The reasoning in my belief is to protect the family of the accused and also what if it comes out that he is innocent? His life will be forever changed.

The identity of the daughters/victims are properly protected. If in order to protect them the name of the father/perpetrator also needs to remain hidden, then so be it. Given the unusual circumstances of this case, this decision does not seem like to big a deal.

GOOD! ACCUSED rapist..with "accused" being the opperative word. If convicted, then publish his name, address, blood type, bank records, and anything else you wish, but until he is, innocent until proven guilty. Have we not ruined enough men's lives over false charges (Duke?)?

Rufus Jefferson

Source: workbench.cadenhead.org and signed --Rogers Cadenhead? Using your own often spouted logic, how did this make FP? It is obviously self-servicing, it doesn't even provide a link to the AP story.

... what if it comes out that he is innocent?

Under those grounds, no criminal suspects would ever be named. Since that's not likely to happen, it's more equitable to name them all.

Under those grounds, no criminal suspects would ever be named.

We all know and agree that there are certain crimes that the stigma of being accused outlasts the news of acquittal. Rape, Child Molestation, etc are crimes that the accused is forever having to defend themselves and most people will believe the accuser.

You like to complain a lot, L_RContrarian. Don't let me keep you from spending more time on a news site you'd like better than this one.

We all know and agree that there are certain crimes that the stigma of being accused outlasts the news of acquittal.

The media's policy here has nothing to do with the stigma of being accused. The policy is about the victims.

Besides, aside from a crime involving a child, what other crime does not release the names of both the accused and the victim?

You like to complain a lot, L_RContrarian

She makes Boyd look laid-back by comparison.

RCADE,

If was innocent would he not be a victim? There are people out there looking to ruin peoples lives with false accusations.

#2 | Posted by moder8 - pretty much nails it. There's a fine line between personal privacy and the public's inane greed for good, juicy dirt. The victim's need for privacy far outweighs some gutter need to know every detail of other people's lives. If that means the temporary redaction of a defendant's name, then so be it. A right to a free press does not mean a right to every detail of every life, just like a right to free speech does not mean a right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

"If was innocent would he not be a victim?"

I imagine that the authorities have used DNA testing to confirm that the children were fathered by him, in which case he is guilty no matter if he forcibly raped his daughter or if she voluntarily had sex with him.

Generally speaking, nobody is concerned about protecting the identity of a person accused of any crime. If it turns out that are innocent and it can be demonstrated that either the accuser or investigating/prosecuting agency acted maliciously, a civil suit can be filed seeking money damages. Beyond that though, the exonerrated defendant really has no recourse. Basically, the identity of a defendant in a criminal cases is considered public information. Given that our freedoms are partially based on having open and public courts, I have no problem with this practice. It is a rare circumstance indeed where such information is properly withheld.

Danni,

I imagine a world filled with sex and pot but that doesn't make it true.

#1 richard
Actually, the reasoning is to protect the accused perpetrator's official position and associations that would blow sky high by even the novice reporter investigation.

LRCon: I would be very surprised if that turns out to be true. What do you base that opinion on?

"It is obviously self-servicing,...
#5 | Posted by L_RContrarian"

The only thing around here that is obviously self-servicing, is you. Now self-serving on the other hand....

Public information, freely available to anyone with enough sense to seek it out. Just because a news outlet chooses not to divulge means nothing, go to the court house if you really MUST know something yeash.

Hell I go to d12.com which is local for me whenever I want to see if someone has a criminal background I should be aware of.

Basically, the identity of a defendant in a criminal cases is considered public information. Given that our freedoms are partially based on having open and public courts, I have no problem with this practice.

Agreed. Secret trials are antithetical to a free society. If we stopped naming all criminal suspects, it wouldn't help suspects. It would help the government rob people of liberty without public scrutiny.

Other crimes all is reported.

John Smith is accused of murdering Mary Johnson

John Smith is accused of robbing the home of Peter and Mary Johnson

John Smith is accused of pulling a con job on Mary Johnson.

John Smith is accused of rape.

Doesn't seem fair to me.

"I imagine a world filled with sex and pot but that doesn't make it true."

News flash....it is very true.

There is no need to publish the accused name when teh victim's name is kept hidden.

