Page 1 of 2

Rights of the Victim vs the Accused

Unread postPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:54 pm
by Boushin Dragonfly
We've all, no doubt, heard of the woman who has accused Kobe Bryant of rape and/or sexual misconduct.

No doubt, we've all also heard about a talk-show radio host in California releasing her name.

This begs an interesting question. Are the rights of the Victim protectable when, clearly, the rights of the Accused are not?

Clearly, this is a case of guilty until proven innocent, and not the other way around.

Thoughts?

Unread postPosted: Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:16 pm
by Emily
Someone released her name? I feel terrible for the poor woman.

As far as your question, I believe that both the victim and the accused's rights should be protected. However, from my experience with the media, it is often far more difficult to keep the accused's name quiet. And in this specific case, it would have been damn near impossible to keep this situation silent as Kobe is already such a public figure.

But as far as I'm concerned, the victim should be afforded perhaps a bit more consideration- especially with an alleged crime like this. (Some of you may not know, but pseudonyms are sometimes used even on the initial police reports when the crime is of a sexual nature.) In this case, the woman is already in an awkward situation, and it seems as though she's not seeking fame from the incident, or she would have released her name by now. (This is my opinion though, so some of you may disagree.) She and she alone should have been the one to decide whether or not she wanted her name released. I personally feel that some form of legal action should be taken against the radio host for his callousness and invasion of privacy.

Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2003 7:51 pm
by Rhiannon
Captain_Emily wrote:But as far as I'm concerned, the victim should be afforded perhaps a bit more consideration- especially with an alleged crime like this. (Some of you may not know, but pseudonyms are sometimes used even on the initial police reports when the crime is of a sexual nature.) In this case, the woman is already in an awkward situation, and it seems as though she's not seeking fame from the incident, or she would have released her name by now. (This is my opinion though, so some of you may disagree.) She and she alone should have been the one to decide whether or not she wanted her name released. I personally feel that some form of legal action should be taken against the radio host for his callousness and invasion of privacy.


Unfortunately, the woman has not exactly been a private person. Well, yes, she herself is hiding away and refuses to give any official statement, or allow her official statement to be said. However, she has apparently told about 10 or so of her close friends the details of the incident. (Not very like a raped woman, is it? Nonetheless, I won't debate the case -- just the privacy). So while she isn't all over the media, doing a Clinton girl thing, all of her friends are. Each of them has a slightly different version of the story, but all of them are quite willing to talk about the press (up to the point where 'he just snapped', because they refuse to talk about the actual details of what that means.) Now, I'm not sure whether you want to blame her friends for this, or blame her for blabbing to all of her friends, but the point is, she is all over the press with her story. The media whores it up, and thus, you get the impression of a woman who really wants to get her story out there, instead of keeping it bottled up.

If that sounded a little ranty about the situation, I'm sorry. My point is, she appears to want the media attention. Unfortunately, the media are hounds, and you wonder who to blame. Ultimately, I'd argue that neither one of them should be in the press spotlight. However, the media perpwalks the accused in any crime that sounds interesting to them, muchless one that has superstar status. It's syndicated crime. In the justice system, it may be innocent until proven guilty. But the media is another matter entirely.

Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2003 8:10 pm
by Emily
Actually, I've been reading up on this, and- for the most part- I agree with you, at least as far as this specific case is concerned. As I said, I think that both parties should be allowed to stay out of the media's scrutiny, but that in a case like this- involving a famous person- that isn't feasible.

As far as seeking publicity, telling a few friends is not the same as having her name announced on the radio. That shows a lack of ethics on the part of the host, as he did not specifically have her permission to go public. If she really wanted the publicity, she should have come out herself. So, whether they're outing her against her will, or merely humoring her search for publicity, is irrelevant in my eyes. The crime is of a sexual nature, and so no details should have been released. The major news agencies and networks (like CNN) know this, and still have not printed her name. More than likely, they will continue this until she herself goes public. And although her story was out there, her name wasn't. In my eyes, that is a major difference in the two situations. Now that her name has been announced, anyone can pry into her life.

And regardless of whether or not she is lying, I still believe that some sort of action should be taken against the host, as this is not the first time that he has publicly released the name of the alleged victim in a high-profile sex crime case.

Unread postPosted: Fri Jul 25, 2003 9:50 pm
by Justin
I must agree with WE on this one. Normally I feel both parties should be respected but when one is a famour sports star and the other has had here fair share of time in the media spotlight I don't feel bad for either or. However I do tend to think this girl is doing this out of spite towards Kobe for some reason. Her story doesn't sound like the typical rape victim scenario.

Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:47 am
by Boushin Dragonfly
She's tried out for American Idol. Now if that's not someone who WANTS publicity, I don't know who is.

I give the case a month before she gets a book deal.

Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:05 am
by Mr. Counsellor
Ok...this came from an old local movie I just happened to watch.
It's about a righteous judge who truly knew how to bring those who are guilty into justice even when threatened by corrupt, powerful men.

[paraphrase--this is in Filipino of course]
"Ang mga akusado, marami pang karapatan, kahit sila pa ang napatunayang gumawa ng krimen...samantalang ang biktima, iisa lang, ang karapatan na mabigyan ng hustisya."

[translated in English]
"Those who are accussed are given more rights, even though they are already proven guilty...while the victims only have one right, and it is the right to be given justice."

^_^

Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:17 am
by Emily
I don't think that you understand what I'm trying to say. I don't care whether or not she's lying or telling the truth. That's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. This isn't about her, it's about media ethics. (And yes-contrary to popular belief- the media does have ethics.)

The fact of the matter is, she made a claim of sexual assault. I realize that there is a possibility that she is just searching for publicity. However, media ethics state that the victim of an alleged sex crime is not to be publicly outed unless he or she [the victim] outs themselves or gives their permission. That's why the major networks and news agencies still have not printed her name. They know better.

Now, had it been proven that she was lying and the case dropped, this rule of ethics would have no longer been applicable. But no matter how the alleged victim is acting or what your personal beliefs on the situation are, the case has not been settled yet. Therefore, her name should never have been released in the media.

Look at the case of the Trisha Meili- a.k.a. the Central Park Jogger. Hers was a high profile case, but it wasn't until 14 years after the fact that her name was released, and only after she agreed. Why? Because the media stuck with their code of ethics. These rules shouldn't be allowed to be selective, but should be universally applied.

Then again, I don't think the accused's name should have been released until after the conclusion of the trial either. But as I said, it is much harder to keep the accused man's name quiet- especially in a high profile case. (But that is just my opinion, and not part of media ethics.)

This radio host, however, has repeatedly outed alleged victims, so this isn't the first time he's done something like this. I feel that his main motivation was ratings, and not justice or any other nonsensical reason he might want to give.

Unread postPosted: Sat Jul 26, 2003 6:11 am
by Jiang Xun
The way the system works its that the accused always has more power then the victim. There is no way to change this without violating the consititution.

Closed trials, aren't usually done, regardless of the witness. It is the medias right to publize it, if they feel the need or want to do so.

Now, am i for or against protecting the witness or the defendat......im neither, some sacrifices must be made to keep our system as just as posable.

But, b/c of her recent mental histroy, the case would be lucky to make it to trail. They are going to claim that she is mentaly un-stable. Which, by the looks of it, she is.....

Unread postPosted: Tue Jul 29, 2003 5:35 pm
by rcsha
I believe that neither person's names should be released. Kobe Bryant and the woman should both have their privacy on the matter, Kobe should know who's accusing him and she should know that she's accusing Kobe. Other than the only people who should know who's doing what are the police, a judge and the jury.