never be released unless a trial has occurred and Y is found guilty. Yes the police forces should indeed have access to allegations, but the general public?

Likewise is it really in the interest of the public to know that X has accussed someone of rape? Surely X's right to privacy should be paramount. It must be awful for someone who has gone through such an emotional trauma to then have to fend through the stigma and media circus associated with such allegations. False allegations against famous people for 15 minutes of fame are also much less likely to occur if no media circus exists.

Can anyone honestly tell me why they believe they should know if Y has been accussed of rape, or if X is accussing someone of rape?

Paul.

Comments

Muggaz

on Sep 02, 2004

Whatever sells the papers mate...

You put the name of a big sports star in the headlines and involve the word rape or accusation, it is bound to sell many copies... I dont really know why the general public needs to know about these accusations - when that is all they are.

Sure, if someone famous gets convicted, we are all going to find out - but we dont need to drag someones character through the mud if they are innocent.

Good blog Paul

BAM!!!

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 02, 2004

I'm glad you hit both sides of this. In the US, the privacy of the accuser is usually (although not in cases like this; some shameful violations of the law took place here) protected. I have always believed that the accused deserves equal anonymity unless/until they are PROVEN guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...otherwise, innocent or not, the accusation will always stand as a stain on their record...and let's face it, there ARE people out there who will file false accusations willy nilly just for the publicity.

shadesofgrey

on Sep 02, 2004

In the US, the privacy of the accuser is usually (although not in cases like this; some shameful violations of the law took place here) protected.

It actually depends on the state. There are some, like NC, that require the accusers name to be released as well as the accused.

And for the record--only 2% of reported rapes are false--that is no different than any other falsly reported crime rate. Many, many more rape victims keep quiet and never press charges against their attacker because of the emotional difficulty and public scrutiny that accompanies a trial.

Angloesque

on Sep 02, 2004

Frankly, I wish we could educate the stupid public. At Michael Jackson's court appearances, there have been demonstrators/fans of his who are POSITIVE that he's done nothing wrong. The thing is, they don't really know--no one except the people involved in any alleged incident knows (Scott Peterson, Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, and their accusers...etc.). People should not be making up their minds until a court has convicted one way or another--it's damning to all reputations involved.

I fault the media for saying, "The alleged victim" and going on with their story as if she were an actual victim, which we just don't bloody know. And I fault the viewers, listeners, and readers for making opinions before the case is closed.

Gideon MacLeish

on Sep 02, 2004

And for the record--only 2% of reported rapes are false--that is no different than any other falsly reported crime rate.

What's the percentage of reported rapes against a celebrity that are false? I'm willing to bet the percentage is somewhat if not substantially higher (as is true for the false allegations of the other crimes as well).

Anyway, I would wager that the accuser stands a diminished chance of winning anything other than a small conciliatory out of court settlement, as her willingness to drop the criminal trial will stand out in the minds of potential jurors in a civil case. She made a pretty glaring tactical error here, in my opinion.

Solitair

on Sep 03, 2004

I feel that whether a celebrity or just a normal person, rape cases should never be public until trial is OVER. I believe that this would also encourage victims to come forward, knowing that there will not be public scrutiny, unless the accussed is actually tried and convicted.

paul.

Texas Wahine

on Sep 03, 2004

I agree with this . . . it seems human nature to want the "dirt" on other people and especially celebrities (the media won't report and showcase things we won't watch or read). Just because we, out of celebrity worship or morbid curiousity, want to know doesn't mean that is in the best interest of justice for us to know.

Excellent post.

Angloesque

on Sep 03, 2004

I agree with the sentiment, but where do you draw the line? Who's a celebrity and who isn't? What about public figures?

For example: Let's say Monica Lewinsky charged Bill Clinton with rape, and for the sake of the example let's not assume it was or was not true. Bill Clinton, at the time, is President of the United States. This type of charge reflects on him as (a) a person, (

as president and "leader of the free world," and (c) on the quality of character the people of the U.S. chose to guide their country.