After Phillip Garrido was arrested for kidnapping and raping Jaycee Lee Dugard, another victim came forward because of the publicity. If you don't identify crime suspects after indictment, prosecutors, police and defense attorneys will receive less information from the public that could impact the trial.

If you don't identify crime suspects after indictment

I am not saying not to, I am saying that if you release the name of the accused, you release the name of the victim.

John Smith is accused of raping Mary Johnson. The night it happened, Bob River was out with Mary Johnson and can prove John Smith innocent, but doesn't know that is who John Smith is accused of raping. Your example can cut both ways.

Kanrei, as a public policy consideration, it is well established that victims of sex crimes are less likely to come forward and name their attackers if they know that their own name and sex life will be dragged through the public gutters. While in certain circumstances this may work out to a falsely accused defendant's disadvantage, we as a society have decided that it is in our collective best interests not to dissuade victims from coming forward.

No shit Mod, but it is wrong and encourages false accusations. We as a society have allowed hate and emotion to cloud law and reason.

I don't follow. How is this are victim shield laws generally speaking an example of hate and emotion clouding law and reason?

26 posts and not 1 comment on his name (which RCade gives us in his article)??? Aswad? NO snide comments on the name Aswad? Y'all are slipping.

If you don't follow, start at the beginning of the thread and try again. I am going to say again what I have already said over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Given the number of women who have claimed rape recently, only to recant their stories later, I can't way that I blame the AP. It's only good sound practice to avoid giving someone accused of a crime grounds for suit if they're later found innocent.

This is why I get so angry about false accusations of rape. Rape victims already have a hard enough time getting justice and redress without false accusations making it necessary for our legal system and our media to tread so carefully in dealing with rape cases. I personally wouldn't mind seeing false rape accusations made a capital offense; they do that much damage.

#18 moder8

I was confusing this case with another as far as his "official position" and not identifying him are concerned. What is this guy's employment history? The reports don't mention it.

Yet there are similar hints of a coverup/complicity with child services personnel in this case as so often is the case.

Authorities say the assaults began in the mid-1980s and lasted until 2002.... The time period overlaps with the family's coming to the attention of the state's child welfare agency.

According to court records and published reports, the girls' father was arrested in 2000 and charged with kidnapping for allegedly trying to take three of his children from state custody at a Monmouth County medical center. He posted bail and later pleaded guilty to assault and child endangerment and was sentenced to a year's probation.

#32 NW F

Still waiting for an answer: aside from a crime involving a child, what other crime does not release the names of both the accused and the victim?

RCade:

I question whether in a free society it is acceptable to put someone on trial and potentially imprison them while never revealing the person's name to the public.

I don't see any evidence that this is a "John Doe" trial or that the criminal justice system has taken any measure aimed at protecting this man's identity. It looks like the AP has done so which is a separate question.

Joe,

Agreed it seems RCADE and others are under the assumption that because it isn't published in a newspaper that it is being hidden. As stated before anybody can find this information on their own and see it as an ethical standard by the AP to not publish the name.

some crimes are beyond words. if this person actually did these things, may karma prevail!

It looks like the AP has done so which is a separate question.

That's the question I'm focusing on -- the media policy.

"I am not saying not to, I am saying that if you release the name of the accused, you release the name of the victim."

I strongly disagree with this, Kan.

A victim has suffered enough humiliation, has had her privacy already been violated. And you believe that she should suffer more because it's not "fair" to the assailant??

That's the question I'm focusing on -- the media policy.

Me too. Innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window in sex crime cases. The accused is dragged through the media slime while the accuser is held aloft in a palace of question-less reproach. The media digs into every aspect of the accused's life looking for more titillating details and the accused is left in virginal glee. It makes it much harder to find an impartial jury as well.

A victim has suffered enough humiliation,

You are assuming guilt on the part of the accused here. Did the Duke rape victim suffer any humiliation? What about the accused players? Who suffered more?

Let's say I go on a first date with Suzie Smith. She invites me back to her place and we have sex. I don't call her the next day and she calls the cops and says I raped her. It is her word against mine. I did have sex with her. Do you really think anyone would believe me innocent?

Kan, I realize that there are times when women falsely accuse one of rape and believe me when I tell you that it infurates me when that happens. And when it is proven that she has lied, her name should be publicized and should atone for the damage she has caused.

