Publishing the names of the accused

[Gauthier]

That's not the point. The point is that the defendant is going to be branded as a criminal by at least some people if not a majority of people, whether or not they actually committed a crime.

Also, jury trials.

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

And people who treat someone accused of a heinous crime as a social pariah clearly understand that their branding has no legal standing without a court order!

[Vassenor]

That's not the point. The point is that the defendant is going to be branded as a criminal by at least some people if not a majority of people, whether or not they actually committed a crime.

Also, jury trials.

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

Because it's not like jurors never go into the courtroom with no preconceived notions about the case.

[Infected Mushroom]

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

Because it's not like jurors never go into the courtroom with no preconceived notions about the case.

And thats why we shouldn't use jurors; like democracy its faith in the common person's rationality and intellectual capabilities is misguided

[Infected Mushroom]

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

And people who treat someone accused of a heinous crime as a social pariah clearly understand that their branding has no legal standing without a court order!

they understand it, I am sure they are under no delusion that they have the legal power to put the person behind bars.

[Gauthier]

And people who treat someone accused of a heinous crime as a social pariah clearly understand that their branding has no legal standing without a court order!

they understand it, I am sure they are under no delusion that they have the legal power to put the person behind bars.

Just ruin his social life by ostracism and denial of important services. *nod*

[Infected Mushroom]

they understand it, I am sure they are under no delusion that they have the legal power to put the person behind bars.

Just ruin his social life by ostracism and denial of important services. *nod*

the state is not responsible for your personal popularity

[Gauthier]

Just ruin his social life by ostracism and denial of important services. *nod*

the state is not responsible for your personal popularity

Yes, vital services like pharmacy and hospital is a measure of popularity.

[Infected Mushroom]

the state is not responsible for your personal popularity

Yes, vital services like pharmacy and hospital is a measure of popularity.

That's something that is covered by anti-discrimination laws.

[Gauthier]

Yes, vital services like pharmacy and hospital is a measure of popularity.

That's something that is covered by anti-discrimination laws.

Those only apply to gender, orientation, religion and race. Not unproven accusations of being a vile criminal.

[Infected Mushroom]

That's something that is covered by anti-discrimination laws.

Those only apply to gender, orientation, religion and race. Not unproven accusations of being a vile criminal.

I'm sure its covered under some other statute. Either way, if that be the case, then the anti-discrimination laws need to be more inclusive.

Either way, I have a sense that if I went to buy a hamburger and the person said to me ''I ain't selling it to you because I think you're a FUCKING criminal''... and I took it to court, there would be some case in my favour.

[Slaveavania]

I lean towards not ruining someone's name until they have actually been convicted. I know if I were innocent of a crime, I wouldn't want to suffer at the hands of people who THINK I did something, if I did not. Although that may be because I watched that episode of CSI Miami once. It was crazy.

[Radiatia]

As someone who has been falsely accused of a crime (and acquitted, and later ended up suing the person who made the claims for defamation) I can tell you that name suppression is an absolute necessity.

Society's tendency to automatically equate being charged with a crime with guilt means that those who have grudges against you (as happened to me) know that they just need to accuse you of a crime and have this become public knowledge in order to smear your reputation.

That situation is more common than you might think.

For that reason, by all means publish the names of those who are convicted - society needs protection from them - but those who are accused deserve privacy, lest false accusations become just as damaging as an actual conviction.

[States of Glory]

Either way, I have a sense that if I went to buy a hamburger and the person said to me ''I ain't selling it to you because I think you're a FUCKING criminal''... and I took it to court, there would be some case in my favour.

That would be what would happen in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world.

[Infected Mushroom]

Either way, I have a sense that if I went to buy a hamburger and the person said to me ''I ain't selling it to you because I think you're a FUCKING criminal''... and I took it to court, there would be some case in my favour.

That would be what would happen in an ideal world, but we don't live in an ideal world.

then lets try and make it ideal, but not by suppressing information from the public which they could have used for their own personal safety... because we have this condescending view that they are unable to exercise impartial and critical thinking and by default universally form some kind of condemnatory ''court of public opinion''

[Galloism]

That's not the point. The point is that the defendant is going to be branded as a criminal by at least some people if not a majority of people, whether or not they actually committed a crime.