Now, if such charges were brought, you can just *imagine* the rumors that would be floating around, perpetuated by blogs, word of mouth, etc..... and yet the media isn't allowed to say anything? Worse, the story gets out to other countries who freely publish such info, and then it filters back down to the U.S. I see that as making things worse since the media therefore cannot confirm or deny the rumors; ergo, the White House can't say anything because it would be delivered by the media (radio, television, newspaper, etc.). In terms of justice, it seems that *everyone* in that situation gets the shaft.

Now for celebrities: Most of us can admit we know who Kobe Bryant and Michael Jackson are. But did any of us know who Scott Peterson was? We sure do now. The media makes celebrities. According to my Comm Law textbook, which is a bit outdated, a "public figure" is someone who is recognizable by a "substantial portion" of the publication's readership. But all it takes is for a story to hit the wires and spread all over the country and be published by newspapers, etc., where the figure *isn't* a public figure, per se, but is made to be one.

The Scott Peterson case isn't a good example for two reasons: one, there was a nation-wide interest in his missing wife, and two, he did put himself out there by making an appeal for her safe return (and three, it's not a rape case). But compare it to the Drew Sjodin case: We hear nothing about the man arrested for her murder these days, and we've been informed of every iota of the Scott Peterson case whether in trial or not. It always helps propogate the news, it seems, when someone is having an affair.

But what if Joe Schmoe kidnaps and rapes a teenager? Do you want to protect his name? What if he serves on a local board? What if he's been convicted of other crimes? What if he was a star athlete in high school? What if ...? At what point are you going to decide whether or not his name should be public, ESPECIALLY if he's free on bond?

I guess the crux of my argument is this: The media creates public figures and celebrities. It's too gray of an area to make a ruling on whose name can and cannot be published.

Having said that, I wish tabloids and tabloid television would go away. I don't really care about celebrities, anyway. (Britney who?)

-A.

Solitair

on Sep 03, 2004

Angloesque,
you raise some very good points, but I feel they can all be easily answered.

Firstly it is vitally important that people have trust in their law enforcement agencies. If an allegation is made and the public/press are not aware of it, then people MUST have confidence that the police will investigate in full and without and interference from either the accussed or accussee.

Second, anyone convicted of such a crime should then be named and reported on.

Your example of the president is a good case study. In my opinion the office of the president would be right to remain silent. The media would know that the president could never comment on such a case. There may need to be oversight here though, a point I'll come to in a moment.

Celebrities also have a right to privacy in these extreme cases. We're not talking privacy in general here. We're talking in the specific case of allegations of rape having been made. So long as the police investigage fully and charges are brought (if justified), the courts can then decide on the case. If the court rules that rapoe has taken place then indeed I expecgt the mediua to report on it. But before this point I believe in ionnoncent till proven guilty and therefore in a right to privacy on this issue.

Same for Joe Schmoe. If he is convicted of rape then he should be named as a danger to society. But until that point he should be innocent tiull proven guilty and therefore the allegation should be kept private.

You do raise important points about oversight. Is there any case where the risk of reoffense before trial is great enough to warrent letting others know? I would say no. If there is a serious fear of reoffense then electronic tagging by the police could be used. More serious risks with history of previoius allegations or other offenses could require curfews to be kept. In your presidential case, should others be made aware? I say no. The police authorities would be aware and would investigate, until a conviction is obtained no one else should know. Same with Joe Schmoe on the local board. Until a jury rules the accussed as guilty no one else should know.

Paul.

Angloesque

on Sep 03, 2004

Paul.

Excellent. I want to reply to this with some degree of thought, so I'll have to wait until I'm home from bloody hell (known by stronger individuals as "work").

-A,
not-a-person-who-can-blog-from-work-(sadly)

Angloesque

on Sep 03, 2004

Paul,

IFirst: I'm not sure what the question is regarding law enforcement. Could you expand/clarify it a little?

Second: Obviously, I agree that anyone convicted should be identified.

