OH SHIT PAGE 2

2/17/2007 7:50:40 PM

Good job!

2/17/2007 7:54:17 PM

Quote :

"You realize that you're 'sacrificing' the rights (for lack of a better term) of an actual person (the accused and those associated with them: famliy, friends, etc) for the rights (again, for lack of a better term) of someone who may or may not actually exist?"

People charged with crimes do not have the "right" to remain anonymous. I'm not sacrificing shit there.

However, the general public does have a right to information. That's why our court records are typically open to the public.

Quote :

"I was asking whether they were ridiculed more than those accused."

I don't own a ridiculometer, but I imagine it varies. At any rate, it doesn't really matter if the accused gets more ridicule than the accuser because, in that scenario, the accuser is still being ridiculed, which is what we are trying to avoid so that no victims are discouraged from coming forward.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 8:14 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 8:13:52 PM

Quote :

"ooh, god, don't drink too much because then it's ok for guys to rape you- it just makes you a drunk slut!!! this mentality makes me fucking sick. and any similar pattern of thought. "

Who said this? the article is just saying that these girls are suggesting they were drugged to a point that they weren't in control of themselves/ or were more vulnerable, when it was actually they who drugged themselves to this point. They're not talking about the actual assault. Just the condition they were in which made it easier for some douche bag to rape them. Ultimately it's just trying to bring attention to the fact that people should be more aware of the susceptible position they put themselves in when drinking heavily. As if to say "drinking that heavily can open up the same vulnerabilities as being drugged".

Quote :

"As far as not printing the names of the accused, there isn't really a compelling reason for it, like there is for not printing the names of the alleged victims."

I agree with you about printing the accusers name, but printing the name of the accused can hurt them whether they're convicted or not. I'd prefer that neither name be printed until the trial was over and then only if the accused were convicted.

Being falsely accused of rape/murder/etc.. can ruin you, especially in your local area. Innocent until proven guilty is nice in the courtroom, but it doesn't extend itself to the workplace (which is most likely going to immediately let you go once you're charged) and your next door neighbors or potential future employers who remember your name. Shit, if the accused wins in court all their record says is "Not Convicted"; it doesn't say "innocent", or the charges removed from the record. Essentially just "well maybe we just couldn't prove it".

Maybe it doesn't hinder justice in any way and there's nothing illegal about it, as you mentioned it is all public record. But I think it's common decency not to drag a perons name through the mud until you're sure about it.

2/17/2007 8:17:06 PM

Quote :

"but printing the name of the accused can hurt them whether they're convicted or not. "

Quote :

"Being falsely accused of rape/murder/etc.. can ruin you, especially in your local area."

Quote :

"But I think it's common decency not to drag a perons name through the mud until you're sure about it."

don't waste your breath.

she will come back with:

Quote :

"I do care about the accused. However, I cannot support hindering investigations and curbing our right to information in order to keep their names private. Ridicule alone is just not a compelling enough reason to protect their identities when you consider what we would be sacrificing for their protection."

SHE HATES MEN.

and she is still not answering one of my posts:

Quote :

"Let's say you were accused of sexual assault on a male or another female, or maybe on a child. But you are innocent. How would you like your name and picture plastered all over the country? Would you like it people removing their kids from your vicinity and looking at you as if you were a sexual predator?"

2/17/2007 8:20:32 PM

^I've been ignoring your posts since you said that I hate men. I do not hate men. There are a lot of issues that I think men get the shaft on.

2/17/2007 8:22:49 PM

I have a friend who was (falsely) accused of rape a few years ago. His name was released in the paper, and it's a small town, so pretty much everyone knew about it pretty quickly. Her name was never released. Two years later and tens of thousands of dollars down the hole to lawyers, the prosecution drops the charges. The same girl pulled the same stunt several years ago back when she was in high school. Her name was never released.



---


As for stupid drunk sluts, I have always felt that the problem of date-rape drugs was overblown. Yes, it happens sometimes, and that's clear rape. But there just seems to be an awful lot of girls who get drunk and fuck and the next day come to the conclusion that it must have been a drug.

2/17/2007 8:23:13 PM

Quote :

"I've been ignoring your posts since you said that I hate men."

I must have struck a chord!

Let's say you were accused of sexual assault on a male or another female, or maybe on a child.

But you are innocent.

How would you like your name and picture plastered all over the country? Would you like it people removing their kids from your vicinity and looking at you as if you were a sexual predator?

