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')