Innocent Until Proven Guilty

[ClydeR]

Rep. Bobby Franklin, a Republican from the Atlanta suburb of Cobb County, filed the bill in November but it only recently came to public attention.

Franklin's bill would eliminate the word "victim" from statutes dealing with stalking, rape, obscene telephone contact with a child and family violence and replace it with "accuser."

More... (http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/02/07/georgia.rape.law/)

It is a cornerstone of the criminal justice system that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Why, then, should the accuser be prejudged a victim if she cannot identify the person who raped her? She should not be a "victim" until she wins in court.

Republicans in Georgia are putting justice back in the judicial system. Just like always, Democrats are whining about it.


Carolyn Fiddler, the communications director for the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, wrote on the organization's website that the legislation diminishes rape victims by questioning whether what happened to them is even a crime.

"Burglary victims are still victims. Assault victims are still victims. Fraud victims are still victims," she wrote. "But if you have the misfortune to suffer a rape, or if you are beaten by a domestic partner, or if you are stalked, Rep. Franklin doesn't think you have been victimized."

[Tgo01]

Unless we're calling the victim a liar aren't they a victim no matter who did the crime?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Semantics like this is why we have a legal system that sucks ass.

[diethx]

I live in Cobb County. :(

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Is this only for the victims, I mean, accusers, of 'forcible' rapists?

[Parkbandit]

Unless we're calling the victim a liar aren't they a victim no matter who did the crime?

What if there was no crime.. ala Duke lacrosse team?

[ClydeR]

I live in Cobb County. :(

Wow. It's seldom that we are privileged to have local input on these issues.

How is the community there handling the problem of women trying to claim special rights as "victims" before there has been a trial to establish that they were victims?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I don't think it'd be a big deal if it was a change that was made across the board. That it targets crimes that predominantly women face at the very least makes Mr. Franklin look like a misogynist.

[Gelston]

I don't get it.... The person that was sexually assaulted is still a victim.. The people who are accused of doing it are still the accused as they were... you know.. Accused.

[pabstblueribbon]

So.. who's lobbying for this law?

Rapists??

[Rinualdo]

What if there was no crime.. ala Duke lacrosse team?

Or William Kennedy Smith, etc...

This has always bothered me. I understand why we don't release the name of victim by why do we not afford the same protection to the accused? Even before a grand jury indictment.

[Paradii]

Or William Kennedy Smith, etc...

This has always bothered me. I understand why we don't release the name of victim by why do we not afford the same protection to the accused? Even before a grand jury indictment.

Slander =/= Raped

[Rinualdo]

Slander =/= Raped

Accusation =/= guilt either. So then what do we do about the people whose lives and reputations have been ruined by erroneous accusations? What about the financial cost for defending against a false accusation?

[Gelston]

Why does their name have to be released? Afterwards, sure. Not beforehand.

[Paradii]

To alert the public of a potential rapist in your area? If I had a daughter, this is information I'd appreciate.

Sure, it'll suck if the guy winds up innocent, but it'll suck more to have a loved one get raped.

[AnticorRifling]

Since you're not a rapist go ahead and take an add out in the paper that says I, (your name), might be a rapist, just a heads up.

Then a week later retract it. See how that works out for you. I'm betting it does more than just "suck".

[pabstblueribbon]

Mr. Show - Harry Kleist: Rapist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKE9W0O8bX8

[Gelston]

To alert the public of a potential rapist in your area? If I had a daughter, this is information I'd appreciate.

Sure, it'll suck if the guy winds up innocent, but it'll suck more to have a loved one get raped.

That shit destroys the lives of the innocent. When it comes to rape, people ARE considered guilty until proven innocent(and still then guilty).

[Paradii]

Since you're not a rapist go ahead and take an add out in the paper that says I, (your name), might be a rapist, just a heads up.

Then a week later retract it. See how that works out for you. I'm betting it does more than just "suck".

Ok, I'll do that if you go out and get raped by a guy and tell me that it doesn't suck more.

[g++]

Well clearly the only two solutions available are too either ruin some innocent guys life or everyone get raped so lets just take that as a given and go from there.

[Gelston]

Ok, I'll do that if you go out and get raped by a guy and tell me that it doesn't suck more.

