I was wondering where the rest of you are on this issue. As you know there have been arrests made in the Duke rape case and the 2 young men have had their pictures and names plastered all over the TV. The young woman accusing them, however, hasn't. Now I understand the "protect the victim" mindset. However, this case is far from a sure thing and if these boys turn out to be not guilty, we have "Richard Jewell-ed" them for life. You guys are smart so I don't feel the need to explain the particulars (plus I'm sure that most of you will discuss them in your answers.
If the accused turns out to be not-guilty, then there was no victim and she could identified. In the meantime her identity should be kept secret, unless she wishes it otherwise.
That one guy has a receipt from an ATM and an order of food from a local restaraunt and everyone testified that he was not even at the party. This is looking REALLY fishy. DD
Agree. Too many suspects were "convicted" by the media already before the real trial even started. It's a very bad sign. None of those suspects should be shown on TV and newspaper, if the victim is "protected".
I agree to a certain point...I mean, you're right, innocent until proven guilty, but if they are innocent, they're names and faces are crap...And the accusser isn't...And vica versa However, one would hope they wouldn't indict if they didn't have sufficient evidence...
I would almost lay odds that the DA is just indicting to win the election he is in next week, then magically, the charges will be dropped. DD
Yeah, that's the sad part, it's pretty common actually that DA's would bring politics into the equation.
This is looking REALLY fishy. and they got zero DNA matches. More WTF. I suspect the whole story here will end up being very interesting.
i think the ID of the victim is protected, at least for criminal trail, if civil action is filed, than the ID would be released, like that girl who said Kobe raped her.
That's not necessarily true - from hospital reporters, it was pretty clear that the victim was raped, so there's a victim no matter what. Whether or not that can be proven in a court of law (or the suspects even identified) is a different issue.
from hospital reporters, it was pretty clear that the victim was raped, The Duke guys (who could be lying) said the stripper showed up drunk and beat up. They say that they pictures showing the latter. Nothing of the DNA matched the Duke guys. The defense is going to have a field day here. I would not at the end od the day be surprised if either the stripper was raped OR made up the story after the Duke guys failed to pay the tab for her "services".
In the media, you're presumed guilty until proven innocent.... This is a tough one. Should children in child molestation cases be identified as well? In an ideal world, the identification of both should be decided by the judge. Media leaks don't give a damn what is legal. They reveal who they want to reveal.
He wasn't convicted, was he? At best you can say Kobe had some rough sex with her, who had a couple of undesirable tissue damages due to excessive thrusting forces.
This brings up another point I've always wondered about. The 'liberal' viewpoint on sex (as defined by philosophers and not by me) is that sex isn't really any different than a handshake. This obviously isn't a viewpoint shared by all liberals but there are some on both sides of the spectrum who believe this way. The labeling isn't of my invention. If someone doesn't feel that there is anything special about sex and that it's a normal activity no different than a handshake, wouldn't this person be forced to treat rape as if it weren't a special crime? Wouldn't rape amount to something like a simple assault?
