Shots In The Dark: On the Duke Rape Case

Friday, April 13, 2007

On the Duke Rape Case

Some of you suggested that it felt vindictive to publish the name of the false accuser in the Duke rape case, Crystal Mangum—or that I was being vindictive in proposing it.

Let me explain.

I have, from the beginning of this particular case, felt that it did not feel right. The story of three men simultaneously raping a woman in three different orifices...no. I didn't buy it.

If I sounded passionate about the imbalance of naming the falsely accused but not naming the false accuser, it's because I am passionate about it. I think it is an injustice.

But that alone is not reason enough to publish the name of a rape accuser.

As we all know, newspapers and other media tend not to publish such names because, it is feared, doing so will discourage other rape victims from coming forward. At the time that these media policies were implemented, there was a powerful stigma to having been raped, and many women would rather suffer in silence than risk being tarred with that stigma.

It is my feeling that several things have changed which should prompt reconsideration of these policies.

One, the stigma of being a rape victim has declined. Two, we now know more about false accusations of rape—the numbers are argued, but various social science suggests that this a real phenomenon, and the numbers of men freed from prison because new DNA evidence shows that they did not commit the rapes for which they were convicted, backs it up—and its prevalence.

Given these facts, I am troubled about the fact that the media prints the names of the accused but not the names of the accuser.

While the intent of that policy is to protect women from stigma, it invariably carries the suggestion that the newspaper is giving credence to the accuser's charges.

And this is particularly worrisome if the charges turn out to be false, as with the Duke rape case, because the stigma of being an alleged rapist is greater than the stigma of being an alleged rape victim. (As, of course, it should be.)

In the Duke case, we've read the names of the accused and seen their faces countless times. Until a day or so ago, the identity of the false accuser was protected by the media—the mainstream media, anyway. Is that fair?

There is no perfect solution here; it's a very tough issue. But I think the Duke case should prompt a reconsideration of the media's policies on naming alleged rape victims—or, perhaps, alleged rapists.

I would suggest that, as soon as an accusation of rape prompts the filing of legal charges, the the media should run the name of the accuser. The filing of charges shows that the system is taking her case seriously, thus diminishing some stigma. Moreover, it would prevent the problem of an alleged rape victim feeling so much public pressure before public charges are filed that she chooses not to go ahead with her case. Yet it also shows fairness towards the accused, who may be innocent, whether because they are wrongly identified or because the accuser is lying.

That's one proposal. Another would be to name neither the alleged victim nor the alleged rapist until the courts have decided the matter. In practical terms, that would be difficult. But it recognizes the fact that just as there is a stigma to being an alleged rape victim, there is an even greater stigma to being an alleged rapist.

An analogy: We know that the stigma of being an accused child molester is horrific, and also that there are plenty of false accusations. I understand from media friends that many newspaper and television stations do not automatically run the names of accused child molesters for just this reason. So why is it different with rape?

¶ 9:17 AM

Comments:

a few things:

--there is still tremendous stigma in having been raped. you may not feel it as much here in the northeast, but it's out there.

interestingly (or worse), i don't know that i have ever seen a man who's been raped have his name withheld in the press. the stigma of that is even greater, i think.

--putting aside these three men, and their innocence, and the entire nightmare of this situation, i'm wondering why you "don't buy" a woman being raped by three men?

--false accusations of rape. yes, a huge amount of men have been wrongly accused of rape and wrongly convicted. but just because the attacker is wrong accused doesn't mean the woman wasn't raped at all. as i'm sure you know, there is a lot of concern about eyewitness testimony. it's not always accurate.

which isn't to say that false allegations don't happen, but that there's a difference between them and false identifications that lead to conviction.

# posted by grumpygirl : April 13, 2007 9:58 AM

GG—

Just so you know, I agree with all your points.

As to your question, it's not that I don't buy the rape of a woman by three men—not at all, that's a well-documented phenomenon—it's just the particular alleged circumstances of this story that felt, literally, incredible to me. Not to be gross, but logistically implausible.

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 13, 2007 10:04 AM

here's the simplest reason to shield the name of false rape accusers: some women see the glee with which you unmask people like Crystal Magnum, and I think, "I can't come forward about my rape, because look how i'll be treated if no one believes me."

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 11:31 AM

Richard,

Since you've felt from the beginning that Ms. Mangum's story was a crock, why were you so reluctant to post her name on your blog? What were you afraid of? Why the desire for the mainstream media to change their policies when you were unwilling to post her name until this week (after the charges were dropped and the NC AG more or less called her a mentally ill liar)?

And spare us the "I was too busy working on my book" or "I didn't realize I hadn't posted her name" defense. That's not gonna fly. Were you afraid that your vast media empire would come crashing to the ground, torn down by an outraged horde led by grumpygirl and Standing Eagle? Do tell us your real rationale.

P.S.--I hope the day never comes when you'll be afraid to out overpaid CNN anchors.

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 11:41 AM

I linked to her name in the past (http://richardbradley.net/2006/12/nifong-in-hot-seat.html) so that people could make their own choices.