2/17/2007 8:25:27 PM

^No, I would not like that. I think that would be awful. I've had nightmares about being set up for murder and having to go to prison.

2/17/2007 8:30:29 PM

But if it happens to others, it is fine?!

2/17/2007 8:32:13 PM

^I didn't say it was fine. Here is my response to God when he mentioned that one the guys' dad had lost his job:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: ^^That totally sucks, dude. But the pathos isn't gonna work here."

And I'll say it to you. I'm fully capable of understanding how much it sucks. But the pathos isn't gonna work here.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 8:36 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 8:36:10 PM

Quote :

"People charged with crimes do not have the "right" to remain anonymous."

hahaha...until that person is convicted, the accuser and the accused have pretty much the same rights (notwithstanding the whole bail/bond thing), and they most certainly have identical rights in terms of right to privacy.

Quote :

"At any rate, it doesn't really matter if the accused gets more ridicule than the accuser because, in that scenario, the accuser is still being ridiculed, which is what we [you] are trying to avoid so that no victims are discouraged from coming forward."

What victims? You're still ruining the lives of legally innocent people in deference to other people who may or may not exist.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 9:01 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 9:00:49 PM

Quote :

"Do you want all the names of all people involved in legal proceedings to be kept private until trials end? "

yes. it wouldn't be that hard or that abnormal, since that's how the system works in the UK

2/17/2007 9:15:47 PM

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: hahaha...until that person is convicted, the accuser and the accused have pretty much the same rights (notwithstanding the whole bail/bond thing), and they most certainly have identical rights in terms of right to privacy."

Correct. Neither has the right to privacy, but the media have chosen to give the accuser privacy. I didn't say otherwise...all I said was that people accused of crimes do not have the right to privacy. Where's the confusion here?

Quote :

"A Tanzarian: What victims? You're still ruining the lives of legally innocent people in deference to other people who may or may not exist."

No, you're not connecting it properly. We keep the accuser's name secret in deference to other people who may or may not do exist. That has nothing to do with the accused. Providing privacy to the accuser does not "ruin the lives of legally innocent people." The two are unrelated.

Quote :

"8=======D: yes. it wouldn't be that hard or that abnormal, since that's how the system works in the UK"

I'd like to know more about this.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 9:25 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 9:24:36 PM

I'm not saying that the legal system is a complete black-out but they do have VERY strict rules regarding what they can say about the charges that are being brought against a person and how they identify that person, due to the danger of tainting the impartialiaty of the jury with media circuses like we have over here

2/17/2007 9:27:31 PM

^Tainted juries are a concern of mine when it comes to the public release of information.

2/17/2007 9:46:34 PM

And none of this strikes you as 'not right' that the media is the sole arbiter of who's name is and is not made publicly available?

Why are rape victims the only one's accorded immunity from media scrutiny?

What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that other victims feel comfortable coming forward?

In this modern age of feminism, womyn's empowerment, etc. etc., why are women unable to stand up and say that they are the victim of a crime?

--

Quote :

"^Tainted juries in favor of the accused are a concern of mine when it comes to the public release of information."

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 9:52 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 9:50:12 PM

Quote :

"And none of this strikes you as 'not right' that the media is the sole arbiter of who's name is and is not made publicly available?"

That's the beauty of the internet. If you wanna track down a name and post it on your blog, you're more than welcome to. Screw the MEDIA; you are the media.

Quote :

"Why are rape victims the only one's accorded immunity from media scrutiny?"

People who accuse others of burglary or assault typically aren't ridiculed and ostracized by their communities. And if they are, that's not likely to have an effect on whether or not the next guy that gets mugged or robbed reports it.

Quote :

"What are you willing to sacrifice to ensure that other victims feel comfortable coming forward?"

I'm not sacrificing anything for their identities to remain private.

Quote :

"In this modern age of feminism, womyn's empowerment, etc. etc., why are women unable to stand up and say that they are the victim of a crime?"

I can't answer that since I've not studied this dynamic at all. I imagine there are plenty of women who'd be fine with their name in print but still others who would not.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 9:58:25 PM

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting that there hasn't be a pattern of accusers being ridiculed, ostracized, blamed, etc...?"

I'm going to suggest this now.

Examples please.

Quote :

"I'm not sacrificing anything for their identities to remain private."

You say you're concerned about jury tainting. How does releasing volumes of information about the accused and very little--next to none--about the accuser affect jury pool tainting?

