" Great article and well said. "

" I do agree with much of your article. The Rape Shield laws are in place to prevent the victim from being victimized again in the court and the media. Sometimes just the name can change the perception of the victim in a community. The idea is good when used properly, and in many cases is a wonderful protection. However, filing a false police report and lying about the entire issue is totally different, and her name should be released for this criminal complaint. The Duke players should each sue her in return for defamation of character among a litany of ther complaints. "

" The problem is Kelly, in this case it was bogus from the beginning. For over a year these young men were victimized in the media, while the identity of this obviously disturbed woman was kept out of the public eye...In today's world, I think rape victims are treated much more fairly and with consideration than they were 30 or more years ago. The mindset that NO woman, no matter what her station in life, be she a hooker or Sunday School teacher, does not deserve to be violated in this manner. The idea when I was a young woman was you HAD to put up a fight or rape couldn't be charged. It didn't matter if you were on a deserted country road and no way to get away, you had better not consent to save your life if you wanted to charge rape. Thankfully that is no longer the case. I think most people would be considerate of a rape victim now even if her name were to be published. There would be some that wouldn't be and that includes some of the media too, but for the most part sympathy would be with the victim. This Duke incident and the treatment of these men not only from the media, but from the university holding them up and insinuating they were guilty as well as some of the radical black leader's and groups in the area doing the same was disgusting! What happened to innocent until proven guilty. They were hollering "guilty' for months! Still, these groups refuse to believe they were innocent after overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There will be no apology's. The DA in this case should be hung up to dry! Victim's? These young men will have to carry this around the rest of their lives. They were raped by the DA, the media and the university. I have mixed feelings about revealing the identity of rape victims, but maybe it's time to prevent anymore injustice's like this. A friend of mine was raped here several years ago, and she came forward and revealed her name. To my knowledge she was not treated unfairly. Her rapist was convicted. No easy answer's on this subect will be forthcoming. It's going to be a difficult decision if it comes up in the courts. The one exception would be keeping the names of children out of the public eye. I do believe that should still be the way to go. "

" Absolutely. Either BOTH the accusser and the alleged perpetrators should be named, or NEITHER of them should be named. It is total hypocrisy as it is today. The accuser stands back in the shadows while the glare of public condemnation rains down on the alleged perpetrators. This is not justice. This is fraud. "

" I know this runs the strong risk of being moderated, but what if Mr. Reynolds was himself raped? Let's say, for sake of argument because Mr. Reynolds has voiced his opinion on the subject for all of us to read, that Harry was walking down Broadway and he was raped by another man. Would you still feel the same way, Harry, having your name in the paper for all to see? Would you really feel the same if everyone in the county knew that you had been violated by another man? Somehow, I think you would want to remain anonymous, for the sake of your family. You want to deny this to women? Rape is a very personal issue, not a public spectacle. The system we have in place works fine 99% of the time; but because we have one instance of a prosecutor who trumphed up this case for re-election, the whole system needs changed? Think before you write Harry. "

" What if you were accused of rape by a young girl who had lied about the entire incident. And then the case remained unresolved for a year or two, as you went into bankruptcy and your reputation was repeatedly destroyed by the national media on a weekly if not daily basis. And then, after you were finally exonerated, you discovered that your accuser had done this before. How would you feel? How would you regain your reputation? Perhaps you should think before you reply. "

" If the AP is not releasing her name, then why was it okay for 60 Minutes to show her face in a video taped segment of her "identifying" one of the three wrongly accused men? I don't care, honestly, because she no longer deserves to have her name hidden...but I found it interesting that CBS would show her face and play her voice on the air when nobody else has been willing to. By the way, I would agree with the notion that you release neither the names of the accused nor the accuser in a rape case. This way everybody's rights are still intact. "

" Her name should be released, and she should do jail time. "

" By withholding the name of victim and not the accused, the media and the rest of us have already determined that the accused are guilty. Both should be withhold or none at all. "

" The system we have in place works fine 99% of the time; but because we have one instance of a prosecutor who trumphed up this case for re-election, the whole system needs changed? Laws are enacted to serve the greatest good for the greatest number of people. To suggest we list the names of all alleged victims to protect all alleged perpretrators is not justice. "

