h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Not a typo. I don't mean "rape victim". And I don't mean "man accused of rape". Personally, I believe both those sorts of people deserve legally-protected anonymity. But let's not get distracted.

Does a CONVICTED rapist deserve anonymity? How about someone who's not just convicted, but actually admitted the offence under oath?

How about protecting their anonymity so hard that if their victim identifies them on Twitter, say, the VICTIM is threatened with a harsher sentence than the rapist got?

Any justification for that at all? Ever?

How about if the rapist is legally a child? It would seem to me that in that case they should be anonymous while being tried (as I believe most serious criminals should be), named on conviction, and on eventual release forced to live under an assumed name. This is what happened to Mary Bell, the killers of James Bulger, and other child criminals in the UK.

Apparently, in the US, it's different.

Apparently, there, if a couple of jocks take advantage of a girl who has passed out, photograph themselves raping her, then pass the photos round their friends because they're so proud of what they've done they want it more widely known, apparently those people shouldn't be named.

And apparently, even after the victim blabs their name on Twitter, gets threatened with a jail sentence for contempt, has the charges dropped because the names are now out in the public domain, apparently...

Apparently h2g2 will go on protecting the rapists' anonymity.

Really? REALLY?

Can I say Ryan Giggs's name? How about Andrew Marr? (Not rapists, I hasten to add, but people whose court-injuncted anonymity was blown apart by Twitter.)

****** ******* and **** ****. Google them. If this message survives moderation.



[Personal details removed by Moderator]

That was absolutely asinine. However, in an article I read about it, it was pointed out that the gag order shouldn't apply to the young girl in this case anyway. She wasn't revealing information that came out in court, which is specifically what the gag order curtails, but her own personal knowledge. Therefore any threat of contempt of court is misplaced and a violation of her free speech.

How? By posting links to public sites which discuss it in adequate detail?

Go retweet it if you just want to shout names from the rooftop.

They admitted to, and were convicted of, sexual assault - not rape. Calling them rapists could land you in trouble since they've never been convicted of rape.

I heard somewhere that in US America it used to be legal to rape and murder? I am thinking of slaves and "indians".

Biblically speaking, rape was a path to marriage according to Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

>>22:28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
22:29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

Let rapists keep their anominity, then go off to jail, but just let slip inside that the new fella in B wing wants to be Mr Big's new girlfriend..........

"I heard somewhere that in US America it used to be legal to rape and murder? I am thinking of slaves and 'indians'."[Stone Art]

If you dug hard enough, you could find legal "rape" in many countries. In pre-19th century France, there was a custom known as "le droit du seigneur," which meant that any nobleman had the right to sleep with the comeliest women in his fiefdom. The wishes of the women involved were not considered, so this could have been considered rape.

Then there is the issue of pre-1965 American slaveholders sleeping with slave women on their plantations. Having read a great deal about Thomas Jefferson, I'm aware that there is still a lot of controversy over DNA findings regarding the paternity of Sally Hemings' youngest son. People who don't wish to believe that Thomas himself fathered any children by a "slave" girl [who was 7/8 white and was Jefferson's white wife's half sister] have advanced various theories. The latest one is that Jefferson's brother Randolph fathered the son in question. Thomas Jefferson or his heirs destroyed vast quantities of letters, thereby guaranteeing privacy.
Jefferson was not the only one who found privacy in this way. Eleanor Rosoevelt destroyed alot of letters that might have sehd light on her relationship with Lorena Hickox. But I digress....
As for modern practices, I can't imagine what different interpretations of the "correct" way of guarding privacy there might be.

Sorry, "pre-1965" should have been "pre-1865."

I should just like to state that I have received an extremely gracious email from the mods, apologising for the way this was handled and explaining part of the state of affairs that led to it and what should have happened. It was completely unexpected and (compared to how moderation used to happen on this site when it was BBC) entirely out of character. It's an extremely pleasant surprise to find out moderation is being handled so much better than it used to be.

I should like to thank the author of the email and any other mods reading this for their consideration, and apologise for any inconvenience my posts may have caused. This news story fair got my goat (understatement alert).

Good on the mods, and also on you, Hoo, for your post.

Going back to the original post, it's really tough. I don't know the ins and outs of the particular case in question (I read a brief overview, but no details) so my response is a broader one.

I've worked with some people who have done some pretty awful things. Some of them were vile people who had no remorse, no shame, and I admit I found it very hard to remain professional. Some, either immediately or after a period of reflection, really do regret their actions.

I think we either have to allow people with criminal convictions to either be free to live their lives (with some limitations, in the case of some offences), or we have to give up on the notion of rehabilitation. Perhaps even reintroduce the death penalty.

What is the point of going through the rehabilitation process if you will be shunned at every turn on release? You may as well not have bothered.

It's hard, because it lets some of the above vile people do their time and it not change them. That's the bit that sticks in the craw. But until we have a fool-proof way of knowing who really repents and who is just faking it, we have to have a system that is applied fairly.

I totally agree, Vip [post 11]. Different jurisdictions are involved, which pretty much guarantees that there will be variations in the way people are treated after their convictions. Of course, there's also the matter of wrongful convictions. I have a hard time faulting someone who doesn't repent because he/she didn't actually commit the crime he/she was convicted of. It can take decades to overturn false convictions.

I think Vip your argument takes things to a rather extreme either or argument (as, i suspect, you intended to make a point)
- rehabilitation or death penalty

Some may not care for "rehabilitation", only their freedom (or if that is counted as rehabilitation, simply more enjoyment, leisure etc etc than they enjoyed in prison)

"What is the point of going through the rehabilitation process if you will be shunned at every turn on release? "

Surely one of the lessons of rehabilitation is - you know what, you did this thing and you're going to have to live with that for the rest of your life. It's called "responsibility". It's why, on conviction, even child criminals are IDENTIFIED, at least in civilised countries. We in the UK mitigate that by, when child criminals are eventually released, providing them with new identities. They don't get, ever, to live a day without a reminder of what they did and what it has cost them. To which I say - good. That's how it should be. They serve their sentence, they pay their debt to society, fair enough. But they never, ever get to live as though it never happened. That's fair - their victims don't.

I'm going to make this my last post on this subject as it fair gets my goat.

I think we'll call it quits there, agreed. If I'm honest, the more I think about this topic the more I hate that there is no good, easy answer.

They basically violated someone's personal space, so why shouldn't theirs be? I'm not advocating somebody deliberately smearing someone for past mistakes, but geez, people shouldn't have to be victimized by this person repeatedly