Regarding the rest of your post, are you saying the press should categorically not print any names involving rape charges? I'm thinking about this. I like the idea of it, but I'm afraid it's edging in the territory of defining what is and is not news, and setting a precedent for limiting the freedom of the press.

Remember the two californian girls who were abducted from separate cars? Nationwide Amber Alert/manhunt? Their names, photos, everything was released because they were kidnapped, so the nation's interest was piqued. Then they were found, and there was some heroic part of their story involving trying to bash the guy over the head with a wine bottle. When it turned out they'd been raped in addition to being kidnapped, the press immediately stopped referring to them by name. But the interest in the guy who did it was still there because we'd all heard about it and wanted to make sure the bastard saw justice. If I remember correctly, he was shot by the police and died; therefore he was never found guilty; should he remain unnamed, then? or should we convict him post-mortem (as it appears I have)?

As to the oversight, I'm not sure that it's foolproof enough that a housebound guy couldn't nab a Girl Scout on his doorstep (especially if he knows he's going to be convicted and face a life sentence), or lure the neighbor girl in 'cause his cat's having kittens (especially if the mom doesn't know the guy's been charged with rape, and subsequently warned her children), or whatever. But that's a logical fallacy since I have no evidence to back it up. Good question, though.

This is thought-provoking. I have to put my credibility aside and say I think I agree with the premise: personally I don't see the news value of the Kobe Bryant / Michael Jackson stories and would be just as happy to not know about high-profile rape cases, but news value is subjective and I'm not sure anyone wants to give a shot at defining what is newsworthy (especially tackling the tabloids...ugh). The only good thing rape cases do is give people a little bit extra thought and care, particularly women and mothers, when the proximity or circumstances hit home. It's just that some people make up their minds before the courts do. Again, it comes back to what I'll always say: We need to educate America about waiting to form judgments until the court does it, first.

Thanks.

-A.

Solitair

on Sep 04, 2004

Angloesque,

On the law enforcement issue. Privacy would never work unless people had trust here. One this the media does do if makes peopel aware and subsequently ensures that there is pressure on police forces to act. With no media reporting such pressure may be lessened, which would not be a good thing. I would argue though that with no media reporting the police would actually have more freedom to interview people and investigate, with witnesses free to speak to the police without fear of being revealed. Some good structure for the handling of private allegations would need to be put in place, and auditing of cases carried out to ensure they are handled correctly.

I would say that the press should not only categorically not print names, but they should also not be printing anything on this matter. They should not be reporting that an allegation of rape was made in such and such a town on such and such a date. It's not news until that allegation is turned into a conviction. Again, only in cases of rape allegations (and probably child abuse), as the stigma involved is so immense. It's worth noting that the press already have many limitations on freedom. If someone took high zoom photos of you making love, should the press be allowed publish those? No, of course not.

I am not aware of the case you mention (living in the UK). But in this instant the case was initially a manhunt and as such media involvement was perfectly acceptable. A crime was committed. I believe that once the girls were found and made the allegation of rape the press should not have reported on that aspect of the case, but would have been totally free to report on the ongoing trial for kidnapping and assault. When he was convicted the press would then be totally free to talk about the entire saga. If he was acquitted then he would only need to deal with the sigma of having been accussed kidnapping.

On the oversight issue there is certainly some serious though involved. The police would need to ascertain the risk and if considered too high detain the accussed in custody till the trial. This is better that all his neighbours hearing that he has been accussed of rape and then him having to live there if it turns out to be false. It's also better than the accussee having to return home with all the neighbours and locals knowing that that's the girl who accussed someone of rape. Again people need to have confidence that the police would make the right decisions here and have the power to detain if a risk is too great.

I think that part of the problem with rape is that even if someone is found not guilty there is always the thought that maybe there was just not enough proof, maybe they really did do it. Likewise when someone is found innoncent the accussee has the problem that people may think awful of her. Both need to be protected until such a time that an allegation is turned into a conviction.

Paul.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!