Duke suspends lacrosse team from play amid rape allegations - Page 2

But the prosecuter is trying the case in the media and he said there would be DNA evidence. Now the question is who does the DNA material on the woman belong too? I'm sure all the prospective jurors will be wondering about this.

Add that to her being passed out drunk with no sign of distress(1st cop on scene) and these 2 guys will have an easy time getting off.

Right. Because, who needs highly trained emergency room personnel and rape kits when there's a rent-a-cop who can tell just by looking at a passed out woman whether she's been raped or not.

Anya is an expert on the ease of getting guys off.

I'm not advocating slapping the woman's name up there either, mind you.

I'm for leaving out all of the details, honestly. A crime happened in some town. There were men and woman involved. Probably. Police did drive to the scene in one or more police cars.

What if these guys are found innocent? Too bad, they've been basically found guilty in the court of public opinion the second their mugshots showed up on CNN.com. There'll be the inevitable background stories, interviews with childhood friends, reporters staked out around their families' houses, privacy shot all to hell.

Now I'm not saying the woman is lying and that these guys are absolute saints. But it seems like a double-standard to me that the accuser must have their anonymity protected at all costs but feel free to offer the accused up to the feeding frenzy.

Suspect is hatless, repeat, hatless.

That's stupid. They don't keep rape and molestation victims anonymous for shits and giggles. The point is to spare these people who have suffered through horrible, life-altering incidents from further trauma and anguish. Accused rapists and molesters don't deserve or require similar protection.

Even if there's the possibility they've been falsely accused?

You're such an idiot, Dick.

Should we keep all the names of the accused from the media?

spoken like a satisfied customer.

Wow. You're right. You've deftly and effortlessly refuted my entire argument. Cheers.

You don't have an argument. If your girlfriend was raped, would you want her name and picture on the front page of every paper in the state? I mean, it's bad enough she has to be known as your girlfriend in the first place. How much suffering need she experience?

Zing.

The accused has a right to face the accuser. That should be enough.

In Dickson's perfect world, every newspaper reads like a Page Six gossip column.

ITEM: Which eccentric pop icon with a HIStory of plastic surgery has been accused of molesting a young boy?

ITEM: This juicy sports hero may have killed us with laughter in The Naked Gun movies, but last night he made an unidentified woman and her unidentified companion die in a whole new way!

This actually happened 20 minutes from my house. Those guys are a bunch a rich jocks with the best lawyers money can buy. It is all anyone can talk about around here. I have yet to form an oppinion though.

You be sure to let us know as soon as you do.

I know she was drunk, and I believe she was raped but why punish the whole team, I mean the one black player didnt even have to give a dna sample bc it was supposedly a white dude, and its been real heated around here with the racial issues

Interesting perspective bgirl. Do you think you could track the stripper down and ask her if she’s still available for bachelor parties? Try to find out by April 29th. Thank you.

consider it done, but just in case it doesnt work out, how do you feel about dwarfs?

Guilty rapists and molesters deserve no protection. But as long as we still believe in that old 'innocent until proven guilty' saw, we don't get to ruin these guys' lives until they've gone through the judicial process.

But they shouldn't get special protection not given to any other accused criminal.

It IS in the public interest to know the names of the accused. It is NOT in the public interest to know the names of the raped. It really boils down to that.

What's the alternative? Not identifying any criminal suspects until and unless a guilty verdict is reached?

Bullshit. CONVICTED rapists and molesters don't deserve or require similar protection, and even then there are strong reasons for keeping the identities solely with the police (link). Until someone is convicted, the media has no right to publish their identity. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that is the British precedent. It makes total sense to me, why the hell should anyone be able to drag anyone else's name through the mud without any solid proof?

Until these types of cases are resolved, all persons involved should remain shielded from the media. The victim is only a victim if they are proven correct, and the accused is only innocent if they are proven not guilty.

How the fuck can you windbags say that what has happened to the Duke team has been in any way justified? They lost their season, the coach lost his job, and so far they have not been convicted of one thing. In fact, only two of the team members are going to face charges, yet the whole team was suspended. THIS is why you can't allow the identities of either the victims or the accused to go public.

In cases such as this one, yes.

Bullshit. It's in the public interest to know the names of the convicted. What public interest does it serve to know that a person may have committed a horrible crime? Is there not also a private interest of the accused that must be protected? Think hard before answering.

There is a point to the idea that the public's interest is served by knowing the names of the accused, but to what extent? This is not a national story. It's the same horrible fucking crime that happens all the time that doesn't get reported.

You don't need to know who those guys are, and I don't, and neither does anyone else unless they live around Duke. And word of mouth will inform them faster than any media.

I don't advocate special protection, but the pervasiveness of media has really changed what basic protection might be.

Hey, everybody, it's CHUD's stupidest poster!

It's in the public's interest to know the name of the accused in ANY crime, because this might not be the first time he or she committed that crime. Parents deserve to know if their children might have come in contact with a pedophile. A coworker or a casual acquaintance might have more information about the crime in question, or knowledge about past incidents or previous incriminating behaviors. And if the person *is* falsely accused, there might be a person out there who can provide an alibi or present evidence to the contrary.

If your next-door neighbor is accused of climbing through people's windows and skullfucking them to death while they sleep, is it in your best interest to know about it? Think hard before answering.

You lost it right there.

I've got a Leafs game to watch, but I'll point out your glaring fallacies in a few hours, if you still want me to.

