Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    Thanks for starting this - I've been going to, but hadn't found the
    words, and was still waiting for anger to subside!  I agree whole-
    heartedly!  I believe no one should have their names printed in such
    a public forum (or any forum) in a rape situation, *without their
    permission*!  First they suffer from a crime which can only be
    described as "against their will", and then to have something like
    this happen, seems to be just another form of the first rape.
    
    I understand the theory behind making this a public issue, and wanting
    people to start seeing that this sort of crime just doesn't happen to
    "those" types of people - It can be your friends, your relatives, your
    mother,...you.  But I firmly believe that this is still an issue of
    *choice*.
    
    I heard an interesting comment on this case:  The Central Park Jogger's
    name is still unknown, and given that she was an upper middle class
    person, and this person is more "blue collar" perhaps it was seen as
    "less" of an issue.  Sigh!
    
       -HA

	I think it should be left entirely up to the victim whether or
	not they want their names published.  I agree that the victims
	should not be made to feel ashamed, after all *they* are not 
	the ones that have done any wrong.  However, there is still a
	stigma attached to being the victim of a rape, and a person
	should not be forced to give up their privacy.

	I heard some discussion about this recently on a morning
	show.  A reporter insisted that by *not* publishing the names,
	being a victim of rape would continue to be considered a "dirty
	little secret".  Another guest countered that women who were
	adverse to having their names published for all to see, would
	simply stop reporting the assaults.  I tend to agree with her.

	Sue

    We need to at some point to take this crime away from the victim.  In
    treating the victim in the same manner as we would a mugging victim we
    would be saying that this crime does not change the character of the
    victim or the victim was not responsible for the crime.
    
    Maybe all victims names should be withheld from the media.  It is my
    feeling the media takes advantage of victims when they are the weakest.
    Let all victims remain anonymous unless they choose to reveal their
    identity.

	I feel the press has a first amendment right to report 
	such names.

	I also feel that in general, the press has a moral responsibility 
	to  refrain from doing so, especially when doing so is
	against the wishes of the victim.

	I believe a situation may exist where the "right"
	thing to do is to report such a name, despite the wishes
	of of the victim. But I can't think of such a situation.

	Aside: From a legal standpoint, isn't the crime against the people
	as a whole, resulting in cases like "State vs soandso", the status
	of the victim with respect to the trial being that of a witness?

						Tom_K

>	I feel the press has a first amendment right to report 
>	such names.

This seems like a close-call between the freedom of the press and an
individual's right to privacy.  Both rights are guaranteed by the constitution.

D!

� This seems like a close-call between the freedom of the press and an
� individual's right to privacy.  Both rights are guaranteed by the constitution.
    
    When newspapers pull stuff like that, it seems like a good time to
    remember the right to assemble, the right to peaceful demonstration,
    the right to boycott, and the right to stir up trouble, too....  (: >,)
    
    Ray

Um, D!, the right to privacy is *not* necessarily enshrined in the
constitution, but in various interpretations of a few amendments, key
among which is the 14th, I think.  Some state constitutions, like
California's, have a much stronger explicit right to privacy.

DougO

    I'm a firm advocate of freedom of the press (former journalist)
    but here I think personal privacy is uppermost.  A private citizen
    gives up certain privacy rights by purposely putting themself into
    the public eye, i.e.: entering politics, becomming a star, creating
    publicity  around themselves.  A crime victim does not become
    newsworthy on purpose.  
    
    If the victim wants to be named, that is fine, it is their decision.
    I'd like it if the media would make a point of getting permission
    in writing to promulgate the victim's name.  But if that permission
    is absent or denied, then the victim retains all rights to privacy.
    
    As for the perpetrator or alleged perp, there it gets fuzzy.  Because
    then innocence until guilt is proven seems to collide with the need
    to publicize the capture/grand jury/trial so that people can come
    forward with information and evidence.  Certainly a convicted perp
    has no right to privacy about the crime because it is reasonable
    to assume that they did something to lose their right to privacy
    as well as their freedom.  

    I am against printing the name of the victim.  

	The so-called "right to privacy" was manufactured out of thin air
	by Justice Douglas (or one of them left wing justices), I think
	in Griswold vs Connecticut... It isn't in the Constitution...
	Another court could just as easily dissolve it..

