Monday, January 30, 2017
QUESTION OF THE WEEK NO. 3
When reporting on allegations of sexual assault
against women, most news organizations will identify the alleged perpetrator
but will not identify the name of the alleged victim. Some argue this policy is unfair to the
accused and allows women to make false accusations without any
accountability. Others argue that
identifying the victim is too privacy-invasive, will discourage women from
coming forward, and will essentially victimize the woman a second time. Do you agree with the policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The problem with demanding accountability is you get situations like last semester, where Mr. Pershing sent an email TO THE ENTIRE STUDENT BODY saying the girl who had claimed to be raped was a liar. Regardless of whether that particular event was true or not, as a friend of mine commented to me, "Do you want to know how to make people stop reporting rape? That's how you make people stop reporting rape."
ReplyDeleteThe flipside, of course, is you can't allow people to run about claiming to have been raped by anyone else just to smear their image with no repercussions.
In the case of an allegation without an investigation, I think the solution is to avoid any names at all pending that investigation. Once evidence is collected and a trial finds in one direction or another it becomes a matter of public record. Before that, it's just gawking and rubber necking.
So yes, there should be accountability, but only after the point where it has been determined beyond reasonable doubt where that accountability lies.
Yes, I think that in this situation the victim should be able to remain anonymous. Rape is such a violent, horrible crime and is traumatizing to the victim. They shouldn't also have to live with the stigma that is unfortunately often given to victims of rape. I do think that the name of an alleged perpetrator shouldn't be revealed until it has been decided in court that they are guilty and should thus be held accountable. I think that doing this would help protect victims and those being accused of the crime.
ReplyDeleteOh man, what a troubling question. It would be much easier to remove emotion from argument if we were talking about victims of shoplifting or something.
ReplyDeleteAs to the current practice, involving news outlets, I believe the argument of relative societal interest in knowing the names compared to the individuals rights to privacy has manifest itself in the disclosure of alleged perpetrator and not the victim. If we had collectively decided that knowing the names of sexual assault perpetrators wasn't important information to be made public, then there would be no reason for a sex offender registry. There is no supposed danger to society from a victim of such a crime, however, so it makes sense that their names needn't be disclosed.
I don't love the argument about women making false accusations of sexual assault. It's just murky in principle and one I avoid in any debate, so I'm going to leave that part to the rest of you.
I can see the driving logic behind the argument that the victims' names should be disclosed. The names of victims of many other crimes are disclosed without any relative consideration of privacy. However, sexual crimes are inherently of a different nature in relation to the victim. Which raises a separate set of questions: what crimes do we collectively decide are traumatizing enough that the victims privacy must be given special consideration? Is it crimes of a violently sexual nature? Does it extend to murder and physical violence?
There is certainly a benefit to the releasing of names by various news outlets. This allows for a collective check on the reliability of a particular media outlet. If all names were abolished from news stories, it would simply be harder for society to hold the media accountable.
I agree with this policy because I think that sexual assault is such a sensitive issue that without the ability to remain anonymous, many more crimes would go unreported. There will be people the abuse this policy to try and make false allegations but there are certainly enough people who don't and rely on it to protect them. The way I see it is that if someone is falsely accusing someone of rape, an investigation will be launched and hopefully true evidence will prove the allegation false. Although if someone is too scared to report a rape because they fear further harm to them or their loved ones then that criminal is free to abuse others in the same way. In other words, I think the benefits outweigh the costs in sexual assault situations.
ReplyDeleteThere may be some people who abuse this anonymity, but for all those who are telling the truth and have really gone through a traumatic event like this, anonymity should be given. In many instances, revealing the name of the victim could have dramatic repercussions, including retaliation. In all cases, a serious, non-biased investigation should of course be launched to determine the validity of the claim.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a hard situation for everyone. Of course the person who was assaulted or raped does not want their identity known as it can be embarrassing or can invite ridicule from others. On the other hand, the public has a right to know if a sexual assault has happened in a place that is relevant to them. For example, the instance on campus last semester. We, as a student body, have a right to know what is happening on campus but, regardless of if it really happened or not, no one ended up being convicted and we are left to believe that the perpetrator either got away or the victim was not truthful. I think it may be best to keep both identities private until the perpetrator is convicted. By releasing information prematurely, rumors spread and it can be hard to get the true story.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with this policy. If this policy was not used and both names were disclosed less women would report such crimes. This is a great concern because it is hard enough for a sexual assault victim to come forward and announcing their names would make it even more difficult. If the policy is to change it should be to keep both parties anonymous at least until the defendant is proven to be guilty.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with the policy. This is a difficult situation because I don't believe it's fair for a person to be accused for a crime they are innocent of; however, false reporting does not occur on a large scale to my understanding - due to news coverage and potential repercussions for an individual, I would imagine that false reporting does not occur very often. When it does occur, I am sure that there is ample news coverage about the false-reporting where that individual is then identified.
