why is it legal..............

7960 · 09-25-2006, 02:07 PM

........ to put the face of an accused rapist on TV and broadcast his name before he's found guilty, but the woman remains anonymous?

Why isn't is "a man was accused of raping a woman, blah blah blah" until *after* he's found guilty?

(and no you fucks, this isn't about me or anyone I know...just curious)

Publius · 09-25-2006, 02:09 PM

I agree, it's a double standard and a definite blow against the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea.

Phantom · 09-25-2006, 02:09 PM

freedom of press is staunchly protected. Prior restraints are almost never allowed.

Publius · 09-25-2006, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

freedom of press is staunchly protected. Prior restraints are almost never allowed.

But the press isn't developing this information itself, they are receiving it from a government entity (the police/courts). That government entity could thus be construed to be breaching the rights of the accused to a fair trial, since so many people will see his name on the news with "accused rapist" beside it, and assume he is indeed a rapist. That could taint a potential jury pool, etc.

Thorgrim · 09-25-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

But the press isn't developing this information itself, they are receiving it from a government entity (the police/courts). That government entity could thus be construed to be breaching the rights of the accused to a fair trial, since so many people will see his name on the news with "accused rapist" beside it, and assume he is indeed a rapist. That could taint a potential jury pool, etc.

Which is why you ask any jury pool if they've heard of the case, and its a strong case for striking a juror on cause

Publius · 09-25-2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Which is why you ask any jury pool if they've heard of the case, and its a strong case for striking a juror on cause

because we all know every potential juror is going to be 100% honest ... especially if they "KNOW" the guy is guilty and want to make sure he is put in jail.

ballz2wallz · 09-25-2006, 02:12 PM

That was part of the issue with the Duke rape case. The kids now have ruined lives since everyone knows their name and face.

motivez · 09-25-2006, 02:13 PM

I don't like the double standard at all. If they're not going to provide both names, they should provide neither. Both have the same expectation of privacy, IMO.

7960 · 09-25-2006, 02:14 PM

Actually I shouldn't have picked rape. There was (is?) a police chief (I believe) in Mass who puts pictures of men who are caught in prostitution stings on public access TV. They haven't been convicted. Why is that allowed?? If the guy is found innocent I'm pretty sure he can't turn around and sue the cop.....I don't get it.

Thorgrim · 09-25-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

because we all know every potential juror is going to be 100% honest ... especially if they "KNOW" the guy is guilty and want to make sure he is put in jail.

Jurors also lie about being bias towards cops, criminals, drug offendors, etc

There are trials all the time where a drug dealer is let off because a mother had her kid involved with drugs and although she claimed she would objective she was the lone holdout and eventually everyone caved in and he walked

There are 1000x of reason a juror would be bias, this is one of the rarest ones and easiest to solve through an aggressive DA

its not really worth talking about

Phantom · 09-25-2006, 02:19 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

But the press isn't developing this information itself, they are receiving it from a government entity (the police/courts). That government entity could thus be construed to be breaching the rights of the accused to a fair trial, since so many people will see his name on the news with "accused rapist" beside it, and assume he is indeed a rapist. That could taint a potential jury pool, etc.

where the info comes from is a whole different thing. The government can decide not to release the info, but there's nothing that can be done to prevent the press from getting that same info from other sources (neighbors) and printing

Phantom · 09-25-2006, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

Actually I shouldn't have picked rape. There was (is?) a police chief (I believe) in Mass who puts pictures of men who are caught in prostitution stings on public access TV. They haven't been convicted. Why is that allowed?? If the guy is found innocent I'm pretty sure he can't turn around and sue the cop.....I don't get it.

The press prints the truth.

As long as the cop had probable cause or a warrant to arrest, there's really no wrong done.

Publius · 09-25-2006, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The press prints the truth.

As long as the cop had probable cause or a warrant to arrest, there's really no wrong done.

I'm curious if you'd feel the same way were you wrongfully accused of something like child molestation, had your name dragged through the mud by the press, and then were found innocent in a trial.

Phantom · 09-25-2006, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by Publius

I'm curious if you'd feel the same way were you wrongfully accused of something like child molestation, had your name dragged through the mud by the press, and then were found innocent in a trial.

I agree it's shitty, but it's another price we pay for freedom deal.

You can be sure that an overwhelming majority of people caught in these cases (except maybe rap) are guilty though - even if they are found not guilty in court.

7960 · 09-25-2006, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by Phantom

The press prints the truth.

As long as the cop had probable cause or a warrant to arrest, there's really no wrong done.

I realize the press prints "accused of" and that somehow makes it ok, but it doesn't. If they print "Thorgrim Assmuncher is accused of raping baby puppies, the rest of the article talks about Thorgrim Assmuncher raping baby puppies. Everywhere he goes he's Thorgrim Assmuncher, baby puppy raper, even if he "beat the rap." Because <sarcasm> it's common knowledge the police wouldn't have charged him if he didn't do it, so if he wins at trial he must have found a loophole.

When I was a teacher if a kid suggested I did something wrong I'd get fired....automatic. Even if I didn't do it. It wasn't the main reason, but one of the reasons was because my name would be plastered all over the papers as "________ teacher at _HS........" It's bullshit that someone can make a claim and it's picked up and treated as fact.

When was the last time you saw a retraction printed in a paper? When was the last time the evening news ran "Tonight's Headline, someone was accused of a crime and was acquitted because he actually DIDN'T DO IT!" Never, because nobody cares who didn't do it. All they care about is what someone says happened and who is being accused. They don't care if he actually did it.

Phantom · 09-25-2006, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by 7960

When was the last time you saw a retraction printed in a paper? When was the last time the evening news ran "Tonight's Headline, someone was accused of a crime and was acquitted because he actually DIDN'T DO IT!" Never, because nobody cares who didn't do it. All they care about is what someone says happened and who is being accused. They don't care if he actually did it.

Same thing happens to politicians. It's something we have to deal with - nobody can prevent the press from printing something, and nobody can force the press to print a correction.

I agree, some outcomes really suck, but what's a better plan? Once somebody is charged the trial is going to be public.

motivez · 09-25-2006, 02:44 PM

I thought his point was more about protecting the woman's identity .. while releasing the man's, rather than the fact that it was released. Just the double standard regarding it.

IminWonderland · 09-25-2006, 02:44 PM

I agree with you, that it's a crappy double standard. The only reason I could forsee publiczing a picture, is if it may be a serial issue, and they are trying to get more people to come forward....

But I agree that if women want protection, then the suspect should be proved guilty first.

7960 · 09-25-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I thought his point was more about protecting the woman's identity .. while releasing the man's, rather than the fact that it was released. Just the double standard regarding it.

I understand about protecting the woman's identity. I can even agree to not printing her name. But if they're not going to print hers, why can they print his before he's found guilty?

I'm not saying this happens often but think about this...you're married. There's a woman in the office who wants to date you and you shut her down. She goes nuts and accuses you of (what amounts to) sexual misconduct at the christmas party even though you never touched her. What happens? Your life is fucked. You will lose you job, the media will portray you as a rapist, if you win at trial (if there even is a trial) it's because you had a good lawyer or got off on a technicality, *hopefully* your wife understands but more than likely after her friends see your name is plastered all over the papers it's going to be difficult, and good luck finding a job because someone is going to recognize you. The only way to even come close to gettng back to normal would be to sue her but then you have to prove you didn't touch her... how do you do that??!!?!

WickedLou9 · 09-25-2006, 03:13 PM

They do that alot and they make sure never to say that the guy is guilty.. they always say.. the "alleged" or the "accused".... but everyone who hears that assumes guilt. it's shitty