	Not that it shouldn't be there. It just isn't. The Congress
	and State legislatures can fix this, complain to them, not me, I'm
	only the messenger...

				Tom_K

    
>    Maybe all victims names should be withheld from the media.  It is my
>    feeling the media takes advantage of victims when they are the weakest.
>    Let all victims remain anonymous unless they choose to reveal their
>    identity.

I agree with this - all crime victims should have the same rights; more than
they seem to have now!

    According to last night's paper (Worcester T&G), the ruckus with the
    Florida incident involves the Florida state law that forbids the
    publication of a rape victim's name.  The state is stating proceedings
    against the Florida paper and seeing what can be done against the
    out-of-state papers that also published the name.
    
    As one who is very closely associated with a rape victim, I agree
    that the name should not be made public.  This person had a hard
    enough time with the incident since her own mother said it was 
    her (the victim's) fault and it wasn't rape without having to have
    the entire world know it was her.  She was also a minor at the
    time of the incident.
    
    Linda
    

    If the concern is the right to privacy, then the names of the victims
    of any crime should never be published.  I like that idea.
    
    But if the crime of rape is singled out for victim protection, as it is 
    in our culture, it must be because the people who make up the society see 
    rape victims differently and regard them differently than victims of other 
    crimes.  The first instance deals with the ideal world, the second, with 
    the real.
    
    As a society, even as we work toward a better understanding of rape, we 
    still tend to see a woman's rape as her fault and conduct investigations 
    with the goal of finding out what she did or did not do "correctly".
    
    If she wasn't home or at church, if she wasan't either married or a virgin,
    if she wasn't wearing a high necked sweater, a lot of people aren't quite 
    sure if the sexual contact involved was rape.  Our culture still sees 
    women as wicked temptresses who should always be cognizant of the pos-
    siblity of their very presence leading innocent men astray.  If they have
    failed to understand their "temptress potential", the legal system is
    often very willing to remind them.  Sometimes the rapist's motivation
    is to remind her. 
    
    To help women learn about their "power over innocent men", our culture 
    displays constant examples of woman's temptress potential.  Now that I
    think of it, what other female potential is routinely displayed culturally?
    Woman-as-mother maybe, but even that is miniscule compared to the
    ubiquitous woman-as-temptress image.  Further, our culture encourages and
    rewards with macho approval the helpless reaction in men to these 
    examples.  (Kind of self-serving, no?  What a coincidence!)  Many men 
    still jauntily defend their reactions toward women, (specifically the
    cultural temptress images of them), with the "red-blooded male" whine, 
    feeling good and macho about it.  And folks in general, (who make up 
    juries), still often buy it.
    
    Side note:  When dealing with rape as a culture, we are thinking of 
    female rape so the traditions reflect that and as usual, male cases, 
    child cases, any other cases are "different".  Or is it really the 
    *female* cases we are considering to be different??
    
    Sanctions against printing the name of a rape victim are a response to
    our own cultural willingness to think of female-as-temptress and to
    blame her for not keeping that potential in check.
    
    But since it *is* that way, I agree that the willingness of the public 
    to condemn the victim should be excluded; victims should be given privacy.
    
    The Kennedy case is different only in that it involves money and
    politicians.  Imagine if she was raped by a visiting diplomat?  Goddess
    help her.  Now imagine if she or anyone raped William Smith.  NO names 
    would be published.  No story, nothing.  And if she were an inner-city
    minority raped by someone who lives in her tenement, the name wouldn't be
    published simply because "the public" just wouldn't be interested.  The
    name of the perp wouldn't be published in that case, either.  It would
    be just another entry on the police log.  If that were not true, our
    newspapers would have to include an entire rape section, like the
    sports section.  (Now why did that analogy come to mind?)
    
    In an egalitarian society, a raped woman could stand with her head up 
    and her finger pointed.  In our society, we see to it that she hangs her 
    head and lies prone with her feet in the stirrups and the intimate
    details of her life made public.  A "sexual audit", if you will.
    
    Knowing that, the more enlightened among us attempt to protect her from 
    the misogynist majority.  And I applaud it while hating its necessity.
    