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 10:06 PM. Reason : ]

2/17/2007 10:03:29 PM

^AHAHAHA

I'm going searching for statistics, but if I don't find them easily, you'll have to settle for examples. I'll just try to keep enough of the examples coming for you to be satisfied.

Quote :

"You say you're concerned about jury tainting. How does releasing volumes of information about the accused and very little--next to none--about the accuser affect jury pool tainting?"

I've always imagined it tainted the jury quite a bit--one way or the other. But they practically advertise tons of crimes, and supposedly they keep coming up with impartial juries that both sides agree upon.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 10:11 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 10:08:31 PM

ive been called as a witness in two different trials. a wife-beater, and a sexual offense. after seeing 2 pretty graphic instances of both physical and sexual abuse, i have a hard time feeling sorry for the women who use the cops as a tool for revenge/making excuses.

there are women out there getting raped in parking decks when its barely dark outside, and i hate to see so much money go toward prosecuting someone who had consensual sex with a girl while they were both drunk. maybe you wont see it my way until you're walking to your car one day and see someone running away from a girl who just got raped. like a sober girl who really did get raped. fucked up shit.

2/17/2007 10:45:39 PM

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

2/17/2007 11:11:10 PM

^^I totally understand you. I don't like to touch the issue of drunken sex, but I can say with absolutely certainty that having sex with someone who is barely conscious or completely passed out is rape. I know that you're not saying otherwise. I'm just rementioning the "passed out" condition because this thread seems to revolve around the assumption that both parties are drunk, conscious, and totally into it.

^I am fat. And I do not hate men. There are issues that I think men get the shaft on all the time.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 11:16 PM. Reason : sss]

2/17/2007 11:13:54 PM

yep, next time you girls are feeling sorry for yourselves, i can tell you a story about a girl that i had to help out who really got raped. and it was fucked up. so fucked up, in fact, that i get yelled at a lot more these days for sticking my nose into these type conversations and giving my 2 cents

getting drunk and making a decision you (or your friends) may not like is nothing like getting fucked until youre bloody in the back of your car in a parking deck with a knife to your chest. at least not in my opinion

2/17/2007 11:18:17 PM

Quote :

"^Tainted juries are a concern of mine when it comes to the public release of information."

Quote :

""You say you're concerned about jury tainting. How does releasing volumes of information about the accused and very little--next to none--about the accuser affect jury pool tainting?""

Quote :

"I've always imagined it tainted the jury quite a bit--one way or the other."

Concerned, but not that concerned?

2/17/2007 11:20:15 PM

I've always imagined it tainted the jury quite a bit--one way or the other...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: But they practically advertise tons of crimes, and supposedly they keep coming up with impartial juries that both sides agree upon."

2/17/2007 11:27:57 PM

bridget, what are you SO INTENT on the name of someone accused of rape being plastered all over the place?

would it harm you if it was kept under the wraps until and if the person was found guilty?

why does it bother you?

why would it bother anybody?

it is a win-win situation; keep both names out of the public.

2/17/2007 11:31:01 PM

^
1) Freedom of information; freedom of the press
2) Help with investigations

(By the way, guys, I'm tryna get drunk right now. So if I don't respond to you, you haven't PWNT me...my fat ass is probably just passed out in my chair...)

2/17/2007 11:33:20 PM

actually it can really hurt investigations

2/17/2007 11:34:00 PM

Yes, and it can also help.

2/17/2007 11:34:58 PM

Quote :

"Freedom of information; freedom of the press"

sure, when it comes to releasing the guy's name (and maligning it if he is innocent), freedom of the press is really important to you! but not for releasing the alleged vicitim's name! oh, because that would prevent women who have been raped from coming forward!

that's a double standard.

Quote :

"Help with investigations"

so can't releasing the alleged victim's name also help with investigation?

a double standard again?

2/17/2007 11:40:02 PM

Quote :

"Being falsely accused of rape/murder/etc.. can ruin you, especially in your local area. Innocent until proven guilty is nice in the courtroom, but it doesn't extend itself to the workplace (which is most likely going to immediately let you go once you're charged) and your next door neighbors or potential future employers who remember your name. Shit, if the accused wins in court all their record says is "Not Convicted"; it doesn't say "innocent", or the charges removed from the record. Essentially just "well maybe we just couldn't prove it"."

People view rape and child molestation as the two worst things you could do. They're not the same as most other crimes. Releasing their names as you insist, Bridget, does a lot of harm.

