US readers are probably aware of the (ongoing) trial of Kobe Bryant (US sportsman) for rape.

The question is, should his name have been released prior to a verdict being given? In a society where the 'accusation' of rape carries a heavy stigma, the damage to the reputation of the accused is heavy - most men who are cleared of wrongdoing report that they *still* suffer negative reactions from former friends and colleagues.

In the case of Kobe Bryant, one of his sponsers has already stated that:
"Ferrero U.S.A.'s contract with Kobe Bryant expires in January 2004," the company said in a statement. "Marketing plans established earlier this year did not contemplate a contract renewal. In keeping with this decision, and considering the recent developments, Kobe's image on Nutella labels and promotional material is being phased out."
Which means that, win or lose the rape case, Bryant will pay the cost of the accusation anyway.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Sp...boy030804.html

Q: Should someone who has accused of but not yet been found guilty of rape be named? And what about the accuser? Should he/she be named too? (Current practice is not to name the alleged 'victim')

<font color=orange>If one is named then both should be named. Watch the tomatoes! Ouch! Don't throw so hard!!! Ouch! I watched a movie this weekend called <font color=pink>The Life of David Gale<font color=orange>. It was about a College Professor that was on Death Row for the Rape and Murder of an Associate (Good movie BTW). At the beginning of the movie he is accused of raping a grad student (She was getting him back for having her thrown out of school). The charges were dropped, but he ended up losing his job and his family. Again, I know its a movie, but you almost have to wonder how often it happens. It's such a hard question though, I'm very divided on the whole issue.

If Kobe's a suspect, the word should get out. Same goes for the accusing party. If in the end Kobe appears to be innocent, Nutella owns him an apology. For now they have every right to do whatever they think is best for their product.

Probably more frequently than you realise. More recently in the UK news there have been a couple of high-profile cases:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3115405.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2988208.stm

and if it really is true that:
a "report from the U.S. Dept. of Justice... {indicates] that retrospective DNA testing in the USA has shown that 1/3 of men who have been through the entire justice system of arrest, trial and incarceration are innocent."
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/camp/rapealleg.htm

Then the number of innocent men whose lives and careers have been damaged as a result of false allegations and mis-handled investigations is staggering!

[ 08-05-2003, 09:12 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I believe both should be named or neither.

Have you heard Nutella's slogan? "Kobe's favorite 'spread'" :eek:

[img]graemlins/heee.gif[/img] I think that you've just demonstrated why Nutella have decided to drop Kobe!

Name 'em both. If the DA can get his 15 minutes for prosecuting Kobe, she can have her past turned inside out. Since it's not "relevant" admissible evidence in court, I'd like to have some news shows turning her past inside out just to see what kind of little golddigging slut she is.

<font color=orange>Now TL!!! Down Boy or the Tomatoes will come your way! :D But I do understand what you are saying. We have an interesting case here in Tennessee where the Prosecutor has charged a woman with six counts of murder after she ran over and killed two police officers who were trying to stop her with those spike thingys. Now math wasn't my strong suet in school, but I know that 2 does NOT EQUAL 6. Sometimes the Prosecutors in this country have too much power. I also think they tend to play dirty pool by trying the case in the press like they are doing with Kobe. Of course, it may be the Prosecutor's best chance in this case, cause I sure Kobe has another OJ team!

[ 08-05-2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Sir Taliesin ]

I just saw a press conference, where Kobe acted like he was about to cry, and said things about how much he loves his wife, and how special she is to him.

YEAH RIGHT KOBE

Why don't you just admit that you're a player ? If your wife was that special you wouldn't be playing hide the salami with some bimbo in a hotelroom. But some members of the jury will probably fall for this little act. To me it didn't look convincing at all, a very pathetic act. Guilty or not, he would have been better off by not talking to the press at all. This just made me laugh my ass off.

Tough question. I would say name neither. I personally think the trial section of Western justice systems has gotten WAY too public. Quite honestly, things like this can spell disaster for a person even if they are exonerated (people will crucify an accused pedophile during a trial, for example.) I would say, if it is a matter of public safety, tell us the name of the convicted after the trial. Otherwise, why should something like an arrest (read not conviction) be broadcast to everyone important to the person.

I am personally totally against revealing the name of the victim. We have enough trouble with rape victims, beaten wives, etc. coming forward. The defence should be able to rip her apart on the stand, and quite honestly, put her entire life at trial if they so desire, but not in public.

Again, we don't need to know about a trial, so why put anyone involved all over the news? They're innocent till proven guilty, remember...

<font color = lightgreen>Both should be named. If you're going to take the plunge and accuse someone of rape, which will severely negatively impact that person's life, then you should also be named.

On the other hand, if you are in a situation where it appears that you have cheated on your wife, you state simply "I didn't cheat on my wife" once and then drop the subject. Continuing to chant your innocence like a mantra and cry on camera looks like someone who is trying to convince everyone that they really are innocent. Besides, why is he in that situation in the first place? Doesn't he have any more sense than to invite women to his hotel room? [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img] </font>

Gotta disagree with you. The mental affects of being raped are so traumatizing, that the person should be given the option. I have seen rape victims on TV, who forgo that right. But if you don't want to, you don't have to. I do, however, believe in making the victim's prior history admissable, and presented to defense at the beginning of the trial. I guess that's sort of a balance, but I don't really think it's fair for the victim, some innocent often enough (maybe not in the Kobe case, but whatever) to be paraded around, their dignity destroyed.

True Moose, most legal analysts agree that attempts over the last few decades to change the legal process where rape is concerned (e.g. evidence rules and victim name protection rules) not only addressed the problems women had coming forward as rape victims, but also went TOO FAR, making it such that the accused is hamstrung in defending themselves.

Regarding the one issue I'm familiar with, Evidence, it is a bad situation. The accused gets every sexual relationship he's ever had analyzed, while the victim is protected. The accused is NOT allowed to ask questions regarding the victim's promiscuity or past accusations (false or not) of rape. By statute under the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE) and most states (which adopt laws similar to the FRE), the "victims" past slutiness is "irrelevant." Totally unfair, IMO. As an example, the one girl I know who falsely accused a guy in college of rape was actually an outright ho-bag slut. I have personally seen her in the middle of having sex with multiple partners at once at parties I went to. Yet, in accusing someone, her absolute willingness (and actual pursuit) of having sex with anyone and everyone was inadmissible irrelevant evidence in court. Luckily, everyone on campus knew of this, and of her particular proclivities the night in question, so she dropped her case to avoid social ostracism (and, btw, admitted to her friends it was consensual and she was actually pissed he "blew her off" the next day). If it weren't for the social presures on campus, though, I'm sure she had a good chance to get an upstanding college student with a bright future turned into a jailed "criminal."

Note to all golddigging women on IWF: until the laws change, in the USA this is a great way to fund your life/college for a bit: find a rich guy, screw him, and accuse him of rape. Married guys with high-paying jobs work best, and are especially susceptible to a young girl's charms. Carpe diem, and all that. Happy hunting.

I agree with you, Timber. The defense should be able to rip apart (sorry if it sounds cold) the "victim" on the stand. Nowadays, there are so many false claims (from golddiggers to high school kids whose crush on a teacher was turned down), that to not examine the "victim's" past history is not only an egregious error, it amounts to injustice. However, I don't think this should be dragged all over the media. Sexuality is a private matter: if you accuse someone of rape, you are willing to have yours examined, to a certain degree, by the accusee, officials of the court, and jurors: these people are responsibly obligated to keep this private. It shouldn't however, be available to a guy like me, who has never known this person, when I plop down in front of my couch to watch the news.