However, more times than not, the accuser isn't lying. I absolutely disagree with putting her name in the limelight!!

Personally, I think less women would come forward to press charges if they knew their name is going to be published.

I know I wouldn't have.

"Still waiting for an answer: aside from a crime involving a child, what other crime does not release the names of both the accused and the victim?"

This occasionally occurs with domestic violence and rape involving family members, but is rare.

"Innocent until proven guilty is thrown out the window in sex crime cases."

Federal Rules of Evidence, mirrored by most state rules, also expand what is available as evidence. See Rules 413 and 414. This denotes a public policy toward more aggressive prosecution of such crimes.

Lisa,

Then perhaps we should teach our young girls not to have a victim mentality but rather to fight and to win even if someone makes them a victim.

Mary Jo Buttafuoco was undoubtedly humiliated by the press coverage after she was shot in the head by her husband's teen-age lover Amy Fisher. The press never thought twice about identifying her.

I think the best policy is for the press to treat all major crime victims the same, as far as identification goes.

Seems like DNA tests would prove this one way or the other real fast.

Let's say I go on a first date with Suzie Smith. She invites me back to her place and we have sex...
#43 | Posted by kanrei at 2010-03-11 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag unrealistic example

"Then perhaps we should teach our young girls not to have a victim mentality but rather to fight and to win even if someone makes them a victim."

I would hardly call a woman who was raped and wanting to stop the humilation as playing the victim card, Richard.

It is mind boggling how some men think that women should not have rights to privacy and should just suck up the aftermath from being raped and violated.

Lisa, most guys just don't get it. Similar to when the topic is child support payments.

Lisa,

You misunderstand what I am saying but allowing yourself to be continued to victimized by not coming forward is allowing the rapist to win.

I was raised in a family where sexual and physical abuse was prevalent but the refusal of the victims to step forward meant that they were able to victimize other people.

I had this argument with my mother and I understand the desire to protect her children but I also recognize that by not standing up you are continuing to be a victim and allowing others to be victims.

However, if we teach our daughters to fight and to stand up against them be damn the fear of humiliation then that is only way this stop.

No one can choose to be a victim however they can choose whether they continue to be victimized after the fact.

I'm sorry if you aren't strong enough.

I absolutely disagree with putting her name in the limelight!!

So do I, but I also feel that, in sex crime cases, the accused name should be kept out as well until proven guilty since there is such a stigma attached to just being accused.

And most cases are her word against his with no other witnesses, so it is impossible to say beyond a doubt which side is lying really until the case is heard.

"You misunderstand what I am saying but allowing yourself to be continued to victimized by not coming forward is allowing the rapist to win.

I was raised in a family where sexual and physical abuse was prevalent but the refusal of the victims to step forward meant that they were able to victimize other people.

I had this argument with my mother and I understand the desire to protect her children but I also recognize that by not standing up you are continuing to be a victim and allowing others to be victims. "

Oh Richard, you don't have the first clue about what I did to claim that I am still victimized.

"However, if we teach our daughters to fight and to stand up against them be damn the fear of humiliation then that is only way this stop."

And you think publishing her name is going to help that???

LOL

"So do I, but I also feel that, in sex crime cases, the accused name should be kept out as well until proven guilty since there is such a stigma attached to just being accused."

I can agree to that.

"And most cases are her word against his with no other witnesses, so it is impossible to say beyond a doubt which side is lying really until the case is heard."

I hate to break it to you, but there are many men who have been accused, who are actually guilty and it's his word that is believed!

Given the number of women who have claimed rape recently, only to recant their stories later, I can't way that I blame the AP. It's only good sound practice to avoid giving someone accused of a crime grounds for suit if they're later found innocent.

This is why I get so angry about false accusations of rape. Rape victims already have a hard enough time getting justice and redress without false accusations making it necessary for our legal system and our media to tread so carefully in dealing with rape cases. I personally wouldn't mind seeing false rape accusations made a capital offense; they do that much damage.

#32 | Posted by MaryTylerWhore

Couldn't agree more---should apply to other crimes as well----social workers and psychologists that in the past got children to accuse their parents and/or day-care workers of abuse and yet they were innocent---those poor people that were innocent will never be the same.

Lisa,

You are showing that you are still a victim by twisting my words and meaning.

