Naming an accused rapist - good or bad?

[Zapato]

This thread deals with the case itself and how the schoold dealt with it, but I noticed something when I cliked on the link:

The accused rapist is identified with name and picture in the article. What's more, he's identified with name and picture despite being only 13 years old. Now, there's no denying that children can be cruel or downright evil, and that - if the allegations are correct - this is a horrible crime.

But is it right to identify a child like that, at this point in time? No matter what happens from this point on, his face and name will be connected to this allegation.

I don't think it's right. I think the media should be more careful and show greater consideration when it concerns a child, and not identify him (or her) before a conviction is handed down. It might be different for adults, in those cases other considerations can come into play with greater weight, but the media should still be cautious.

Agree / disagree? Should accused rapists be named & shamed? Regardless of age?

[Lessnt]

SImply part of the world we live in.

[Benomia]

A name, maybe. But a picture? No.

I firmly believe in freedom of the media, but freedom to not get jumped for something you were acquitted for is nice, too.

[Oceara]

A name, maybe. But a picture? No.

I firmly believe in freedom of the media, but freedom to not get jumped for something you were acquitted for is nice, too.

^ Yes.

[Imota]

I thought minors accused of crimes weren't supposed to be identified at all, except by perhaps age, sex, and school affiliation.

[Kanaria]

Always good to name and shame sex criminals. [sarcasm=] Like the death penalty, it's a good deterrent for committing such crimes. [/sarcasm] But anyone who decides to use that as an excuse to attack them is just as bad.

[Hallistar]

A classmate that I knew had to be reassigned to a school outside my district because he was named by a girl as someone she thought was stalking her and about to rape her. My school didn't publicize him as the person she identified, but rumors spread so damn fast that before he was able to even be tried, that he had to be moved so that he wouldn't get jumped/attacked.

The girl in question isn't someone that you'd think is so attractive that a respected guy would go and rape her, but since he hadn't been deemed either innocent or guilty (atleast not that I know of), I didn't want to go around calling people stupid for believing that he was a potential rapist.

In the future, I think if such a case were to happen again and the person in question is found innocent, they should publicize that on the school or something to quell rumors. If the person is found guilty, then they should transfer them. (Or imprisonment, etc. )

[Monlyth]

I thought minors accused of crimes weren't supposed to be identified at all, except by perhaps age, sex, and school affiliation.

...and I thought giving any more information than that was illegal.

[Fulflood]

If they're a minor, no. If they've yet to be convicted, hmm...first name only maybe? Name but no picture? Nothing at all? I don't know. If they've been convicted, yes. Similar to any other serious crime really.

[Ljvonia]

Of course not, this is slander of the highest order! No names, no pictures, no aliases, nothing should be published until the verdict! Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

But I bet the "everything is rape"-crowd will arrive soon and attempt to "educate" us all otherwise.

[Oooghka]

I'm with Ljvonia. He's accused. Which means that he's still innocent because he hasn't been proven guilty.

Naming him is the same as shaming him. He will be forever marred, even if he didn't do it.

If he's proven guilty though, he can go and fuck himself.

[Akha]

It's perfectly fine, IMHO.
Fear of consequences is the best way to reduce crime rate.
There're two "but"s though.
1) Shall the court find him not guilty (literally not guilty - a grave mistake which made the police arrest him while the true rapist was elsewhere) - the mass media should pay him a huge fine. Really huge. And to addition the chief editor of this magazine should somehow make sure that every single mass media of country publishes refutation. Shall he fail to - jail for slander.
2) Such practice (publishing criminal's name and picture) may force some underhumans to commit crimes just to become a sensation of the day. Can be outweighted by introducing really harsh punishment, such as castration for rapists, chopping off thieves' hands and so on. Maybe even slavery for major crimes.

[Tubbsalot]

"People accused of things: should they be immediately considered guilty and have their lives ruined on account? Probably? Yes?"

Always good to name and shame sex criminals. [sarcasm=] Like the death penalty, it's a good deterrent for committing such crimes. [/sarcasm] But anyone who decides to use that as an excuse to attack them is just as bad.

"These people are filthy scum; we must ostracise them and leave them to live out the rest of their days in a silent prison of disgust, regardless of whether they were guilty. But don't attack them, that would be too harsh!"

