Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nodrog
Despite sensationalism on both sides, rape is no different from any other form of assault and shouldnt be treated differently from other criminal charges.
|
Rape IS different from other forms of assault, and individual cases differ as well. But the same is true of most type of assult. A stabbing is different from a slap, kidnapping and torturing someone is different from kneeing someone in the balls and nicking their mobile phone. But on the level of the continued suffering inflicted on the victim even after the actual incident I would say it warrants different treatment, but the same is true of someone who has been (e.g.) stalked or anyone who will suffer if normal 'justice' procedure is followed. But this doesn't really matter except when you're thinking about severity of sentencing, and looking after the victims, like in victim/witness protection schemes.
I think that there are important differences from the point of view of anonymity. The stigma associated with being accused of rape, and also of having been raped, means that you are effectively punishing someone just by releasing their names. Therefore, I would suggest the following: All accusers and accused should remain anonymous. If found guilty, the accused is named. If not, then both stay anonymous. If the innocent party wants to accuse the woman of making a false claim, then there is a separate trial for this. If she is found guilty of fabricating the story, then she is named and punished. If not, they both remain anonymous.
Doesn't that sound reasonable?