" The blame rests squarely on two people -- the woman who claimed false rape and the prosecutor who pursued the case. A fair deal of blame can also be shared by the media. We should hold those two people, and perhaps the media, accountable for their actions in this one particular instance. We should not, however, blame the innocent victims of other, unrelated rapes as if they all were potiental liars. It is obvious that many of you have never dealt with rape on a personal level. If you publicize the names of rape victims, women will be much less inclined to report the crime. Will justice be served then? "

" What about the 88 Duke University prof's that signed a petition denouncing the boys and put up wanted posters around the school and community and after learning of the facts have never apologized at all? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton? Why don't they come to the defense of the boys now that they see they were wrong in their assessment? Is it all a one sided issue? Jesse promised to pay her full scholarship, even if she turned out to be not telling the truth, and he got a lot of publicity on that one but now is backpeddling and not pushing the promise any longer. "

" If you publicize the names of alleged rapists, before they have been found guilty, then how will they regain there lost reputations (not to mention there lost savings) if they are later exonerated? How will justice have been served for them? Why do we have to have dealt with rape on a personal level to see the injustice of this? Perhaps your personal involvement in this issue is clouding your sense of fairness. Justice is suppose to be blind- not emotional. "

" Do rape accusations result in conviction 99% of the time? Why not use the same reasoning for every other violent crime? Who knows how many beatings or muggings go unreported due to the inevitable reporting of the victims name. Maybe we should just withhold the names of both the alleged victims and the accused, but one over the other does seem unfair. When the alleged victim lies they become the perpetrator. "

" 1st - You said "nothing to collaborate" her story -- it should be "corroborate" her story. 2nd -Rape shield policies reflect a balancing of the public's need to know and the potential ill effects of publishing the knowledge. Unlike issues involving government policy that might influence a voter's decision or action, the public never needs to know the accuser in a rape case in order for a jury to make a decision based on admissible evidence. Ideally, only the jury should know the particulars of the case, and the community should only know what is necessary for their safety, as in a case where a violent predator is on the loose. The decision to keep the name of the accuser a secret is a response to the very real threat of public humiliation and vilification that keeps many many women from reporting rapes, especially in cases where the circumstances that lead up to the rape are not ones you'd want to have to tell you grandmother (and your mailman, and your boss, etc.) about. Numerous studies have shown that there are many more instances of women failing to report rape and sexaul assault than there are false accusations, and these numbers are known primarily because the bulk of complaints occur in situations where the victim has been assaulted by the same perpertrator before finally going to the authorities. (In cases involving strangers, the number of unreported assaults may be higher -- hard to prove what isn't reported.) I should know, because I am one of the women who was afraid to file a report in an instance of "date rape." Because i didn't want the whole world deciding before it even got to a hearing that i was asking for it. The real villain in this case is the prosecutor, who made careless statements to an overeager and careless press. In addition, Duke University should have stood behind its students. I hope that there is a civil suit against the disgraced prosecutor, and that he does jail time. As for the accuser - sounds to me like she has plenty of other problems, like the men who may actually have assualted her, or the psychological dysfunction that would cause her to make such a claim to begin with. Bottom line, the Duke players know who she is - and that's what the Constitution guarantees, the right to face their accuser. Not the "right" to have her vilified in the press, even for her own stupidity. Who knows, maybe they'll file a slander/libel suit. Then a court can decide -- and the press could easily report that the accuser was found liable without ever revealing her identity. Because again, what does the public gain by knowing? Nothing except the chance to jeer at the accuser. Is that so valuable that it is worth the risk that 1, 10, 100 other women won't come forward? "

" We can also blame ones like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and the New York Times for all the hype, blame and accusations made against the innocent. Are these also going to apologize to these boys? Over and over again ones like Sharpton and Jackson jump on the blame bandwagon and the race bandwagon, and when they are proved wrong, they just disappear rather than apologize. "

" http://tinyurl.com/yrkxgk The accuser's name is Crystal Gayle Mangum, and her photo appears at the above linked site, the Johnsville (NC) news. MSNBC, Court TV, and Fox have all identified this dancer/prostitute as well as her lengthy criminal past. She also accused men of gang rape in 1993 and 1996. No charges brought against the alleged attackers in those cases, either. In 1998, she accused her husband of trying to kill her. She failed to show up at court hearing and the charges were dismissed. This gal is obviously very troubled, and any prosecutor had better do a damn thorough job of investigating any future allegations she will certainly make. "

