Categories: Need to know

What’s in a name?

U.S. media weigh revealing identity of Kahn’s accuser

by macleans.ca on Friday, July 8, 2011 2:21pm - 8 Comments

American media have concealed the identity of alleged sexual assault victims for years, but recent developments in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case have prompted news outlets to revisit this long-held policy. The case appears poised to collapse amidst revelations about the credibility of Kahn’s accuser, raising questions about the circumstances that would justify ignoring the policy and naming the woman. Legally, journalists in the U.S. are not required to conceal the identities of victims and alleged victims of sexual assault. But the prevailing view of the U.S. media is that keeping identities secret help women feel safe reporting sexual assault. News outlets in Europe and Africa have already published the name of Kahn’s accuser, making it easy for anyone with access to a search engine to know her identity.

Reuters

Tags: DSK

Anonymous

There is certainly an injustice in allowing the accuser to remain anonymous while the accused’s name and reputation is destroyed before the trial even begins. But perhaps the solution should be to grant the protection of anonymity to the accused as well as the accuser, until such time as a guilty verdict is rendered, rather than to allow publication of the accuser’s identity.

There may be extenuating circumstances where a judge may allow the release of a name before conviction, much as happens here when trying to track down a fleeing young offender. And if an accuser is shown to have misled authorities and is in turn charged or sued for having done so, I think it is fair in that instance to lift the veil.

But the status quo, where the name of the accused is made public while the accuser is protected, opens an avenue for the malicious to cause untold damage to the reputation of another while being protected by the very body the person is using to cause the damage. It doesn’t happen often, but how many times are acceptable?

I know of one teacher, for example, whose reputation and career were ruined by such an accusation. It came out in court that the accuser and her “witness” cooked up the story because the teacher refused to give her a better mark on an exam; the witness recanted and apologized in court when she saw how badly she had hurt the accused. It further came out that it wasn’t the first time the accused had done this. But it was a small town and a small province; he had to leave and start over.

Where sex crimes are concerned, I definitely favour anonymity for both sides until conviction.
Anonymous

There is certainly an injustice in allowing the accuser to remain anonymous while the accused’s name and reputation is destroyed before the trial even begins. But perhaps the solution should be to grant the protection of anonymity to the accused as well as the accuser, until such time as a guilty verdict is rendered, rather than to allow publication of the accuser’s identity.

There may be extenuating circumstances where a judge may allow the release of a name before conviction, much as happens here when trying to track down a fleeing young offender. And if an accuser is shown to have misled authorities and is in turn charged or sued for having done so, I think it is fair in that instance to lift the veil.

But the status quo, where the name of the accused is made public while the accuser is protected, opens an avenue for the malicious to cause untold damage to the reputation of another while being protected by the very body the person is using to cause the damage. It doesn’t happen often, but how many times are acceptable?

I know of one teacher, for example, whose reputation and career were ruined by such an accusation. It came out in court that the accuser and her “witness” cooked up the story because the teacher refused to give her a better mark on an exam; the witness recanted and apologized in court when she saw how badly she had hurt the accused. It further came out that it wasn’t the first time the accused had done this. But it was a small town and a small province; he had to leave and start over.

Where sex crimes are concerned, I definitely favour anonymity for both sides until conviction.
Anonymous

There is certainly an injustice in allowing the accuser to remain anonymous while the accused’s name and reputation is destroyed before the trial even begins. But perhaps the solution should be to grant the protection of anonymity to the accused as well as the accuser, until such time as a guilty verdict is rendered, rather than to allow publication of the accuser’s identity.

There may be extenuating circumstances where a judge may allow the release of a name before conviction, much as happens here when trying to track down a fleeing young offender. And if an accuser is shown to have misled authorities and is in turn charged or sued for having done so, I think it is fair in that instance to lift the veil.

But the status quo, where the name of the accused is made public while the accuser is protected, opens an avenue for the malicious to cause untold damage to the reputation of another while being protected by the very body the person is using to cause the damage. It doesn’t happen often, but how many times are acceptable?

I know of one teacher, for example, whose reputation and career were ruined by such an accusation. It came out in court that the accuser and her “witness” cooked up the story because the teacher refused to give her a better mark on an exam; the witness recanted and apologized in court when she saw how badly she had hurt the accused. It further came out that it wasn’t the first time the accused had done this. But it was a small town and a small province; he had to leave and start over.

Where sex crimes are concerned, I definitely favour anonymity for both sides until conviction.

modster99

This is twice that I have agreed with you – I am starting to think something is wrong. lol
modster99

This is twice that I have agreed with you – I am starting to think something is wrong. lol
modster99

This is twice that I have agreed with you – I am starting to think something is wrong. lol
Anonymous

It would be hard to maintain for high-profile defendants, since trial dockets are public. But having been on a jury on a sexual assault (of a mentally challenged teenager), I agree anonymity would be a good thing. Both the accuser & accused (& their families) may both get dragged through the mud.

One thing I learned from the above trial is that neither the prosecutors nor legal aid have anywhere near the resources to prepare for the vast majority of criminal trials. It probably costs anywhere from $30,000 up for either side to properly prepare for and conduct a trial, while maybe a fifth of that or less is spent on most “no-name” trials. If you can’t afford your own lawyer, you probably aren’t getting an adequate defence, but the case against you probably isn’t well-made, either.
Anonymous

It would be hard to maintain for high-profile defendants, since trial dockets are public. But having been on a jury on a sexual assault (of a mentally challenged teenager), I agree anonymity would be a good thing. Both the accuser & accused (& their families) may both get dragged through the mud.

One thing I learned from the above trial is that neither the prosecutors nor legal aid have anywhere near the resources to prepare for the vast majority of criminal trials. It probably costs anywhere from $30,000 up for either side to properly prepare for and conduct a trial, while maybe a fifth of that or less is spent on most “no-name” trials. If you can’t afford your own lawyer, you probably aren’t getting an adequate defence, but the case against you probably isn’t well-made, either.