home

Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting

By TChris, Section Media
Posted on Sat Jun 18, 2005 at 04:03:21 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

by TChris

From time to time, a columnist recognizes the double standard that pervades mainstream reporting of sex offense allegations: despite the presumption of innocence, the accused offender is identified, often destroying his reputation and employability, while the names of the accusers go unreported to protect them from publicity. The policy assumes that sex offense victims are stigmatized in a way that other crime victims (whose names routinely appear in news accounts) are not. In modern times, that distinction is dubious, but even if true, it is difficult to understand why it is fair to publicize the identity of a presumably innocent accused.

Most mainstream media still have not identified Michael Jackson's accuser, even though Jackson was acquitted. If a jury rejects an accuser's story, isn't the identity of the person who makes a (presumably false) accusation newsworthy?

This blackout was maintained even after the fact, while the mother of the alleged victim was being vilified as a disaster to the case by TV and radio commentators because of her shady background. Network newscasts, Nightline, even self-styled maverick Bill O'Reilly kept her identity secret while the legally exonerated Michael continued to be discussed in terms of child molestation.

Examples of this double standard are legion.

The Kobe Bryant case in Colorado evoked the same protectionist behavior. His accuser, who said she wasn't doing it for the money but wound up taking the money, continues to have her identity shielded. But Kobe, who wasn't tried, let alone convicted, will forever be known as the NBA superstar accused of rape.

Any stigma that society attaches to sex offense victims is exacerbated by media policies that treat accusers differently than other crime victims. In any event, "[i]t is more stigmatizing to be accused of committing a sex crime than it is to be the victim of one."

So "innocent until proven guilty" practically demands that the accused be afforded equal protection. ... The psychological well-being of a community might require public disclosure that a suspected rapist or child molester has been apprehended. But until there is a conviction, there is no reason why his or her name needs to be released. The community will learn what it needs to know in the event of a conviction, especially in an era when those found guilty of a sex crime must register with local authorities.

< Master Card Security Breach is Enormous | More On Gitmo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting | 18 comments (18 topical)
    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    You were making sense until:
    If a jury rejects an accuser's story, isn't the identity of the person who makes a (presumably false) accusation newsworthy?
    Since when does a verdict of not guilty make the accuser's story "presumably false"? Or has the burden of proof in a criminal trial changed? Does a not guilty verdict now mean that the accused has successfully proven his innocence? It would certainly make criminal trials in this country easier if the accused were expected to prove their innocence to get an acquital. Even members of the Michael Jackson jury weren't convinced Michael was innocent, or so I heard, and that's the way I think it should be. Of course, if Michael had to prove his innocence he'd be in prison now, and that would satisfy a certain bloodlust in society, so maybe I'm wrong.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#2)
    by TChris on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    To presume innocence, an accusation must be presumed to be false. And if the presumption of innocence is not overcome, the presumption that the accusation is false must remain.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#3)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    You hit the nail on the head TChris. The media has to solve this problem. When the accused still has victim status, the media says that they don't want to cause more difficulties for the victim. That's understandable. But times have changed. It's become en vogue to smear someone by accusing them of sexual assault, or some sort of other sexual misconduct. The media created this new wave of false accusations. Seems two ways out of this mess exist. The first is to not cover the story until conviction. In this age of 24-7 glitzy news that's not going to happen. The other way is to treat the falsely accused as a victim once their innocence has been established. If the accusers had to face the music for their accusations, then they would think twice about making the accusations. The media will argue that it's not prudent to take such a course of action because it will discourage real victims from coming forth in what is only a he said - she said situation. Is that a problem? Probabally not. Unless there is some other coroborating evidence, should a person, even one who is guilty, go to jail on the word of one witness with no coroborating evidence? It will mean guilty people go free, but that's far better than locking up people who are innocent. Out of curiosity TChris, TL, Roger, or any other defense attorney out there, about what per cent of sexual assault cases are no billed? --BigTex

