.


Right: Germaine Greer, author of The female eunuch, academic and activist, urged that rape victims should name their rapists online instead of going to the police.

Found a word you're not familiar with? Double-click that word to bring up a dictionary reference to it. The dictionary page includes an audio sound file with which to actually hear the word said.



Arguments against naming alleged rapists

1. The accusations being made may be false
Those who oppose alleged rapists being named online argue that the accusations being made may be false.
A popular American singer-songwriter, Conor Oberst of the band Bright Eyes, was falsely accused online of rape. In July, 2014, a representative for Oberst announced that his accuser, Joanie Faircloth, had issued an official statement admitting that she lied in a post on the xoJane site and that she had subsequently repeated these lies on other sites.
Faircloth stated, 'I made up those lies about him to get attention while I was going through a difficult period in my life and trying to cope with my son's illness. I publicly retract my statements about Conor Oberst, and sincerely apologize to him, his family, and his fans for writing such awful things about him.'
There appear to be no reliable estimates of the number of false rape accusations that are made. A commonly cited estimate, apparently originating with feminist author Susan Brownmiller in the 1970s, is that they account for about 2 percent of rape reports; however, the basis on which this estimate was made is not given.
Other figures are as high as 10 per cent. A 2009 multi-site study of eight United States communities, including 2,059 cases of sexual assault, found a 7.1 percent rate of false reports. A study of 136 sexual assault cases in Boston from 1998-2007 found a 5.9 percent rate of false reports.
There is a general uneasiness about accusing those who claim to have been sexually assaulted of lying because, historically, sexual assault victims' testimony was uniformly and unreasonably doubted.
However, those who oppose the naming of supposed rapists online claim that it is also unreasonable to assume that everyone who claims to have been raped is telling the truth.
In an article published in Slate on September 18, 2014, Cathy Young stated, 'In challenging what author and law professor Susan Estrich has called "the myth of the lying woman", feminists have been creating their own counter-myth: that of the woman who never lies.'

2. The alleged rapist loses the right to a presumption of innocence
The naming of alleged rapists is condemned as a violation of the accuseds' right to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty. The presumption of innocence is a fundamental tenet of international, Australian, British and United Sates law. Under common law 'The proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies; since, by the nature of things, he who denies a fact cannot produce any proof.'
Critics of rapist shaming argue that many of the alleged victims who name their alleged rapists online offer no proof of their allegations. Often the accusers admit there is no proof possible as there is no corroborating evidence. No medical examinations were undertaken, there was no other physical evidence, the alleged victim had not immediately reported the supposed offence and there were no witnesses.
It cannot be assumed that a person is guilty merely because they have been accused, yet, critics maintain, that is often the effect of rapist shaming online. The declining rate of convictions for rape in Britain has been cited by some as demonstrating that accusation does not equal guilt. In a comment and analysis published in Spiked magazine on January 20, 2016, law editor, Luke Gittos, noted, 'The conviction rate in rape cases has started to fall, from its historic high of 63 per cent in 2013 to 56.9 per cent in 2014-2015.'
Rapist shaming is often seen by its critics as potentially unethical whether the alleged rapist has been tried or not. If the accused has not been tried then guilt has not been proven and accusations should not be publically made. If the accused has been tried and guilt was not established then it is equally not appropriate to condemn that person online.
Currently in Britain there is a movement to have the identity of accused rapists kept secret prior to trial because of the harm that can be done to their reputations. There are even those who argue that their names should not be published after the trial if they are found not guilty of the offence.
Spiked magazine's law editor, Luke Gittos, stated, 'It is important to recognise that the reason such calls for anonymity are being made in the first place is that the presumption of innocence, a vital principle of our justice system, is now held in very low regard. Today, the fact of an allegation can have a devastating effect on people's reputations precisely because we fail to distinguish between an allegation and a proven fact.'

