I remember when the VICTIMS of rape had their names, and addresses published in the local papers. If a reporter had a camera she also had a photo published.
I believe this was stopped sometime back in the 1960s.
“I remember when the VICTIMS of rape had their names, and addresses published in the local papers. “
I also propose that three male eye witnesses must be present.
A woman (or man or minor child for that matter) who is the victim of rape (and by that I mean “rape-rape”, i.e. a violent attack and sexual assault as opposed to a drunken, half passed out gal who has morning after regrets because she had sex with some guy she realized the morning after that she shouldn’t have) must be traumatized beyond belief. One of the reasons from what I understand and recall for not publishing the names of rape victims, was to encourage rape victims to contact the police. A lot of women were in fear of reporting an actual rape because of their name and personal information being made public and the consequences of that, the fear that they would be victimized again, by another rapist or that people would look at her not as a victim but some sort of harlot.
In days gone by there was a lot of stigma attached to rape, meaning that “she musta been asking for it”, which was and is not always the case.
OTOH, when a false accusation of rape is made, I think the person making the false accusation deserves to have her name and picture published and the person falsely accused should be fully exonerated not only in a court of law but also in the same press that published his name and not buried in the back pages.