    Sandy  

    
    If the police blotter is a public record, then it is censorship
    to disallow a newspaper to use the name. 
    
    Hopefull none would choose to use it..
    
    re .12
    
    >Knowing that, the more enlightened among us attempt to protect her from
    >the misogynist majority.
    
    Nice piece of self congratulation combined with a generality..
    

.12> In our society, we see to it that she hangs her 
.12>    head and lies prone with her feet in the stirrups and the intimate
.12>    details of her life made public.  A "sexual audit", if you will.

Umm, Sandy, don't you mean *supine* with her feet in the stirrups?

In this case, I can't fault the papers for publishing her name, since the
alleged victim herself appeared on national TV on one of those tabloid TV
talk shows the week before (or maybe it was just the week before the scandal
involving her name being published?) to discuss the incident.  If the victim
goes public, I say go ahead and release her name.  It could get pretty
ridiculous otherwise: can you envision the made-for-TV movie (rights sold by
victim) in which one of the characters is always referred to as "hey you" or 
"ma'am"?

    Sharon

Sharon, I don't think it was the victim who went on tv talk shows. I think it
was another woman who had gone back to the Kennedy estate with the victim.

Kathy

    .12 -
    
    Well said Sandy!
    
    God forbid our culture should routinely display examples of females
    as human beings...  :-)
    
    D.

    Number one a person is not a victim of a crime until it is proven. The
    accused has as much a right to privacy as the accuser. Just because a
    person says they were raped does not mean it actually happened. So if
    the accused persons name is in the paper so should the accusers name be
    printed.
    
    			Wayne

    Fair is fair, eh?  Reply 12 points out that rape victims -- okay, okay,
    *alleged* rape victims -- are often treated differently from the
    alleged victims of other crimes of violence.  When I was mugged (in a
    New York subway station years ago), no one asked me how I was dressed or
    what I was doing on a subway platform.
    
    That difference is unfair.  When that changes, I'll agree with your
    "fair is fair" standard.  But not until then.

From: [email protected] (INGRID BECKER)
Newsgroups: clari.news.law.crime.sex,clari.news.children,clari.news.tv
Subject: Young rape victim to file claim over Fox broadcast
Date: 20 Apr 91 02:46:22 GMT
 
	LOS ANGELES (UPI) -- A 14-year-old rape victim said Friday she will
file a $250,000 claim against the Riverside County Sheriff's Department
because her identity was revealed during a live interview on a national
crime show.
	The girl said she was taunted, harassed and physically assaulted at
school following the April 13 airing of the Fox Broadcasting Co. real-
life police drama ``Cops'' in which a Moreno Valley Police officer was
seen and heard using the victim's name while questioning the 19-year-old
suspect.
	The $250,000 claim, the first step in filing a lawsuit, will be made
next week against the Riverside County Sheriff's Department which
contracts with Moreno Valley, the girl's attorney said. No decision has
been made on whether to file suit if the claim is rejected.
	``The release of this child's name to the media without her consent
is in our view a shocking invasion of her privacy,'' attorney Gloria
Allred said following a news conference to announce the claim.
	The girl, who did not state her name, appeared in sunglasses at the
news conference and was accompanied by her father.
	She said she was ``embarrased'' when other students began talking
about her after seeing the show.
	``If I had known my name would have been given out, I would never
have spoken to the police about what happened to me,'' she said.
	The television show ``Cops,'' a nationally broadcast drama, follows
police officers on the job and films their activities.
	The segment in which the girl's name was revealed focused on the Jan.
18, 1991, arrest of the rape suspect who has since pleaded guilty to
reduced charges.
	Allred said during the filmed arrest and the subsequent police
interview, the arresting officer used the name of the girl and asked the
suspect if he had sexual relations with her.
	The Riverside County Sheriff's Department reviewed the tape then gave
approval for it to air on Fox, which broadcast the tape without the
permission of the child or her parents, Allred said.
	Andi Sporkin, a spokeswoman for the television show, said Friday the
girl's family has threatened to sue the network, but she declined to
comment further.
	``Our policy is we just don't comment on legal matters,'' she said.
	The show's producers were out of town Friday and Sporkin could not
comment on what, if any, precautions ``Cops'' takes in protecting the
identity of victims. She also could not say if the program regularly
witholds the names of rape victims.
	Neither Riverside Police nor Moreno Valley authorities were available
for comment.
	Moreno Valley officials have held a public meeting on the matter.
	A local newspaper reported that Capt. Sue Hansen, the commander of
the Moreno Valley sheriff's station, reviewed the tape before it aired
but told city officials she did not remember hearing the girl's name
mentioned.
	The issue of publicizing the names of sexual assult victims has
attracted national attention following the reporting by media outlets of
the name of a woman who has alleged she was raped by William Kennedy
Smith, the nephew of Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., at the Kennedy
family's Palm Beach estate.
	Florida state prosecutors are looking at whether they can pursue
criminal charges against media outlets that published or broadcast the
name of the woman, including the Globe tabloid magazine, NBC News and
the New York Times.
	A 1911 Florida law makes it a misdemeanor to publish or broadcast the
names of rape victims. Violations are punishable by up to 60 days in
jail and fines up to $500.
	The law is still on the books, a spokesman for the Florida attorney
general said. However, a 1989 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court left the
status of that law in doubt.
	No such law exists in California, Allred said.
	However, the publicicing of the woman's name in the Kennedy rape case
has set off debates in newsrooms across the country where the general
voluntary practice is to protect the privacy of sexual assault victims
by withholding their names.

