There is a columnist that I read on a regular basis and even I find it strange that I like her writing - Susan Estrich. At her best (from my point of view) she's a liberal who has some ideas that sound like me. At her worst, she is amusing.

Today I read an article byEstrich about the situation at Duke and comparing it to another rape case. There are not many similarities in the cases - the one that Estrich wanted to point out was that in neither case has the name of the accuser been released.

In the Duke case, a woman is the accuser, in Houston the victim is a male.
In the Duke case, there are no eye-witnesses (not directly involved), in Houston there are two.
In the Duke case, there are "injuries consistent with rape", in Houston, the victim almost died.

I'll say up front that I don't think that the accusers should be named - but I think that it would be a good think if the accused were also not named.

Here's a quote from Estrich: "if it turns out that the woman in the Duke case misidentified her assailant, charges should be dropped. If it turns out she fabricated the story, she should be charged with lying. But until that is determined, she is as much entitled to the presumption of innocence as are the accused."

Stop and think about that...the "victim" should not be named because she is "as nuch entitled to the presumption of innocence..." So why are the accused named before they are found guilty?

If these young men are innocent, their names have been released to the world. Should not the "presumption of innocence" also protect them from having their names released?