No publishing her name will not however, fear of your name being published stopping your from reporting is being a victim.

Your right I don't anything about you and though you may want to use that as a weapon to take your pain out on me instead the person who victimized you is your choice but it has no affect on me.

You avoid the truth emphasizing emotional responses to avoid dealing with this. Now read slowly...

I am not advocating publishing anyone's name if you read my other posts then you will see that.

What I am saying is that allowing the fear of being humiliated keep you from reporting it then you are allowing yourself and others to continue to be victims.

Come talk to me when you have been raped, Richard.

You remind me of people who would say...if I was being raped, I would do this or I would do that, to stop the assult!

You sit in judgement of how one should respond.

You don't know unless you have been in that same situation.

For the record, I am not a victim any longer. I dealt with that long ago. I have forgiven him and even pray for him.

You should practice your psycho analysis elsewhere.

But no hard feelings.

Lisa,

Who says I haven't been raped? You don't know me and I just told you I grew up in an abusive family.

The big fallacy is that only women get raped.

The difference is that I stood up to my abuser and did what I could to make sure he wouldn't hurt anyone else however since my sisters would not stand with me he is back on the streets and the last I heard he had another family and more kids to destroy...

That's the question I'm focusing on -- the media policy.

Then your article is misleading. You said that you "question whether in a free society it is acceptable to put someone on trial and potentially imprison them while never revealing the person's name to the public." The accused is not being put on trial and imprisoned by the AP, who is the only party shown not to be revealing this person's name.

Richard,

I don't just assume that only women are raped! A very dear male friend of mine was raped for years by a family member.

You don't appear to be in that catagory by the statements you make. In particular, your insistance that if one wouldn't report it because their name would be published, they are continuing to play the victim tells me that you have no understanding of the many faceted feelings a victim goes through.

Under those grounds, no criminal suspects would ever be named. Since that's not likely to happen, it's more equitable to name them all.

#6 | Posted by rcade

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I believe rape is the only crime in which the acuser's name is shielded. The assused person's name is normally not shielded which does indeed cause problems even if acquited.

If rape is such a horrible crime that society has decided to protect the acuser's identity, then logic and the 14th amendment of the constitution dictate that the acused be shiled too.

Lisa,

So just assume that you know me...pity.

The reason I don't appear that way is because I don't allow myself to be a victim anymore. I have transcended what happened to me. You can assume what you like but not all victims are like you or your friend.

There are rape shield laws to protect the victims of rape. They protect male and female victims.

And imho they are well placed. They are in place for children too.

As for this guy--we had a case just like this in CA. The father was raping his daughters and they had kids from him.

It was all over the news--his name, where they lived.

They did not name the girls or show their photos.

This policy makes sense, particularly if the guy's in jail and not out on bail. There would seem to be no redeeming value to publishing the names of anyone at this point. If they did, people would know who the victims were, and they'd be subject to media scrutiny/questions/ etc.

AP has the right to decide what information it puts forth, just as I'll assume some other news organization will now ferret out the guys name and publish it, if it hasn't already happened. All news organizations have to weigh newsworthiness and privacy rights..

I'm guessing we will get the name 'leaked' before we ever see the text of Nanny P's health bill.

Due to the number of false rape charges annually it seems prudent to not publish the name of the accused until there is a conviction.

Conversely if a woman makes a fake rape charge and has the case tossed out then she needs to be named and shamed.

Be Well.

Home schooling which he used is something that allows these perverts to get away with it. It removes the check and balance of society that can protect children.

This is too simple. How did it even make it on the board? It is obvious that they want to keep the family name as secret as possible because in naming the suspect they would be naming the victims. So, this is interesting in what way? Oh, to get our resident pedophiles all charged up I guess.

His name and photo were in all our NJ papers today. AP often errs on the careful side with crime news until they can triple check things. That's a nasty libel trap for newspapers if they get something wrong.

The suspect in this case is a video director who has won an MTV Award:

After Phillip Garrido was arrested for kidnapping and raping Jaycee Lee Dugard, another victim came forward because of the publicity. If you don't identify crime suspects after indictment, prosecutors, police and defense attorneys will receive less information from the public that could impact the trial.

#25 | Posted by rcade

its not the press's job to do the police's job