Yes, Rapists are bad. No one isn't saying they aren't fucking scumbags. There are INNOCENT people who get accused, who didn't rape anyone, and that stigma never goes away. How would you like if you were accused of rape, and then Fox News and CNN decide to pick it up, and its broadcast all over the country. You were innocent, but guess what? You are the fucking devil.

[Gelston]

Well clearly the only two solutions available are too either ruin some innocent guys life or everyone get raped so lets just take that as a given and go from there.

And I'm pretty sure when someone is accused of rape, they are being monitored by the cops when/if they post bail.

[g++]

I mean you could say the same thing about murder really. Its a serious thing to be accused of any serious crime but it has for the most part been public record in this country for various reasons. Whether someone should be able to accuse someone else of rape without having their name released I dont really agree with just because I don't think the law should make exceptions. If someone puts their life on the line to testify against the mafia its on the front page but if someone gets felt up in a bathroom by Ben Roethlisberger they will remain forever a mystery? I mean honestly I understand the idea behind it but people get killed frequently for testifying in court I don't see why we should make an exception to spare an accuser being embarressed.

I dont know how you would even go about not releasing the name of a rape suspect. I mean the person would obviously be arrested and face a bail hearing there are lots of reasons all that kind of stuff should be on the public record that probably outweigh the potential embarressment the accused rapist will face. If hes falsely accused he can seek a settlement for false arrest like with any other crime.

[Gelston]

I mean you could say the same thing about murder really. Its a serious thing to be accused of any serious crime but it has for the most part been public record in this country for various reasons. Whether someone should be able to accuse someone else of rape without having their name released I dont really agree with just because I don't think the law should make exceptions. If someone puts their life on the line to testify against the mafia its on the front page but if someone gets felt up in a bathroom by Ben Roethlisberger they will remain forever a mystery? I mean honestly I understand the idea behind it but people get killed frequently for testifying in court I don't see why we should make an exception to spare an accuser being embarressed.

I dont know how you would even go about not releasing the name of a rape suspect. I mean the person would obviously be arrested and face a bail hearing there are lots of reasons all that kind of stuff should be on the public record that probably outweigh the potential embarressment the accused rapist will face. If hes falsely accused he can seek a settlement for false arrest like with any other crime.

I don't feel they should name any names in rape cases, until after the trial (ie, the accused is found guilty, or its determined the victim is lying). And there are measures in place to prevent the media from being able to report on things.

[g++]

I think the transparency of the judicial system is a good thing. If the law was that no reporting would be done on any case that could potentially cause harm to the involved parties courts would basically be secret tribunals.

I understand where you are coming from I just disagree.

[Gelston]

Thats just it though, rape cases aren't transparent.

[g++]

Yes I realize. I think I pointed out I do in fact disagree with that in my first non-sarcastic post :).

[AnticorRifling]

Ok, I'll do that if you go out and get raped by a guy and tell me that it doesn't suck more.

You're retarded.

[Nieninque]

I don't feel they should name any names in rape cases, until after the trial (ie, the accused is found guilty, or its determined the victim is lying). And there are measures in place to prevent the media from being able to report on things.

A "not guilty" verdict doesnt mean the victim was lying, you know that, right?

[AnticorRifling]

A "not guilty" verdict doesnt mean the victim was lying, you know that, right?

Of course. But a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the innocent person gets to go back to a normal life either.

[Nieninque]

Of course. But a not guilty verdict doesn't mean the innocent person gets to go back to a normal life either.

I wouldnt dispute that at all. In most cases. Others get jobs with the BBC

[g++]

Well just to point out how silly this would be what if a known serial rapist was wanted for arrest? The police are looking for [redacted] in connection with a string of rapes in your neighborhood? There are serious logistical concerns that make this not very realistic.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I think they should shoot convicted rapists and then you don't have to worry about a convicted sex offending moving in next to you and molesting your children. Only the smart ones do you have to worry about.

[Gelston]

Well just to point out how silly this would be what if a known serial rapist was wanted for arrest? The police are looking for [redacted] in connection with a string of rapes in your neighborhood? There are serious logistical concerns that make this not very realistic.