" The identity of rape victims should never be publicized -- end of discussion. That, if anyone took the time to read my posts, was my whole point. If you do or don't want to publish the names of the alleged perpretrators, that is fine, I never even touched on that topic. If people would actually read what other people write, then reread it to understand the full context, we might just have an intelligent discussion here (versus two people talking about entirely different subjects.) "

" You misspelled "perpretrators". I know how you hate it when people don't spell correctly, so I thought I would help you out. No need to thank me. Now then, what were you saying about an intelligent discussion? "

" I may detest Voltaires unintelligent misspellings- but I'll defend to the death his right to misspell unintelligently. "

" I guess you win because you are the better speller -- here's your gold star. I also guess it's easier to resort to asinine quips when a position, such as "Duke rape case shows why censoring names of victims is bad idea", proves to be indefensible when challenged by a logical argument. Or is it spelled indefensable? Since you can’t grasp the meaning of an intelligent debate, please make yourself useful and go look that up for me. "

" ("...names of victims is bad idea.") You left out the word (a) between "is and "bad". You're welcome. And it is spelled "indefensible". You're welcome again. And you should have used a (;) instead of a (,) between ("...debate, please..."). And you're welcome again. Remember, you are the individual who has been questioning other posters intelligence because of their spelling errors. Maybe you should apologize to everyone and promise to stop doing that, so we can put this unpleasantness behind us. After all, we are all only human. What do you say? "

" Do you really think that spelling equates to intelligence? Spelling is just a function of memory. A better measure of intelligence would be the ability to synthesize ideas and formulate logical conclusions based on the evidence. You cannot synthesize news ideas or move beyond your original conclusion -- this is clear to everyone. Once you can no longer defend your stated position, you switch the subject and/or switch your name. Look at this discussion, it's no longer about victims and the media, it's about Voltaire's spelling and your false accusations. You stated, "Remember, you are the individual who has been questioning other posters intelligence because of their spelling errors." Was I? When, tell me when did I do this aside from returning the favor last night in another thread? You tried accusing me of being your English professor; I wasn’t. I saw a lot of people bash a younger poster, but wasn’t one of them. See unlike you, I stick to one name, and that would be Voltaire. "Maybe you should apologize to everyone and promise to stop doing that, so we can put this unpleasantness behind us." Maybe you should grow up, get your facts straight, and learn how to properly use the forums? I will be very happy when the new policy is enacted and you are required to stick to one name, that way, I can just ignore you. You continued to offer nothing positive to the discussions on these forums. Have a nice day. "

" Come now Voltaire. Denying that you ever derided a poster for their misspellings? You know as well as I do that I can't prove this as long as the archives are still unavailable. But if they are ever made available again; I should have no trouble proving this point. And I have no idea what your "English professor" reference is about. And you can still ignore my posts regardless of what name I use. And lastly, I have added many positive elements to a number of blogs. We have even been on the same side of several issues, like the SBLHC/Carle debate. I thought that you presented some valid points that I actually supported. In any event, if you and I can agree to let misspellings go by the way-side, then I would like to call a truce, and get on with the real debate. I look forward to sharing more like-minded positions someday. What do you say, Voltaire? Can we be friends who disagree? "

" To Voltaire. I don't know who you think you are fooling. But I can clearly remember you making fun of other posters spelling errors on the thread with the Bush/Nazi debate. And also a thread about Blogo's new tax plan. So I guess we can add dishonesty to your list of fine attributes. You must think all the other posters on this site are a bunch of idiots. "

" "When, tell me when did I do this aside from returning the favor last night in another thread?" Can you read Larry? Did you read this? No, no, DID you read this? Obviously you didn't. I think you only read the first half of my statement; was that all that you could manage to comprehend? Learn to read first, then you can write. No, I'm not the one who makes a habit of being the local spelling nazi. I am really honored that my conduct on here is the focus of attention, however: the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. "

" The whole Duke situation was handled horribly, and I feel strongly for the three boys and thier families. I also believe the acusers name should be released but only because she should be brought up on charges for filing a false report. However, I do not agree with Harry's opinion that the media should not hold back the accusers name in rape cases. The process the victim (male or female)has to go through to get thier rapist convicted is painfull enough without adding the public eye into account. I am completely dumbfounded that anyone would think that protecting the victim from public scrutiny would translate into blaming the victim. Perhaps they are not "hiding in disgrace" but simply trying to heal! "

" Then again, you did not divulge her name either, even though you printed the names of the 3 accused. "