ReplyDeleteI wish I could offer a better reply that would do justice to both individuals, but it seems that the current policy is the best one at this moment. Perpetrators of sexual assault do not deserve their right to privacy because they are a threat to society; their names and faces need to be known. Unfortunately, some will take advantage of this policy, but it seems that that is one cost we must be willing to accept.
Yes.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don’t think that the names of either person should be made available until the case has been settled. Media outlets should let the court decide the validity of the accusation before publishing anything about it. There shouldn’t be the Salem Witch Trial attitude towards sexual assault that there is today, and if the only cases that made it to media attention were real cases, then I don’t think the problem would exist like it does today. In the end, the court will decide the validity of the claim anyways, and I don’t see that media attention before that decision helps the court or the public.
No, I do not agree with this policy. I feel that there is an overriding need for the privacy of victims of sexual assault to be protected from harassment/further assault. From what I understand, the cases of women coming forward with false allegations of sexual assault are not prevalent enough to justify having their identity revealed for the sake of fairness to the accused. It is not equivalent to treat a potential victim's privacy the same as that of a potential abuser, as from what I understand there is a bigger problem with victims afraid of reporting assault than there is with people being falsely accused.
ReplyDeleteI'm being very careful with my words here because I realize this isn't a clear-cut issue and that people on both sides of this situation have suffered from having their identity revealed, and that therefore any broad-stroke answers or potential solutions risk oversimplifying a very serious issue. Suffice it to say that this is an issue that seems like it would benefit from a simple answer when there isn't any.
No. Until sufficient evidence is collected for a case, no names should be published. Doing so only leads to damaged reputations and unnecessary harassment.
ReplyDeleteNo. I don't think either parties should be identified, especially when the case is still open. James Comey, director of the FBI, avoided naming the shooter in the Orlando shooting this past summer because "Part of what motivates sick people to do this kind of thing is some twisted notion of fame or glory, and I don't want to be part of that for the sake of the victims and their families." Comey argued that the media should focus on the heroes and the victims of that night, not giving the shooter any attention he may have been trying to get. While of course rapists are probably not committing rape just to get their names on the news, I feel like the principle can apply here, too. If the media shares Comey's sentiment, it can send the message to the perpetrator, "we will not tolerate what you've done. You don't even deserve to be acknowledged as a person."
ReplyDeleteP.S. I couldn't get the hyperlink to work, so here's the article I'm quoting: http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/13/media/orlando-shooting-omar-mateen-no-notoriety/
Yes, I absolutely agree with this policy. Many offenders may commit another assault, and releasing their name may keep other potential victims safe. However, if victims' names were also released, it would likely traumatize them further. Many victims do not want news of their attack immediately made known to all of their acquaintances. Not only could it harm those that do come forward, but it would also make other survivors more reluctant to share their own stories. Furthermore, a very low percentage of reported rapes are false accusations. Only an estimated 2-8% of all reported rapes do not turn out to be true. (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf) And, for each of those incidents that are reported, many others are not. We need to protect survivors of any assault as much as possible, while also bringing their attackers to justice.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that either the perpetrator or victim should be identified until the case is complete. Since the perpetrator is "innocent until proven guilty" their identity shouldn't be revealed unless they are convicted and listed as a sex offender. The victim should also maintain the right to remain unknown, to not discourage them from pressing charges when sexual assault has actually occurred.
ReplyDeleteI think that we shouldn't publish unverified names of either the perpetrator or the victim. Unless the perpetrator is missing or is still a possible threat there is no reason to release their name to the public while they are not 100% confirmed. If the perpetrator turned out to be incorrect it could very easily follow the innocent person for the rest of their lives, and for what gain? As for the victim, I also believe if a victim wants to remain anonymous then they absolutely should be allowed to, the only time someone's name should be published is the perpetrator, after he has gone to trial, not while he is still just a suspect.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the victim's name should be excluded. If the perpetrator is not yet confirmed, I either think that their name should be excluded as well, or the fact that they are the alleged and not yet confirmed perpetrator should be mentioned in correlation with their name and or image. I believe that the policy should protect the victim and assume the victim is correct because sexual assault is very serious. It is up for the court to reach a verdict, not the press.
ReplyDeleteYes, I agree with this way of thinking for this current system. We have a system of thought that 'demonizes' the victim of sexual assault. A lot of the time we say that it is their fault for the action when they didn't want it to happen and sometimes took precautions so it wouldn't happen. However, I do think that we need to have a mindset shift. I think that instead of the victim getting blamed for the crime in the public eye and stepping forward to discourage the crime, the perpetrator should get blamed in the public eye. If this mindset shift does happen, I believe that the news reports should include the name of the victim.
ReplyDelete