And are you talking about Anderson Cooper? Me, out him? You do realize how incredibly out of touch you are, don't you? He's on the cover of Out magazine this month, for crying out loud. Why don't you do a Google search for Anderson Cooper and "gay" and report back to me....

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 13, 2007 11:51 AM

Richard,

I agree very strongly with Grumpygirl's points and think they overwhelm your most recent post entirely.

I also think there's a benighted pair of sentences in your post:

"I would suggest that, as soon as an accusation of rape prompts the filing of legal charges, the the media should run the name of the accuser. ... This would prevent the problem of an alleged rape victim feeling so much public pressure before public charges are filed that she chooses not to go ahead with her case."

No, it wouldn't. Don't you think rape victims can understand that things will happen after the case begins? If they know that this exposure will be one of them, they will feel the public pressure in advance -- perhaps in forms even worse than the forms they would actually take in the public sphere. Public pressure, no matter how much media figures would like to believe otherwise, is not a function of what the media actually says; it's a function of feeling exposed and misunderstood -- and those two feelings are the trademarks of what it is to be a rape survivor, at least in the early aftermath of the crime (the first couple years).

More importantly: and this is really quite simple: the bien-pensant view of how much stigma should attach to being a rape victim is almost entirely immaterial to how shameful it feels to BE a rape victim. The horror of that stigma in the past was that it went along with, and reinforced, the incredibly powerful shamefulness that rape itself causes in its victim. Rape is the incredibly (and I would even say almost uniquely) horrible crime that it is precisely because of what it does to the victim's dignity -- which is to say, what it does to the victim's self-possession and self-confidence -- which is to say, what it does to her ability, not to mention willingness, to press charges and assert her value in the incredibly unreliable 'court of public opinion.'

It's already a miracle that the ratio of reported rapes and indictments is climbing off the schneid -- the nearly-literal zero point that results when ashamed victims and stigmatizing, skeptical DAs used to come together. DAs and media figures are doing better. But the victims are still ashamed; they will always be. That is not society's fault; it is the fault of the criminals who need locking up.

Lock 'em up. Anything newspapers can do to foster the locking up of real rapists, they should do. Withholding names of accusers, unless and until false accusation becomes the only real story, is the least of it.

Standing Eagle

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 12:33 PM

To Anon 11:14 - you doth protest way too much. And you stole my "vast media empire" line.

To SE: ONW

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 2:19 PM

What's ONW?

SE

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 2:25 PM

Standing Eagle, Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I concede the point and say, okay, fine, let's keep the names of alleged rape victims out of the press because of the stigma involved. Would you agree with my suggestion that we keep the names of the defendants also secret—remembering that the stigma of being the alleged rapist is worse than the stigma of being the victim,that people are legally innocent until proven guilty, but that once someone has been publicly named as an alleged rapist the stigma will never go away, regardless of the outcome?

Also, a secondary thought: It is, of course, argued by some people, including some feminists, that withholding the names of alleged rape victims reinforces the stigma by implicitly suggesting that it is, indeed, such a horrible thing that it is the only crime against adults in which the alleged victims are not identified.

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 13, 2007 2:29 PM

Richard,

I would indeed agree with your idea about withholding the names of people charged with rape. But I think I'd be equally likely to agree that the names of people charged with murder shouldn't be published, as a matter of journalistic policy. So that's how you can tell I'm not a reporter -- I think it's worth being so extremely careful with people's reputations that I'd hesitate to print preliminary things, especially if a court is due to decide on them in an authoritative way (albeit not as soon as anyone would like).

I have a particular opinion about the rape-victim's situation, though, that doesn't apply to rape defendants. The stigma that might attach to being accused of a crime is not QUALITATIVELY different for rape defendants than it is for other kinds of defendants. On the other hand, the carve-out that I've been advocating for for rape victims is based on the unique nature of rape victim-hood; not the unique nature of rape as a crime. The rape defendants don't, in my opinion, have special stigma over murderers, embezzlers, etc., that would entitle them to a special exception from a general policy of printing defendants' names.

In a nutshell, then, and with the hope of being clearer than I just was: Withhold the names of rape defendants, as far as I'm concerned, yes; but then also (why not) withhold the name of all defendants except in cases of direct public concern. I see the slope as almost perfectly slippery in the case of defendants in pending trials. But the slope isn't slippery for victims, because rape victims are qualitatively different than other kinds of victims, precisely by the nature of the crime. You can exempt rape victims from a general policy of printing names without then basically throwing out the policy as a whole.

Hope that's clear as to what my position would be.

Shorter answer: Yes, I'll agree with that.

As to your second point -- whatever larger benefit for the removal of stigma might accrue to society by exposing a rape victim against her preference is outweighed by the harm it does that individual. The gains are long-term, diffuse, and hypothetical; the cost local and personal.