Quote :

"People who accuse others of burglary or assault typically aren't ridiculed and ostracized by their communities. And if they are, that's not likely to have an effect on whether or not the next guy that gets mugged or robbed reports it."

Exactly. And people accused of burglary or assault aren't normally ridiculed and ostracized if the evidence is in their favor. The Duke players will always be labeled rapists even though it is painfully obvious they weren't guilty.

Quote :

"so can't releasing the alleged victim's name also help with investigation? a double standard again?"

Thank you. Often those who falsely cry rape have done it before.

If you want to keep one unreleased, keep them both unreleased.

[Edited on February 17, 2007 at 11:43 PM. Reason : I'm slow.]

2/17/2007 11:40:47 PM

Quote :

"OEPII1: so can't releasing the alleged victim's name also help with investigation?"

Sure, but you said it yourself already...

Quote :

"OEPII1: that would prevent discourage women who have been raped from coming forward!"

(I made a little change for you.)

Quote :

"SCSTL: People view rape and child molestation as the two worst things you could do. They're not the same as most other crimes. Releasing their names as you insist, Bridget, does a lot of harm."

I've already responded to your point...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: However, I cannot support hindering investigations and curbing our right to information in order to keep their names private. Ridicule alone is just not a compelling enough reason to protect their identities when you consider what we would be sacrificing for their protection."

Quote :

"SCSTL: Exactly. And people accused of burglary or assault aren't normally ridiculed and ostracized if the evidence is in their favor. The Duke players will always be labeled rapists even though it is painfully obvious they weren't guilty."

Do not use the issue at Duke. It involved a dirty DA. We're not talking about dirty DAs here.

Quote :

"SCSTL: Thank you. Often those who falsely cry rape have done it before."

That's correct. And the police would be the best ones to determine if a previous claim even begins to appear false or not.

Quote :

"SCSTL: If you want to keep one unreleased, keep them both unreleased."

That's strange. Weren't you just arguing for the release of the accuser's name in your previous post?

Furthermore, we have a legitimate and compelling reason for not releasing the accuser's name. We have yet to identify a compelling enough reason for not releasing the accused's name.

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 12:05 AM. Reason : sss]

2/18/2007 12:04:00 AM

Quote :

"We have yet to identify a compelling enough reason for not releasing the accused's name."

If the destruction of someone's life, career, relationships, and reputation is not compelling enough for you, this thread is over.

2/18/2007 12:19:33 AM

^This is about the media. And, no, the ruining of one person's life is not a compelling enough reason for them to not print information. And I gotta agree with them. Freedom of information and freedom of the press are more important to me.

Y'all seem to be angry about the idea that the public doesn't know the difference between a charge and a conviction.

2/18/2007 12:29:32 AM

^ exactly the same could be said about you wanting the accused's name not to be published.

Quote :

"^This is about the media. And, no, the ruining of one person's life discouragement of women who have been raped from coming forward is not a compelling enough reason for them to not print information. And I gotta agree with them. Freedom of information and freedom of the press are more important to me. Y'all You seem to be angry about the idea that the public doesn't know the difference between a charge rape victim and a conviction slut."

at the end of the day, you have double standards.

guys (A Tanzarian, SCSTL), thread over.

2/18/2007 12:33:57 AM

Seriously, it's like talking to Sean Hannity.

Quote :

"thread over."

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 12:54 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2007 12:44:27 AM

well the word of god has touched this thread.

2/18/2007 12:50:59 AM

^^^Except one circumstance deals with the "ruining" of one person's life and the other circumstance ruins what we know to be justice...

We pretty much always release the names of people involved in public proceedings--it's what we do. However, we've made this exception for alleged victims of rape because when we release their names, we expose them to ridicule and thus discourage other victims from coming forward. Discouraging other victims from coming forward is bad for justice, public safety, and society. The printing of the accused's name is bad for the accused and his/her acquaintances.

There's a difference, folks.

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 1:00 AM. Reason : Sorry, it's not a double standard...]

2/18/2007 12:57:59 AM

^ How is it justice if a girl falsely accuses a guy, her name never gets known, and his name gets dragged through the mud?

You are telling us that you are okay with someone who is presumed INNOCENT to have their life possibly destroyed because of allegations of rape. And I say possibly because I know that it's not guaranteed, but you and I both know it will happen.

You are telling us that this is okay because "oh, releasing their name to the press might cause other people to come forward."