Sure thing, Mister - um - Mister... actually, I can't think of anyone or anything that has suggested we do this. Not until now.

[Tubbsalot]

It's perfectly fine, IMHO.
Fear of consequences is the best way to reduce crime rate.
There're two "but"s though.
1) Shall the court find him not guilty (literally not guilty - a grave mistake which made the police arrest him while the true rapist was elsewhere) - the mass media should pay him a huge fine. Really huge. And to addition the chief editor of this magazine should somehow make sure that every single mass media of country publishes refutation. Shall he fail to - jail for slander.

Argh, what sort of insane system is this? Why not just forbid them from reporting the guilt of someone who hasn't been proven guilty? Nobody cares about retractions!

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Names and pictures should only be revealed if/when a guilty verdict is reached.

[Risottia]

This thread deals with the case itself and how the schoold dealt with it, but I noticed something when I cliked on the link:

The accused rapist is identified with name and picture in the article. What's more, he's identified with name and picture despite being only 13 years old.

Enjoy living in one of the three countries in the world who didn't ratify the UN Convention on Child's Rights. The one that isn't South Sudan and Somalia.

[Tsuntion]

With minors whether accused or convicted, I don't think so. With an adult who is accused but not convicted, still no. Though I'm not sure of anything here.

[Nalice]

A classmate that I knew had to be reassigned to a school outside my district because he was named by a girl as someone she thought was stalking her and about to rape her. My school didn't publicize him as the person she identified, but rumors spread so damn fast that before he was able to even be tried, that he had to be moved so that he wouldn't get jumped/attacked.

The girl in question isn't someone that you'd think is so attractive that a respected guy would go and rape her, but since he hadn't been deemed either innocent or guilty (atleast not that I know of), I didn't want to go around calling people stupid for believing that he was a potential rapist.

In the future, I think if such a case were to happen again and the person in question is found innocent, they should publicize that on the school or something to quell rumors. If the person is found guilty, then they should transfer them. (Or imprisonment, etc. )

..are you serious? You're casting doubt on her claims because she's unattractive?

[Risottia]

The girl in question isn't someone that you'd think is so attractive that a respected guy would go and rape her, ...

..are you serious? You're casting doubt on her claims because she's unattractive?

Not only, she wasn't wearing a miniskirt and a post stamp-sized bra, so clearly there was no possible reason to rape her.

[Akha]

Argh, what sort of insane system is this? Why not just forbid them from reporting the guilt of someone who hasn't been proven guilty? Nobody cares about retractions!

It's easy. Because otherwise there comes a corrupt system where you can't write about bribed officials before they're proven guilty and they're never proven guilty because judges are corrupt.

I can give you a very-very recent funny example how things like that run in a damn huge country.

[Romanar]

I don't mind making CONVICTED rapists pictures and name public, but not UNTIL they're convicted.

[Akha]

..are you serious? You're casting doubt on her claims because she's unattractive?

Damn yes, why in the Nine Hells should a sane person stalk an ugly girl?!
Besides, even if he did rape her, shouldn't she be thankful for getting sex she would never get otherwise?

[Ljvonia]

..are you serious? You're casting doubt on her claims because she's unattractive?

Damn yes, why in the Nine Hells should a sane person stalk an ugly girl?!
Besides, even if he did rape her, shouldn't she be thankful for getting sex she would never get otherwise?

Sorry for the picspam, but I do believe it's a valid statement:

[Risottia]

..are you serious? You're casting doubt on her claims because she's unattractive?

Damn yes, why in the Nine Hells should a sane person stalk an ugly girl?!
Besides, even if he did rape her, shouldn't she be thankful for getting sex she would never get otherwise?

You forgot a in your post I hope.
It's not like everyone has got a working sarcasmometre, you know.

[Akha]

Sorry for the picspam, but I do believe it's a valid statement:

Of course it was trolling. But. Check the statistics, it's ugly girls who usually whine about being stalked/rape-attempted. Know why? Because noone wants them and they bring in imaginery rapists. So, when an ugly girl complains about stalkers... Think twice whether it's truth (if yes than who would stalk an ugly?) or just an attempt to attract attention.