Rape shield laws have always been controversial with defense counsel and some civil libertarians because they shield the identity of the alleged victim but not the alleged attacker. Now, the coalition government in England appears ready to address that controversy by banning the identification of both alleged victims and criminal defendants in rape cases.
While opposed by some advocacy groups, shield laws have long been criticized for failing to recognize that being accused of rape stigmatizes the defendant — not just the alleged victim. There are cases of false accusations and many acquittals in rape prosecutions. Liberal Democrats changed their policy in 2006 to advocate giving defendants in rape cases anonymity. That change followed the case of Warren Blackwell, 36, who was falsely accused of rape — not unlike our own scandal over the Duke Lacrosse rape case, here.
In Blackwell’s case, he spent three years in jail before the rape charge was proven false. That is one year better than Biurny Peguero Gonzalez. England has been focusing on such cases of late, here.
For the full story, click here.=
Thanks, Buckeye!
Here are a couple of cases that clarify(?):
http://supreme.justia.com/us/443/97/case.html
http://supreme.justia.com/us/491/524/case.html
“I’m not sure a 16 year old’s name would be published originally, anyway, but you probably do.”
***********************
Virginia law permits it in the circumstances I described and in the discretion of the Judge:
Va. Code Ann. § 16.1-309.1. Exception as to confidentiality.
(…)
C. Whenever a juvenile 14 years of age or older is charged with a delinquent act that would be a criminal violation of Article 2 (§ 18.2-38 et seq.) of Chapter 4 of Title 18.2, a felony involving a weapon, a felony violation of Article 1 (§ 18.2-247 et seq.) of Chapter 7 of Title 18.2, or an “act of violence” as defined in subsection A of § 19.2-297.1 if committed by an adult, the judge may, where consideration of the public interest requires, make the juvenile’s name and address available to the public.
*19.2-297 would include sexual assault
Quote:
“Court of Appeals Upholds $16 Million Award for Framing Father for Alleged Child Molestation
Eugene Volokh • May 25, 2010 7:33 pm
“The case is White v. McKinley (8th Cir. May 17, 2010), and the damages award was $14 million in compensatory damages, $1 million in punitive damages against the plaintiff’s ex-wife, and $1 million in punitive damages against the police officer who was the ex-wife’s secret lover; the ex-wife and the police officer were found to have conspired to hide the relationship, and to get rid of a possibly exculpatory diary written by one of the children. (Naturally, it’s unlikely that the plaintiff will ultimately receive anywhere near the full amount of the damages awards.)”
http://volokh.com/2010/05/25/court-of-appeals-upholds-16-million-award-for-framing-father-for-alleged-child-molestation/
Mespo
“Think you might want to know about your neighbor’s 16 year old charged with rape who just made bail if your eleven year old daughter was home alone while you were broken down awaiting the Triple A?”
I expect that I would have made more secure arrangements for my daughter whether I knew who the rapist was or not, if I knew from published accounts that a 16 year old rapist from the area had been charged. I’m not sure a 16 year old’s name would be published originally, anyway, but you probably do.
I could play the situation ethics game further, I guess, but your second reason of protection from secret charges and arrests makes more sense to me. It may even trump the need for the innocent accused to be known as such, though the ability to always achieve that ideal seems elusive at best, and therefore an unjust outcome.
The violent offender (I said “repeat” and should have included “violent” – Pardon!) scenario was addressed in my original comment.
All praise accepted, Ms Blouise.
mespo727272,
“… Part of the reason for public charges is to protect the accused from secret charges and arrests. …”
=================================================================
And that is the reason, in spite of all the other excellent points made on this thread, that I must come down on the side you champion. For all of the abuses that the “public’s right to know” might heap on the accused, in the end it is the protection from secret charges and arrests (prosecutorial power) that is most imperative ….
Once again, thank you all for the education.
love ya, mespo
Buckeye:
“There’s plenty of time for the public to know everything after a conviction.”
**************
Think you might want to know about your neighbor’s 16 year old charged with rape who just made bail if your eleven year old daughter was home alone while you were broken down awaiting the Triple A?
Part of the reason for public charges is to protect the accused from secret charges and arrests. The other part is to protect the public from a possible violent offender. It all works fine, if you let it work.
Mespo:
The laws are suposedly put in place to protect the individual. To have lax laws for the president of BP would be to promote one man above others. The individual is not protected if government can make laws favoring one individual over another.
To favor the president of BP with a lax law would be to diminish individual rights, it would not promote them.
It seems to me as if you think society nonpareil, why? Humans are not ants or bees.
“That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislation—not in a free country, not if we are to have “a government of laws and not of men.” An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others.”
While mulling over this thread I remembered something that happened locally.
A long time friend of my Dads had until recently a son. They were a good family and very friendly sorts. a few months back I picked up a local nespaper. The headline was that a local man aged 21 had hung himself while in jail awaiting trial for rape.
The name was familiar, so I asked my Dad, who confirmed that it was his friends son. This young man had a good upbringing and had never been in trouble before. As a child he was well behaved.
Now, he may have been guilty, but now we may never know for sure.
Was it that he could not live with the shame of something he had done?
Or was it that, (as his name had been in the papers the day after his arrest) that he could not live with the prospect of always being linked to a seious sexual offence that he never commited?
“Oh ,I remember him. He’s that bloke who raped a lass and got away with it.”
As other posters have said, plenty of time after the verdict for names in the newspapers.
This is a similar problem regarding ‘he said, she said.’ What should (or could–legally) happen to this man if these are false allegations that could likely–in the interim–ruin Mrs. Haley’s political career.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/24/will-folks-sc-blogger-i-h_n_586990.html
There’s plenty of time for the public to know everything after a conviction. The public’s right to know both rapist and victim’s name prior to a conviction should only come into play if he/she is a repeat offender and therefore a public threat while awaiting trial.
In a perfect world, everyone would learn both names pre-trial and the conviction or false claim information after the trial (or dismissal of charges). Unfortunately, the latter is liable to be missed and the former remains in the public’s mind.
Also, there’s the old problem of “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.” which is part of our imperfect human reactions, no matter what the actual facts are – and are known.