Re-examining rape identification policy

Some readers noticed something unusual in a story about a rape trial in Tuesday's paper. Not only was the victim named in the story, but her picture was displayed as the lead photo on the front page of the City & State section.

The News & Observer does not normally disclose the identity of victims in sex crimes, except with their permission. In this case, Cynthia Morton consented to her name and picture being published in a story on the trial of the man accused of assaulting her 14 years ago. The rapist, Vincent Tan Hall, pleaded guilty.

Morton today is a nurse who helps rape victims, and several readers were moved to comment on her courage -- and on The N&O's policy of not naming accusers.

"I understand the confidentiality policy of The N&O and other media sources, but I think it is great when a victim has the courage to stand up and speak out about what happened to them with confidence and without shame," wrote Raleigh lawyer Sandra A. Good. "Because only the rapist should be ashamed."

In the wake of the Duke lacrosse case, the policy of not identifying sex crime accusers is under review at The N&O. An internal committee is looking at issues such as whether accusers should be identified or, if not, whether the accused also should be shielded.

There is a good bit of sentiment both within the paper and outside for identifying accusers, out of fairness to the accused who routinely are identified when charged. Other arguments: Newspapers are in the business of providing information, not withholding it, and shielding victims contributes to the social stigma attached to sexual assault cases.

"We have an awareness that by shielding women in that way, you perpetuate the stigma," said Sarah Avery, the editor heading the internal review. "But we also know that the stigma does exist" and that many victims don't have the fortitude of a Cynthia Morton to put themselves in the public eye.

Jim Woodall, district attorney for Orange and Chatham counties, told me that identifying accusers would have a chilling effect on victims' willingness to pursue charges. "Over the years, I have known so many, both women and men, who would tell me they did not want to go forward in a case because they did not want to let people know what happened to them, because of the stigma attached."

The other side of the issue is whether, if the accuser is shielded, it's fair to identify the accused. That problem was highlighted on a national scale by the Duke case, but I'm more troubled by a less heralded case recently in the news.

Last month, Woodall dropped charges against five high-school-age boys in Chapel Hill who had been charged with raping a teenage girl. The district attorney said there were too many inconsistencies in the evidence to go to trial.

Here's what bothers me: When the young men were charged, The N&O identified them but, in keeping with its policy, did not identify the accuser. The paper also ran a photo of the youths being led out of a courtroom in shackles and jail jumpsuits.

Some readers complained to me at the time that the picture was unduly harsh on five teenagers (they are all 17 or 18). My response was that it's routine for newspapers to run photos of suspects arrested in crimes. Why should we show favoritism to these five?

But now that the case has been dropped, I wonder. They've been cleared of the charges, but the publicity attendant to their arrest adheres to five young lives. The N&O ran several stories reporting on charges in the case (in fairness, one story led off with the father of one of the accused teenagers saying his son was not guilty). Meanwhile, the accuser remains anonymous.