|
Personally I feel we need to at least re-evaluate things.
I think that if the accuser is unnamed, then the accused should be unnamed until he is found guilty (and stay unnamed if he is found innocent). Of course this would be somewhat difficult to regulate in cases like this one, where the accused is famous, but in the majority of cases it would help. With luck it would decrease the ramifications if a man was falsely accused of rape and found to be innocent.
I also think that the accuser (I hate the terms "accuser" and "accused" because they remind me so much of the Salem witch trials, but they are the closest to being accurate) should be allowed to choose whether or not she wants to remain anonymous. There are women out there that don't because they want other women who have been raped to be able to put a name and a race to their story and help convince other victims to report the rape. I can see where this would be a slippery slope.
But on the other hand, stuff like this makes me see the need for anonymity -- like they said in the article, for a woman who's been raped this would basically be your worst nightmare. I can't even begin to describe how mad this makes me -- I wonder how many women who are raped will not come forward because of stuff like this.
|