3. The alleged rapist's reputation may be damaged within their community and beyond
There have been repeated cases of those accused of rape and other forms of sexual assault being harassed, often with unfortunate consequences for the person being publicly accused.
On October 28, 2015, the situation of young man falsely accused of rape was reported in The Telegraph. In June, 2015, Jay Cheshire, a 17-year-old English man was cleared of rape when his accuser withdrew her allegations. Two weeks later he committed suicide. Cheshire's mother claimed he was unable to deal with the public humiliation that followed the accusation. Mrs Karin Cheshire stated, 'She accused him of rape and said he was a sexual offender. He was absolutely distraught.'
The same Telegraph article reported on the situation of another man who suffered as the result of a false rape accusation. He stated, 'I am tarnished, shamed and alienated... My hands still feel tied, and I am humiliated amongst my community - whilst the person who accused me is still walking the streets...telling people that I have raped others.'
The Telegraph article also reported the situation of a former school teacher, falsely accused of rape and child abuse and no longer working in his previous profession. He states, 'It's a sentence without a conviction.'
The Telegraph article concludes that those wrongfully accused of rape 'can never regain the same social or emotional standard of life as they previously had.'
An analysis published in The Guardian on September 13, 2016, noted the impact that online allegations can have. It stated, 'The destruction of a person's online reputation is no small thing in an age when every employer, landlord and potential romantic partner relies on Google as a free and easy background check.'
An article published in the Chronicle for Higher Education on September 1, 2014, looked at the consequences for American college students accused of rape. It states, 'Many students accused describe feeling much like their classmates who say colleges have mishandled their reports of being assaulted...
Alleged perpetrators...also feel betrayed and mistreated: presumed guilty, they say, by campus administrators so concerned with protecting victims that due process falls away. Some men found responsible lose weight, suffer depression, and watch their college and career plans crumble.'

4. If the alleged rapist has not been prosecuted, naming the person online could jeopardise a fair trial and any potential prosecution
Police and legal experts have warned that naming an alleged rapist before that person is tried could impede police investigations and make a proper trial impossible.
Detective Superintendent Linda Howlett, commander of NSW Police Sex Crimes Squad, has implored victims to let police deal with rape allegations.
Radio National reporter Hagar Cohen has interviewed Superintendent Howlett and has paraphrased her comments. Cohen has stated, 'She Howlett pointed out that if public shaming occurs, it could damage the chances of success in court and also damage a police investigation.
She has obviously seen first-hand many cases that did achieve an excellent outcome for victims.'
The impact of creating prejudice against an accused before a case is prosecuted was brought to public attention in 2012-3, in the lead-up to the trial of Jill Meagher's alleged rapist and murderer. Police pleaded with the public not to make online comments and other accusations against the accused, Adrian Bayley. A suppression order was issued prohibiting the publication of information about prior offences committed by Bayley. Broadcaster Derryn Hinch was found guilty of violating this suppression order via comments he made on his website.
Suppression orders are issued to ensure that the case against an accused can proceed and that the accused will be given a fair trial. Where a case is heard before a jury, there is concern that prejudice will be created within the minds of jurors if extraneous, prejudicial information is made public. Trials may have to be suspended, potentially indefinitely, if community opinion has been swayed against the accused in a way that would prevent a fair trial.
On October 19, 2015, The Sydney Morning Herald published a comment by Marilyn Warren, the Chief Justice of Victoria. Warren quoted the following judicial justification of a suppression order, 'This order is made for the purpose of ensuring the fair trial of the accused ... to prevent a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the proper administration of justice that cannot be prevented by other reasonably available means.'

5. Any suit brought by the alleged rapist may not undo the damage done to that person
It has been claimed that suing the accuser does not necessarily offer adequate redress for people falsely accused of rape.
One of the most famous cases where suing, in this case Columbia University, failed to give the accused real vindication is that of former Columbia student, Paul Nungesser. In 2012, former Columbia student, Emma Sulkowicz, accused Nungesser of rape. Columbia's disciplinary committee dismissed the case and police declined to pursue charges. Sulkowicz launched a now famous art project, carrying her mattress around campus throughout the 2014-2015 school year and to her graduation.
Sulkowicz had accused Nungesser of raping, beating and strangling her during her sophomore year. Though Columbia cleared him of the accusations, the school paper, The Columbia Spectator, named him. Nungesser was also one of four students accused of rape whose names were listed on flyers and scrawled on the walls of toilet cubicles.

Nungesser sued the university, alleging it supported an 'outrageous display of harassment and defamation.' A Federal District Court dismissed Nungesser's case twice and though Nungesser and Columbia have now settled, the terms have not been disclosed.
The case has been used to demonstrate the inadequacy of suing as a means whereby someone falsely accused can achieve redress. Despite the initial charge being dismissed, Nungesser's suit was not upheld. Though Columbia later settled with Nungesser, his lawyer, Andrew Miltonberg, claimed the total experience was not satisfactory. Miltonberg stated, 'Paul still has to live with this, and I suspect he will for a long time.'