Not succinct at all at this hour of the day --

Standing Eagle

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 5:01 PM

richard, again, i don't know that you're really fulling understanding the stigmas attached to having been raped.

you say, "...remembering that the stigma of being the alleged rapist is worse than the stigma of being the victim..."

there are many cultures where women are punished, killed even, for having been raped. in some countries, they are killed.

as for rapists, there are places where raping some can be is considered (disgustingly) appropriate payback for certain actions.

don't think that being under the umbrella of living in the US stops these crimes from happening.

plus, there are all kinds of ignorant people who don't even have that "excuse." they just think it's ok to rape women, that women ask for it, etc.

# posted by grumpygirl : April 13, 2007 5:19 PM

I think I endorse all of Terry Moran's thoughts here, in the snappily titled "DON'T FEEL TOO SORRY FOR THE DUKIES."

I'd be curious if you disagree with any of it, Richard, particularly his factual assertions about privlege, etc.

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 6:59 PM

Anon 2:19, this is Anon 11:41, I didn't steal your line. I thought it was hilarious and was making a tongue-in-cheek reference to it just a day later on the same messgae board. That's hardly stealing. And, since we're both anonymous, even if I was trying to steal your line, it really wouldn't make any difference anyway.

Richard, speaking of tongue-in-cheek, have you lost all sense of humor? It's pretty obvious you didn't "out" Anderson Cooper. I made the overpaid network anchor comment for just that reason--you were more than willing to "out" someone who everyone knows is gay, yet you were afraid to name Crystal Mangum. As far as you saying that you linked to her name, that was A) on 12/29/06, well after the case had become a travesty to all but those with an agenda and B) only in response to my posting her name in your comments section earlier that day. Even then you were afraid to post her name directly in your blog. Look, it's your blog, you can do what you want with it (until I team up with Anon 2:19 and make a hostile take-over of your media empire), but at least be honest here--EVEN though you wanted to name Ms. Mangum, you were afraid to do so. What I've been asking is what were you so afraid of?

# posted by Anonymous : April 13, 2007 9:46 PM

I've rarely read an editorial piece--by at least a semi-established reporter--as ethically AND intellectually pathetic as that steaming pile of crap filed by Terry Moran.

# posted by Anonymous : April 14, 2007 12:59 AM

Anon 12:59am- care to substantiate your judgment of Moran? Or was your post just the half-asleep midnight blathering of a loon?

# posted by Anonymous : April 14, 2007 11:23 AM

I find Moran's argument idiotic. The team paid $800 for two strippers? Last I checked, that's legal. They wanted one white stripper? Men of any number of ethnic groups often prefer women of their own ethicity—black, white, whatever. If that's racist, then all men, and probably lots of women, are equally guilty.

Yes, someone apparently hurled an ethnic slur. Intolerable. Was it the three accused? That's the only relevant question. And even then, it bears no relevance to the question of whether or not Crystal Mangum was raped.

No, honestly, I think this kind of collective guilt is hideous, the same kind of smear that made people so quick to falsely condemn these three young men, and if it were applied to, say, three African-American members of, say, a basketball team all of whose players were black, we would rightly decry it.

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 14, 2007 2:47 PM

And to Anon 9:46...Indeed, you may have posted Crystal Mangum's name to the blog. But you did so *anonymously.* And yet you accuse me of being "afraid"?

# posted by Richard Bradley : April 14, 2007 2:49 PM

I did some googling here...right now 17% of rape victims report a crime. A 1992 study, granted that's a long time ago, showed that 92% of rape victims would be less likely to report a crime if they knew their names were going to be published.

So of the 17% who report how many are likely to make false claims. And why only 17%...because of the shame and stigma attached, of course, and the hell a victim has to go through if she reports the crime. Maybe there's no shame and stigma attached in New York but where I live there is. The only way I would report is if a stranger broke into my home and forced me with a weapon and threatened my life. No other circumstance would do it for me and I would remain silent. Even then, it would be tough for me...the psychological damage is incredible. I don't think men understand that...especially men like Richard who wouldn't hurt anybody and always wants to be fair. Come to think of it, neither do I understand...any more than I understand why young girls don't report sexual molestation...or women report being battered. But it happens all the time.

We have miles to go, ladies.

And Richard wasn't afraid to publish her name...he did publish that link, as a regular reader, I remember it. It was not the right thing to do until that Attorney General stood before the public and dropped the charges. And Richard pretty much always does the right thing.

lmpaulsen

# posted by Anonymous : April 14, 2007 6:46 PM

OK, maybe I'm stupid when it comes to statistics--certainly possible--but can somebody explain to me how we can trust a number like 17% if the whole point is that they aren't reporting it? Where are the hard and fast numbers coming from, patients to emergency rooms? I'm not try to be cute, I'd really like to know since it seems like a contradiction of sorts.

# posted by Anonymous : April 15, 2007 2:55 AM

anon 2:55,

the CDC says, "Sexual violence data usually come from police, clinical settings, nongovernmental organizations, and survey research"

i'd go with survey research.

and why is it that we are ALWAYS questioning rape, rapists, stats about rape, what rape is, etc.? do we question the stats on murder? molestation? why is it that crimes against women are constantly scrutinized?

# posted by grumpygirl : April 16, 2007 9:40 AM

About Me