    re .19
    Thanks, Jerry!
    
    >The girl said she was taunted, harassed and physically assaulted at
    >school following ...		         ^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^*^
    
    So, if you believe her (right, .17?), the revelation that she was the
    alleged victim of one crime led her, um, colleagues to victimize her
    again.  If that doesn't make rape a special case, I don't know what
    will.  For some, perhaps nothing will.

    
                 NEVER-NEVER allow a victums name to be published!  In the
    last report I saw it said that more "Young Boys" are raped than "Young
    girls".  It doesn't really matter the gender but it is true...a very
    sad commentary on our society.  
    
    Dave

    
    Flaming follows...
    
           -<Wayne, maybe being raped would change your attitude>-
    
    re .17
    
    This statement does not sit well with me, but I will say the following.
    There is a difference between proving that a crime was committed and
    proving the assailant's guilt. My house was robbed. I don't think it
    took long for me to go from being an "alleged" victim to a real victim.
    My car was stolen. Again, the "alleged" victim period is pretty short.
    Sure, I could have had some friends remove items from my home or drive
    away in my car as an insurance scam. And I might not have been a REAL
    victim. But I must say, I'm damned glad that I didn't have to spend a
    lot of time PROVING that I had been robbed, or had had my car stolen. I
    was a basket case as it was.
    
    Your lack of sympathy for "alleged" victims appalls me. And its because
    of attitudes like yours that so many women are scared to call a spade a
    spade, and a rape incident rape. Maybe you think that its good for us
    to be afraid to have our victimization scrutinized. But when
    victimization is REAL, the last thing in the world that feels good is
    to be doubted. Nancy B. has written some details about the "proof"
    required for a rape case. Its grossly humiliating.
    
    All I can say is that if you ever get raped by a man, I hope you will
    think twice about how it feels to have to prove that it happened, i.e.
    when some doctor has to stick a swab up your a** to get a semen sample,
    and THEN you have to prove that you did NOT like it.
    
    It is as unfortunate that there are women who falsely cry rape as it is
    to have arsonists who start fires. But I'm sure that the many people
    who have all their life's possessions go up in smoke would be just as
    indignant about your statement of "proven victims" as the women who are
    truly raped. I personally do NOT believe that the ratio of women crying
    wolf vs. women being raped is all that high. 
    
    If you've got statistics that say otherwise, please share them. But in
    a women's conference where many rape victims are working through their
    pain, I think your statement about rape is callous and distasteful.
                            

    
    
    	re: -.1
    
    	Thanks for saying what I was thinking, Ren.
    
    					nancy b.
    

    RE: .17
    
    The accused is considered innocent until proven guilty because the
    accused is *suspected* of being the perpetrator of a crime.  The fact
    that a crime occurred is the reason that the accused is in court.
    Often a grand jury hears preliminary evidence to determine that
    a crime was committed and that there is sufficient evidence to bring
    the accused to trial.
    