If he is on the run, sure. Post it out. If he is a known rapist, he was found guilty before. Although, I don't think the police have to say why he is wanted to the public do they, something like "is wanted for questioning in regards to this case"?

[Rinualdo]

Well just to point out how silly this would be what if a known serial rapist was wanted for arrest? The police are looking for [redacted] in connection with a string of rapes in your neighborhood? There are serious logistical concerns that make this not very realistic.

Why the fuck does it matter what the crime is and who said they had to report it?

"The police are searching this man, William Kennedy Smith, for questioning. If you have seen or know where William Kennedy Smith is, please call police at 555-5555"

[g++]

Well for one that doesnt exactly alarm people. For two I doubt news stations would run that story. I sure as shit would not watch a show that just threw peoples faces up and asked for assistance finding them for no reason.

Police often ask for help finding people. I bet being included in an amber alert as a suspect is pretty harmful to your image. We should stop that too?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

But William Kennedy Smith was acquitted of his 1991 charge after the three women willing to testify he raped them in the 1980s were excluded, and the different 2004 charge was dismissed after he resigned his position, and he settled in 2005 with yet another person claiming rape. Clearly this WKS is not a threat to society at all and as proven by the courts, innocent.

[TheEschaton]

I mean you could say the same thing about murder really. Its a serious thing to be accused of any serious crime but it has for the most part been public record in this country for various reasons. Whether someone should be able to accuse someone else of rape without having their name released I dont really agree with just because I don't think the law should make exceptions. If someone puts their life on the line to testify against the mafia its on the front page but if someone gets felt up in a bathroom by Ben Roethlisberger they will remain forever a mystery? I mean honestly I understand the idea behind it but people get killed frequently for testifying in court I don't see why we should make an exception to spare an accuser being embarressed.

I dont know how you would even go about not releasing the name of a rape suspect. I mean the person would obviously be arrested and face a bail hearing there are lots of reasons all that kind of stuff should be on the public record that probably outweigh the potential embarressment the accused rapist will face. If hes falsely accused he can seek a settlement for false arrest like with any other crime.

This is kind of the concern of evidence professors around the country. The Bill of Rights allows you to face your accuser, which the Rape Shield law doesn't allow. However, there can be an argument for the law about public policy, psycho-sociology, and the persecution felt by victims of the crime of rape against their rapists, especially in domestic violence cases.

Now, I don't like not knowing your accuser, but I think it's still ridiculous to stop calling a victim a victim. Anyone can make up a crime and accuse someone of something, they're a victim until proven otherwise by police. That being said, I think the Bill of Rights take precedent over the psychology of a crime victim. Murder, ADW, attempted murder, kidnapping, these things are all traumatic, but we don't go to extraordinary measures to protect the victims of those crimes.

-TheE-

[BigWorm]

This is kind of the concern of evidence professors around the country. The Bill of Rights allows you to face your accuser, which the Rape Shield law doesn't allow. However, there can be an argument for the law about public policy, psycho-sociology, and the persecution felt by victims of the crime of rape against their rapists, especially in domestic violence cases.

Now, I don't like not knowing your accuser, but I think it's still ridiculous to stop calling a victim a victim. Anyone can make up a crime and accuse someone of something, they're a victim until proven otherwise by police. That being said, I think the Bill of Rights take precedent over the psychology of a crime victim. Murder, ADW, attempted murder, kidnapping, these things are all traumatic, but we don't go to extraordinary measures to protect the victims of those crimes.

-TheE-

IANAL, but I don't understand how Rape Shield laws prevent the defendant from knowing his or her accuser. As I understand them, they don't prevent all cross examination but rather just asking about the past sexual history of the accuser. Its not like the accuser gets to testify in disguise with an alias.

[Tgo01]

Murder, ADW, attempted murder, kidnapping, these things are all traumatic, but we don't go to extraordinary measures to protect the victims of those crimes.

More really must be done to protect the victims of murder.

[diethx]

Wow. It's seldom that we are privileged to have local input on these issues.

How is the community there handling the problem of women trying to claim special rights as "victims" before there has been a trial to establish that they were victims?

Quite accidentally, I would imagine.