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    To presume innocence, an accusation must be presumed to be false.
    Take a course in logic, then get back to me. A verdict of not guilty does not affirm a presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence doesn't survive the trial. More to the point, you cannot rationally assume that because someone is found not guilty in a court that they are in fact innocent. You cannot assume that the accuser's accusations are false, unless you're willing to grant the accuser fewer rights than the accused, like, say, the presumption of innocence. Or do you propose that whenever someone is found not guilty the accuser should be charged with and found guilty of filing a false criminal complaint? If you want to treat the the accuser as lying you should first prove the lie. A verdict of not guilty does not prove that the accuser was lying.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    A verdict of guilty means the jury did not find the accuser or his or her story worthy enough to credit it as being true. If something isn't true, it's false. You sound like a handwriting examiner who wants to argue that just because two specimens are not identical, that doesn't make them different. They argue the disparity is merely a "variation" and not a "difference." We're not running a philosophy course here. TChris is right on the money. As usual. The presumption of innocence lasts until a jury or judge comes back with a verdict of guilty. If that verdict never comes, the defendant is innocent in the eyes of the law.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    you cannot rationally assume that because someone is found not guilty in a court that they are in fact innocent.
    It is people that think like you that are allowing our country to become a police state.
    The first is to not cover the story until conviction. In this age of 24-7 glitzy news that's not going to happen. The other way is to treat the falsely accused as a victim once their innocence has been established.
    Thankfully, there are other options. For example, standards could be adopted by private organizations setting ethical standards that the media must conform to for approval. Better than that, the government could do its **** job and break up the monopolies controlling the media from creation to delivery. Tex's last solution is for Americans to surrender to our current state of affairs and accept that the accused are considered guilty (or tainted) until proven innocent.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    If something isn't true, it's false.
    That's not necessarily so. It depends on the logic you assume. More importantly, not guily and innocent don't mean the same thing, at least, not in the eyes of jurors. If an acquitted defendant is innocent in the eyes of the law, then how is it that the law allows civil suits against clearly innocent people? Innocent in the eyes of the law clearly isn't the same thing as innocent. Or, someone accused of a sexual crime can be innocent in the eyes of the law and the accuser can still be telling the truth. If you're going to justify publicly revealling an accuser based on the argument that the accuser must be lying, you need to be able to prove the accuser is lying, in the real world, not just in the eyes of the law. It isn't about nitpicking and it isn't about philosophy. It's about clear thinking. But it is nice to see that TalkLeft supports secret trials for those accused of sexual crimes:
    But until there is a conviction, there is no reason why his or her name needs to be released. The community will learn what it needs to know in the event of a conviction,