    The crime and the victim exist. The question in a trial is: Is the
    accused the responsible party?
    
    If a person is found in a parking garage, beaten bloody and insensible,
    without money, their clothing ripped, perhaps sexually assaulted,
    in need of hospitalization, I'd say that a crime was committed against
    that person and that they have become a crime victim/statistic.
    Even if the perpetrator is never found or if found, not convicted
    due to lack of evidence, the crime still happened, the person was
    still beaten.  To believe otherwise is doublethink.
    
    By the way, the accuser in criminal law is the state, not the victim.
    The state is always named in media accounts of a crime. In civil law,
    (an action by a private citizen or entity against another), the accuser
    is named along with the accused. 

    
    re 'ren:
    
    Yes, 'ren, thank you very much.  The kindest word I could
    come up with for Mr. Linville is "insensitive".
    
    Shame on you, Mr. Linville!
    

First of this will be my last reply in this file. The thought police is 
more that I can bear. My reply was meant to convey the idea of equal rights
for all. I know in this file that is a concept that some people have a
hard time swallowing. Do not question my sensitivities, you do not know me.
I believe in fairness and equality and I believe in innocent until proven
guilty. Now, all I'm saying is if it OK to try the accused in the media
then why not the accuser. The day of one group attaining rights at the 
expense of another has to end. Either we all have the same rights or there
will be a constant clashing of people, and groups in this country. Wake up
and smell the coffee, we all need each other.  


	  		Wayne

    
    I would say that trying anyone in the media is unfair.  One only gives
    up one's rights if one is proven guilty.
    
    If I ever sat on a jury, I would have to leave my baggage outside.  I
    would have to start out believing that the accused was innocent unless
    the prosecution proved to me (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was
    guilty.  But I'm not on any jury (and not likely to be seated on a jury
    in a rape trial, I should think), and I have opinions and some
    knowledge.  I know that it is extraordinarily difficult for a woman to
    come forward and say that she has been raped, and I am absolutely
    opposed to her being subjected to further humiliation and invasion by
    a press that is eager to sell papers and advertising spots.  
    
    I believe that the notion of -innocent until proven guilty- is really
    based on the concept of telling the truth until proven to be lying, so
    that means that the accused who proclaims his innocence is to be
    presumed to be telling the truth (until or unless it is proven to be
    untrue with evidence in a court of law), and likewise the victim is
    presumed to be telling the truth (that she was raped) until or unless
    it is proven to be untrue with evidence in a court of law.  However,
    I think there should be strict and reasonable guidelines about what
    constitutes evidence -- her sexual past should be considered no more
    relevant to the validity of her claim than his marital status and
    standing in the community should be in his.  Time, place, physical
    evidence, testimony. 
    
    Justine
    

    Wayne, maybe you'll see this, maybe you won't. You really struck a
    chord in me when you said that not all women who say they were raped
    were really raped. Maybe you don't realize what a polarizing statement
    that is, but in a conference in which many women have been raped, its
    very very difficult to be objective about your statement. In a sense it
    casts doubt on what has been a very traumatic experience, in another
    sense it calls to mind (for me, anyway) a reminder that people, men and
    women, frequently refuse to acknowledge that rape occurs, doubly
    victimizing the victim. I still think you should consider researching
    how often women truly "cry wolf" about rape vs. how many times women
    are forced to participate in sexual acts against their will, by
    strangers or by people they know.
    
    In America, it has NEVER been proper to try the accuser unless the
    state has evidence that the accuser has commited a crime. And in
    actuality, falsifying testimony is a crime. But additionally, we
    usually try one crime at a time, at least, that's the impression I've
    always gotten. Law gurus can correct me.
    
    That is why what you're saying strikes me as wrong. The accuser is NOT
    on trial, until or unless evidence can be brought forth to warrant
    a case against them. And that is what American law has decided to be
    "fair".
    
    I don't know whether you have any idea how much your statement
    disturbed me. But if you put it forth honestly and with no malice
    intended I can only repeat that it had some flaws in the logic, and it
    also stepped on some sensitive toes. 
                      

    re.12
    
    Sandy,
    
    A piece of the cited response caused me some twinges of un-ease and
    evoked a minor defense/anger reaction.  Upon reflection, I saw not
    reason not to pursue it in hopes of clarifying your intent and/or
    possibly dispelling my unease.
    
