Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 10:41:11
In reply to Re: Michael Jackson???, posted by Dinah on April 12, 2005, at 8:06:01
> I couildn't believe the testimony about a former child star by *name* was allowed at all. Perhaps it might personalize things for the jury, but I can't think that worth *at all* the embarassment they are putting on a person who was a child at the time this was allegedly happening. I thought it was required that minors be referred to without name if they aren't involved in the trial.
>
> I can't believe the judge is allowing that.The people of California allowed it. The state passed a law recently that allows evidence of prior allegations in sexual assault and domestic violence cases, even though the prior matters might never have gone to trial. The use of names is not consistent -- in the one instance where a child actor is now appearing on TV to say "nothing happened" between him and MJ, it was some action he took that opened the door to use of his name. I would need to sort out details, but any other juvenile appearing in the trial is assured anonymity unless they have made some public comment that revealed their role in the trial. Otherwise, juvenile faces have been blurred and names have been redacted.
For the most part, media orgs have ethical guidelines that go beyond legal requirements for withholing the names of victims of sexual assault. In most cases, a victim's public statement rends the ethical and legal curtain.
poster:used2b
thread:482913
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050408/msgs/483254.html