I'd just like to point out that you've been historically shown to be really bad at pointing out these supposed "glaring fallacies" in the past.

Thank you, that is all.

Ahem:

Never once have I advocated putting the alleged victim's name out there. Not once. And I don't know what the solution is, I was merely commenting on the differences in attitude. If these guys are found guilty, fine, heap every possible ignomy on them for all I care. But it's attitudes like Slater's -- where these guys are as good as convicted before one piece of evidence has been heard before a jury -- that bother me, and this kind of exposure exacerbates that. I don't know if the answer is to keep their identities concealed until the trial or what, but the difference in attitude is definitely there, and certainly not helped by the "rich jocks getting what they deserve" frenzy building around this case.

My thoughts precisely.

Where the hell are they going to take this to trial? Is there any potential juror within 50 miles that isn't alreay tainted by the media coverage?

Give me one example and I'll take you seriously.

There is no reason to assume this. The fact that someone has been accused of a crime in no way increases the chance that the accused has committed previous crimes, nor should it lead any reasonable person to assume so. The mere fact that you would make this shaky logical leap is evidence of the bias that releasing the name of the accused creates. Furthermore, criminal law prevents previous convictions from being used in jury trials, since this information creates unfair and illogical bias in the jury.


The fact you would bring up this analogy with regards to a shaky rape accusation is disgusting, a total straw man. If a convicted pedophile moves into your neighbourhood, I can see this being important news to the local public. If a local high school team is accused of molesting a stripper, there is no concievable way that the general public would be served by this information. What are they supposed to do with this knowledge besides cast hasty blame?

You act as if the police don't gather information independent of the media. If there are witnesses to the whereabouts of the accused, you seem to actually believe that the media could find them when the police could not. That is the only possible theoretical justification for what you're advocating, and the realistic diligence of the average police force in the U.S. shatters it.

If it's an unfounded claim, and my neighbour turns out to be totally innocent, no, it's none of my fucking business. If it is true, it might be of interest to me, but I'll never have to actually worry about my neighbour, because he'll be in prison. Of course, if there was enough evidence to go to trial for such a charge, there is no way the accused would be let out of custody until the trial was over.

The media's sense of entitlement knows no bounds. I'm all for a free press, but there are some accusations that simply do not deserve to be aired, for the simple reason that they irrevocably destroy lives before they can be proved or disproved.

You and Devin are right about 90% of the time, but when you rush to an incorrect judgement you won't hear it, and it always resorts to name-calling. Your Triple Entente mentality is touching to see, but there is really no reason to slap each other's asses over every post.

Stupid my ass, bitch.

Russ I can answer your question since I am 20 miles away from where the incident occured, everyone here is tainted by it that is all people talk about! There is no way they can get a fair trial here in the triangle (Durham, Raleigh, Chapel Hill) I am not even sure going to another county would do them any good

In the end the accused's name being out there is actually in THEIR favor. Jose Padilla's a fine modern example - the guy was held with no lawyers and without being able to contact anyone at all. The ACLU and others had to work on his behalf without actually being in touch with him. Knowing who he was made a big difference.

These things are a matter of public record because the workings of the system need to be transparent to be fair. There are checks and balances built into the justice system from the very beginning of an investigation that help minimize the intrusive aspects of the process for people who aren't ultimately indicted.

As for victims - I don't think all victims should have their names withheld, but rape continues to carry a social stigma. Sexual crimes are the only crimes we do this with, and I think it's fair - the victim has been terribly traumatized already and there's no reason to compound that.

As for the pervasiveness of the media - same old story for hundreds of years, just on a bigger scale. Honestly, the media's not even HALF as bad today as it was in the 1800s. Go check out some papers from the time to see really looney reporting, without regard for fact checking or privacy.

I have been to a couple of parties at Duke and I find the frat scene to be incredibly overrated, anyone can make a fucking shirt. For instance "If your a rapist apply at Duke were always in need"

Quick tip there for ya. If you take that slogan to the T-Shirt manufacturing facility make sure it reads "If you're a rapist apply to Duke, we're always in need." It may not seem like much but you will see it in your profit margin.

Molti, may I call you Molti? Anyway are you following me? but thanks for the tip good thing I havent put my order in yet!!

Don't worry about it. If there is one thing I know about it's T-Shirts that make poor taste jokes about pop culture events. It's how I used to make my living. I made a fortune back when Eric Clapton's kid fell out of that building.

Think of the money you could make off Britney Spears, first she drives with the kid in her lap then her nanny drops him on his head! Thats good stuff, we could do it together as Moltigirl

My lawyers are drafting the papers as we speak!

Given his third testicle, you might want to call yourselves Moltiballs.

Tumors are not testicles.

Tomaytoe Tomahtoe.

Graynadian: Sonned with logic and knowledge, moves on to making sub-Moltisanti jokes.

devincf: Picks them and eats them.

LOL

Just give up, you said something stupid and you have to live with it.

Actually, Devin and Slater have given very accurate reasons why the media report the way they do - I'm not sure how either has said anything stupid. \

It's not an exception to a general rule that the names of the accused are reported, but rather that the names of sexual abuse victims are not. It's a journalist's prerogative to report any and all names having to do with a story, with just some information withheld, like the names of rape victims and accused juveniles. This is essentially a courtesy that has become a standard.

It's not a matter of the rights of the accused. It's a matter of freedom of the press.