    > hang her head in shame ... with her feet in the stirrups...
    
    The image used in this particular context touches upon a tender spot. I
    willingly put 'my feet into the stirrups' in the aftermath of being
    raped.  I saw no shame in doing so, but rather the most comfortable
    manner in which the appropriate physical evidence might be obtained.
    When I read this passage in your note, I felt that you would have
    characterised me as submissive and weak; and I didn't like that
    feeling.  Certainly, your approval or disapproval of an action I took
    years ago doesn't matter in the long run; but I would like to
    understand the objection [if it does indeed exist].
    
    The image of women with their feet in stirrups is frequently evoked as
    an oppressive one.  I do not understand, as I have never felt
    belittled, demeaned, or de-humanised by any gynecological [or
    obstetrical] procedure.
    
    If you know of a better posture by which to alleviate abdominal and
    vaginal tension that also allows for ease of examination by a second
    party, I personally would be thrilled to hear about it.
    
      Annie

    
    
    	Annie,
                                                               
    	I interpreted Sandy to mean "feet in stirrups" figuratively, 
    	not literally.  As in, in order to convince a jury that what
    	happened to you was really rape, you must (figuratively
    	speaking) put your "feet in stirrups" while the intimate
    	details of your life are examined to see if you are a 
    	"nice girl".
    
    	I do not believe Sandy was referring to the medical examination
    	given to rape victims. (right Sandy?)
    
    						nancy b.

    Nancy,
    
    If it was used as a figure of speech, my discomfort level is mitigated;
    but not entirely so.  Certainly, I went through a 'sexual audit' that
    exposed my personal life to intense scrutiny -- and, as most know, was
    barred from any chance at a trial -- however, I'm uncomfortable with an
    idiom that parallels the very _least_ humiliating portion of the
    experience with 'hanging [my] head in shame.'  For all of the healing
    that I've accomplished, perhaps the idiom of stirrups=shame [?] calls
    up too many painful echos -- sort of like 'if what _didn't_ hurt at the
    time is shameful, then how to I codifiy was did?'  [I'm probably not
    being particularly coherent]
    
    In addition, these 'stirrups' keep cropping up in a negative context
    [as if they were devised by Torquemada for the punishment of Woman's
    Original Sin].  This more than anything is the basis of my discomfort,
    as I just don't see it.
    
      Annie

    For me, the "stirrups" image is one which emphasizes my vulnerability. 
    However necessary the position assumed may be for the exam itself, I am
    at my most exposed and open while there.  Should something "go wrong"
    while I am having such an exam, there is precious little I can do to
    protect/defend myself.  I am open to public view in my most private
    places, both literally and figuratively, without dignity, reduced to
    being my "female parts" rather than an individual with feelings and
    intelligence.  
    
    My "comfort position" is curled up into a ball - I don't think I am 
    alone in that.  Being splayed open for a gyn exam is its polar
    opposite.  Possibly this is where the image of "badness" comes from in
    discussing the stirrups - that we are then vulnerable to hurt.
    
    Alison

    Yes, Alison,
    
    I do understand vulnerabiltiy, discomfort, and/or un-ease intimately.
    What I do not understand is to connotation of shame or oppression.

    on a slightly different track.
    
    first let me say that I think the media should not print the names of
    those accused of crime such as rape any more than the names of their
    alleged victims.  The media should report the occurance of these crimes
    and enough information to allow potential victims a chance to avoid
    danger or take precautionary measures.
    
    On the other hand, rape is such a heinous crime that I believe the
    punishment for those convicted is insufficient.
    
    Yeah, I'm male.  I would kill the two guys that raped my daughter at
    age 15 if I could find them.  Unfortunatley, she lived with her mother
    then.  Her mother's response was to call her a slut and take her to a
    Dr. to get birth control pills.  Both of the incidents were "date rape"
    though rape by any name would be as foul.  In the one case about which
    I have any information, it was a first date with an older boy who had
    been introduced to her by her cousin.  

what a bitch (the mom, I mean).  I hope your daughter lives with you now.
Hugs to you both.  Sara