You are saying this is alright for someone who may not even have committed a crime. You are saying that some random person who may be completely innocent could have their entire life destroyed for what you call "justice."

Tell me how that is justice.

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 1:05 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2007 1:03:01 AM

Quote :

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

2/18/2007 1:06:08 AM

^^If the accused doesn't get convicted, that's justice. If the accuser is charged with making false claims, that's justice.

You will not find justice in the media or the court of public opinion.

And, no, it's not all about helping the investigation. It's also about freedom of information and freedom of the press...if you want to change that, that's a legal/constitutional issue. We have always released the names of people, but we've made an exception here for alleged rape victims because revealing their names can hinder justice. If you can find a compelling reason, comparable to the one I just cited, you may have a reason to not reveal the names of the accused. However, one person losing their job and suffering discrimination isn't comparable. You know this.

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : sss]

2/18/2007 1:06:28 AM

^

Here is the thing that you do not understand:

How many ACCUSERS get fired from their jobs for bringing up rape accusations?

How many ACCUSERS have people moving away from them or neighbors not talking to them because they brought up rape accusations?

How many ACCUSERS are portrayed as monsters for bringing up rape accusations?



Now... try these:

How many ACCUSED RAPISTS get fired from their jobs for being accused of raping a girl?

How many ACCUSED RAPISTS have people moving away from them or neighbors not talking to them because they were brought up on rape charges?

How many ACCUSED RAPISTS are portrayed as monsters for being accused of rape?


And you say that it's "hard" if an accused name is released to the public? Fucking tell me how. Tell me how it is even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as releasing an accused rapists name to the public.



YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION AND JUST SAY "OH WELL."

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 1:13 AM. Reason : ]

2/18/2007 1:12:53 AM

^It's also about freedom of information and freedom of the press...if you want to change that, that's a legal/constitutional issue. We have always released the names of people, but we've made an exception here for alleged rape victims because revealing their names can hinder justice. If you can find a compelling reason, comparable to the one I just cited, you may have a reason to not reveal the names of the accused. However, one person losing their job and suffering discrimination isn't comparable. You know this.

And, by the way, I've already responded to your last post...

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: That totally sucks, dude. But the pathos isn't gonna work here."

2/18/2007 1:15:45 AM

Quote :

"It's also about freedom of information and freedom of the press..."

Yes it's constitutional, but these rights should be handled with the utmost respect and dignity. But it doesn't happen in a society like ours anymore.

2/18/2007 1:17:24 AM

Quote :

"God: And you say that it's "hard" if an accused name is released to the public? Fucking tell me how. Tell me how it is even in the same fucking UNIVERSE as releasing an accused rapists name to the public."

I am planning a response to this. I'm looking into illustrations of how hard it has been for the accusers in the past.

(I'm familiar with a situation where a promiscuous girl who accused a man of rape was sent of to mental institution to "cure" her of her promiscuity.)

2/18/2007 1:20:40 AM

Quote :

"1) Freedom of information; freedom of the press"

So, now you're saying the woman's name should be in the newspapers and on TV too?

Quote :

"(By the way, guys, I'm tryna get drunk right now. So if I don't respond to you, you haven't PWNT me...my fat ass is probably just passed out in my chair...)"

"Claiming their drink has been spiked may be used as an excuse by patients who have become incapacitated after the voluntary consumption of excess alcohol."

2/18/2007 1:22:53 AM

Quote :

"Rockster: So, now you're saying the woman's name should be in the newspapers and on TV too? "

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: We almost always release the names of people involved in legal proceedings. Freedom of information is important to our society. We've made the exception for alleged rape victims in an effort to avoid hindering justice. By the way, there is no law about of-age victims--it's the media's decision whether or not they release the name of an alleged victim, but it is generally considered highly irresponsible to release that information."

[Edited on February 18, 2007 at 1:27 AM. Reason : ^Your second part is total garbage. Not even amusing.]

2/18/2007 1:26:38 AM

Quote :

"I'm looking into illustrations of how hard it has been for the accusers in the past."

we're talking about the situations nowadays, not 50+ years ago.

2/18/2007 1:27:31 AM

^I understand that. The fact is that "nowadays" names of alleged victims are not released (for reasons I've explained over and over again).

So, while I am willing to go on a hunt for examples, it's kinda laughable. The media stopped printing the names because there was an issue with victims being ridiculed. They wouldn't have just stopped printing them "just because."

(Thanks for reminding me to say that, chembob.)

2/18/2007 2:03:10 AM