Also, jury trials.

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

I'm sure the man or woman starving in the street because they have an eternal Google history of being accused of something and therefore cannot get a job will take great comfort in that.

[Infected Mushroom]

Only the courts have the power to brand people criminals, any ''branding'' done by the general population has no legal force and is thus of no concern as far as rights of the accused are concerned (unless of course, if they run afoul of other laws).

I'm sure the man or woman starving in the street because they have an eternal Google history of being accused of something and therefore cannot get a job will take great comfort in that.

Definitely. Otherwise she would be indefinitely imprisoned. Though you have to wonder, how do people end up with an eternal Google history of being accused? Now wouldn't that raise the spectre of reasonable doubt in anyone's mind?

[Galloism]

I'm sure the man or woman starving in the street because they have an eternal Google history of being accused of something and therefore cannot get a job will take great comfort in that.

Definitely. Otherwise she would be indefinitely imprisoned. Though you have to wonder, how do people end up with an eternal Google history of being accused? Now wouldn't that raise the spectre of reasonable doubt in anyone's mind?

Possibly, but Google searching is common among employers. Excluding employees based on accused crimes happens already.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

I'd be pretty pissed at the lying piece of trash. Then I'd work to rightfully destroy their reputation by showing what they are really like.



The instant someone commits a crime, they are guilty of it.

Well, they are more credible than you, as they didn't beat and sodomize someone like you did.

Your post didn't say anything about me, but it certainly says a lot about you.

[Infected Mushroom]

Definitely. Otherwise she would be indefinitely imprisoned. Though you have to wonder, how do people end up with an eternal Google history of being accused? Now wouldn't that raise the spectre of reasonable doubt in anyone's mind?

Possibly, but Google searching is common among employers. Excluding employees based on accused crimes happens already.

employers hire or don't hire based on perceptions of your ability to do the job, if you've gotten into trouble with the law before, it is entirely reasonable to draw some sort of adverse inference

[Galloism]

Possibly, but Google searching is common among employers. Excluding employees based on accused crimes happens already.

employers hire or don't hire based on perceptions of your ability to do the job, if you've gotten into trouble with the law before, it is entirely reasonable to draw some sort of adverse inference

Which necessarily means that even innocence results in social and economic punishment.

[Infected Mushroom]

employers hire or don't hire based on perceptions of your ability to do the job, if you've gotten into trouble with the law before, it is entirely reasonable to draw some sort of adverse inference

Which necessarily means that even innocence results in social and economic punishment.

No it doesn't. It just depends on who your neighbours are and who you run into.

[Galloism]

Which necessarily means that even innocence results in social and economic punishment.

No it doesn't. It just depends on who your neighbours are and who you run into.

It still means getting accused of a crime is enough to spoil your prospects. Guilty or innocent doesn't matter - your life can be ruined by an accusation.

[Infected Mushroom]

No it doesn't. It just depends on who your neighbours are and who you run into.

It still means getting accused of a crime is enough to spoil your prospects. Guilty or innocent doesn't matter - your life can be ruined by an accusation.

your life can always be ruined by an accusation in any system

[Soldati Senza Confini]

As a former attorney in general practice, I am opposed to this. We have a nasty tendency to equate mere accusation, without any hearing, any due process, as equivalent to guilt.

If the accused is not brought to trial, we blame the system and still assume he is guilty.

If he is brought to trial and found not guilty, we say there must have been a legal technicality. Of course we all get reminded that the burden of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a high one, and say that of course he is guilty if we can just ignore those doubts.

So all it takes to permanently harm someone is an unfounded accusation.

Remember the Duke Lacrosse players? http://www.wral.com/durham-settles-with ... /13650645/
http://www.mrc.org/articles/selena-robe ... yers-again
http://today.duke.edu/showcase/lacrosseincident/

This ^

[Galloism]

It still means getting accused of a crime is enough to spoil your prospects. Guilty or innocent doesn't matter - your life can be ruined by an accusation.

your life can always be ruined by an accusation in any system

Hence why people are proposing a system where the names of the accused are withheld.

Not sure if that's the best of all possible systems, but you've demonstrated to all that it has merit.