    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    No, talkleft disapproves of the double standard whereby an accuser's name is kept secret while the accused's is blasted all over the media. Either both names should be kept secret, or both should be public.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    you need to be able to prove the accuser is lying, in the real world, not just in the eyes of the law.
    First, your definitional assumption of the "real world" isn't the same one subscribed to uniformly by all of America. Second, even if all of America agreed to a uniform standard of proof aside from that accepted in the eyes of the law (what exactly would that be?), it is likely the standard would be impossible to overcome without the accused forwarding and proving an alternative theory of the crime which is not their responsibility in the United States.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#10)
    by Richard Aubrey on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    TL. You would be "chilling" the likelihood of the reports of rape. Being raped, even in our enlightened twenty-first century, carries more baggage than other kinds of assault and battery. Who'd be worried about their name getting out because of having been, say, shot in a robbery? Just posing the question brings up a point: Does anybody ever think of the lasting effects on the psyche of having been shot, or beaten? No. Or rarely. But the lasting effects of rape are considered to go without saying. Rape is a whole 'nother thing. On the other hand, shooting someone or raping someone are probably equally as bad in the eye of the general public. So I have far less problem with the double standard. On the other hand, you are right in the implication that in two crimes, not-guilty verdicts don't count with the public. One is a sex crime--especially involving a child--and the other is high-profile white collar crime. Nobody is vindicated by being found not guilty. They are always the guy who fooled the jury. So, to address this problem, I suggest severe penalties for those making deliberately false accusations, with no exclusion for the divorce-trial-lever. At the least, some of the people now suffering undeserved opprobium will not face the issue in the first place, or if somebody tries it, the trial of their (false) accuser will clear their name far more than a not-guilty verdict. And it is foolish to say that being found not guilty is exactly the same as being truly innocent. And doubly foolish to say that this leads to a police state. Tampa ought to do a bit of research. Being found not guilty means the state can't punish you, and police states are defined as being punished by the state. It's not a police state if the people are allowed to have independent opinions. Just inconvenient to those who Know Better Than Everybody Else.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Speaking of know better than everyone else...take your own advice. The media - beyond news, including entertainment - is seeding paranoia amongst the public. The result is a society that believes that harsher sentencing and more police equals more security.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    TChris, TalkLeft, I love you guys, but Allen and Richard are right here. Names should only be released when a guilty verdict is rendered. Your standard would result in a presumption of guilt on the part of the accuser in the event of a perjury charge against the accuser. While not true does equal false, not proved true does not equal false.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#13)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    I have no problems with keeping both names secret, but I think that releasing the victim’s name is actually a worse situation than we have now, since it creates additional victims. I see no benefit to anyone by letting 5- and 6-year old children find out that their mother was raped. Even worse, imagine a newly pregnant woman who is raped. Or, for that matter, a woman who becomes pregnant by rape and chooses to have the baby. Why should these children suffer because some people think that to be fair, we should release the mother’s name.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#14)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Our system is insane, and mr.O, is nuts, and jackson is one evil so and so, but it is the land of freedom right? its all nothing but a show and justice is a lie, when evil is running a system of nuts.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#15)
    by BigTex on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    Tex's last solution is for Americans to surrender to our current state of affairs and accept that the accused are considered guilty (or tainted) until proven innocent. Not so much surrender to it, as to begin from the proposition that this is the current state of affairs and take precautions accordingly. While it would be nice for the government to break up the monoplies, that isn't going to happen, neither will the media adhere to some etherial standards of professional reponsibility. One alternative could be for the government to establish a body to enforce some professional responsibility for the media. Once there are some teeth behind a body to enforce responsibility behind media actions then complience will be forthcoming. Richard - I'm not pro criminal, but this is one area where alleged criminals need greater protection. Right now, what's the harm to a female who cries rape? Her identity is protected, and the system (both legal and media) protects her identity. LEOs aren't willing to bring forth false report charges. The only option to styme this abuse of the legal system is to grant greater protection to the alleged criminals. While I don't go so far as to totally agree with TL and TChris that legal and factual innocence are one in the same we do operate under a working assumption of innocent until proven guilty, and operate under that standard with good cause. The problem here arises not with the standard, but rather the public's refusal to believe that standard. Until the public is willing to believe innocnce until proof of guilt protective measures need to be taken to protect the real victims. Some times that will be an acutal rape victim, but more often lately that's the falsely accused. The mannor TChris suggested is a sensible compromise. Grant the protection of the system to the alleged victim (remember she's not a victim until the alleged assailant is proven guilty) until the matter is determined. But if a jury is unable to convict (as opposed to unwilling) then the true victim, the accused, needs the same protection. Perhaps another alternative solution is to seal both parties names from the public until the resolution of criminal legal proceedings. --BigTex

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:13 PM EST
    In our justice system, an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. In actuality three scenarios arise: 1. For the Rich-you can make bail, hire the best lawyers, and the jury looks at you as innocent until proven guilty, (and it's gonna take alot to prove you are guilty-even in Texas). 2. For the celebrity - you can make bail, hire the best lawyers, the jury probably wants your autograph, but you must deal with the media (who definitely don't understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty). 3. For everyone else - good luck making bail. Any media attention will likely be negative. You need a public defender, or can afford to hire only the 2nd or 3rd tier defenders. While awaiting trial, you will NOT be held in the "innocent until proven guilty" wing of the county jail. The jury is likely to consider you guilty with a lot less proof than #1 or #2 above. Going to a system of guilty until you prove yourself innocent would actually just reflect what happens all the time under #3.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    Tex said:
    Perhaps another alternative solution is to seal both parties names from the public until the resolution of criminal legal proceedings.
    I would be comfortable with that. The media has proven that it's incapable of balancing it's financial incentives with integrity. Media trials only reduce the likelihood of justice being served. I disagree that the media cannot be reformed, but if I were to accept that the media were going to remain the same, I would accept Tex's statement.

    Re: Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting (none / 0) (#18)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    Each case must be judged on its own merits and nothing more or less. Which means there certainly may be times when a false accusation merits prosecution. And it also means there are going to instances when a narrow court decision will not resolve the perception of a defendent. Now, should these sex-offense defendents be publicly identified in the environment of today? No, and the MSM, which has many things to get in order, needs to get this right. But corporate control means profit reigns, and that means class and dignity and fairness don't.

    Double Standards in Sex Offense Reporting | 18 comments (18 topical)