Dennis Prager on the importance of reputations
My new book discusses the reputational penalty that people face in even being charged with a crime and I gave the Duke case as an example. Dennis Prager also looks at this issue:
The rape of a name can be as vicious a crime and as destructive an act as the rape of a body. Sometimes the rape of a body is worse, sometimes the rape of a name is worse. But they are both rapes. And morally likening the two is in no way meant to lessen the horror of rape; it is meant only to heighten awareness of the horror of intentionally destroying the name of an innocent person.
These words are written in the aftermath of the destruction of three young men's names by a lying woman whose name is still hidden by The New York Times and other major newspapers whose commitment to truth is not as strong as their commitment to political correctness. . . . .
The point that I would make is that for the vast majority of those convicted of crime the reputational penalty is the most important penalty that they face.
These words are written in the aftermath of the destruction of three young men's names by a lying woman whose name is still hidden by The New York Times and other major newspapers whose commitment to truth is not as strong as their commitment to political correctness. . . . .
The point that I would make is that for the vast majority of those convicted of crime the reputational penalty is the most important penalty that they face.
Labels: Freedomnomics
posted by John Lott at 8:55 AM
1 Comments:
It is all too true. The Duke case is a very public and recent example, but not the only one.
Recall the security guard who had been accused, in leaks, by the FBI of planting the Olympic Park bomb that he had discovered. The man was a hero and the FBI chose to blame him for it for reasons of their own. Now they say Eric Rudolph did it. Which is it?
The real damage is not done to those who should face the penalty for rape. The FBI still is not automatically under suspicion when they bring out evidence in a trial despite having been shown to have lied under oath to Congress in the Waco incident.
The name-rapists are seldom held to account. The NYT continues to protect a "victim" who was not victimized and has not made any form of restitution to the three men whom they name-raped.
Post a Comment
<< Home