Man Held Captive by Stepmom for Twenty-plus Years

[Darat]

In this case the defendant knew and knows who the victim was and is. What name they now go by in regards to this case has nothing to do with the idea that you have a right to know your accuser. It served no purpose at all for her or indeed even for her lawyers to know his new name.

 

[theprestige]

In general, I think unless the victim's name is relevant or required to further the case then the victim shouldn't be named. I think it's one of the dumbest things we do in the US, or anywhere else that does it.

If there's a rape case and the rapist's DNA is found inside\on the victim then I can see the value of giving the name of the victim. The defendant has to know the name of the person that is saying they were raped, but if the victim changes their name post-rape then the defendant has no need, or right, to know that name. It's not relevant because it wasn't the situation at the time.

Not the victim. The accuser. Very often they're the same person, but it's their role as accuser that matters here.

Sure they are. There are entire hotlines setup for them and it's actually one of the ways crimes get solved.

My bad. I'm talking about the formal due process of a criminal trial. When the accusations are raised in trial, I think it matters that the accuser not be able to remain anonymous, while the state rakes the defendant over the coals on the basis of those accusations. You want to point your finger at someone, you should be willing to stand behind that gesture.

I guess I don't argue vague generalities in threads about a specific topic, but I already addressed this. Unless the victim's name needs to be known, for some reason, then I think the victim should always be protected at all costs.

Not the victim. The accuser. ETA: It's not a vague generality. It's a specific rule with a broad application: If you accuse someone of a crime, and it goes to court, the accused has the right to know that you're the one who accused them. And it's relevant to this specific topic, because this is exactly the kind of scenario the rule applies to.

 

[theprestige]

In this case the defendant knew and knows who the victim was and is. What name they now go by in regards to this case has nothing to do with the idea that you have a right to know your accuser. It served no purpose at all for her or indeed even for her lawyers to know his new name.

I tend to agree with this. But it doesn't change my view of what SGM said about the general rule.

 

[plague311]

Not the victim. The accuser. Very often they're the same person, but it's their role as accuser that matters here.

Cool, well it doesn't matter here because the victim was known. He didn't need to be named, accuser or not.

My bad. I'm talking about the formal due process of a criminal trial. When the accusations are raised in trial, I think it matters that the accuser not be able to remain anonymous, while the state rakes the defendant over the coals on the basis of those accusations. You want to point your finger at someone, you should be willing to stand behind that gesture.

Ok.

Not the victim. The accuser.

In this case, they're the same thing and they didn't need to provide his new name.

ETA: It's not a vague generality. It's a specific rule with a broad application: If you accuse someone of a crime, and it goes to court, the accused has the right to know that you're the one who accused them.

Cool, I don't see anyone arguing differently.

And it's relevant to this specific topic, because this is exactly the kind of scenario the rule applies to.

You've stated multiple times you weren't talking about this specific topic because you were saying "in general".

The rule doesn't apply here, as I've stated multiple times. There was absolutely no reason at all to give the defense his name, let alone his address. I could maybe see medical details as they'll have to defend against the absolute devastation they've caused his body, but his name and address weren't important.

If you'd like to have a random conversation on what you do and do not approve of in general cases, then I'll leave you to it. I am here to discuss this case, not your general whims.

 

[theprestige]

Cool, well it doesn't matter here because the victim was known. He didn't need to be named, accuser or not.


Ok.


In this case, they're the same thing and they didn't need to provide his new name.


Cool, I don't see anyone arguing differently.


You've stated multiple times you weren't talking about this specific topic because you were saying "in general".

The rule doesn't apply here, as I've stated multiple times. There was absolutely no reason at all to give the defense his name, let alone his address. I could maybe see medical details as they'll have to defend against the absolute devastation they've caused his body, but his name and address weren't important.

If you'd like to have a random conversation on what you do and do not approve of in general cases, then I'll leave you to it.

Tell it to Silly Green Monkey, who brought up the general case. As for leaving me to it, I really wish you had. But you didn't.

I am here to discuss this case, not your general whims.

You have already falsified this claim.

 

[plague311]

Tell it to Silly Green Monkey, who brought up the general case. As for leaving me to it, I really wish you had. But you didn't.


You have already falsified this claim.

Neat.