Publishing the names of the accused

[RawHein]

If the crime is serious, and they are formally charged with the crime, absolutely. Especially in cases like school shootings, brutal homicides and sexual assault cases, so that we know who to shun from society and have them serve as a warning to others to not go down that path.

Just charged? So when it comes out they didn't do it and they've already been disowned and fired while in custody, not to mention had their name branded as a mass-murdering nutcase nationally and internationally, they're free to live their lives hiding away from the world with an employability just above that of someone actually guilty?

[Noraika]

If the crime is serious, and they are formally charged with the crime, absolutely. Especially in cases like school shootings, brutal homicides and sexual assault cases, so that we know who to shun from society and have them serve as a warning to others to not go down that path.

Just charged? So when it comes out they didn't do it and they've already been disowned and fired while in custody, not to mention had their name branded as a mass-murdering nutcase nationally and internationally, they're free to live their lives hiding away from the world with an employability just above that of someone actually guilty?

Not to mention that this often ends up pushing people towards actual criminal behaviour. If they are charged, but found innocent, that still harms their ability to be employed. A perfectly innocent person may find themselves in the situation where they can no longer find work because, at one point in time, they were thought to 'maybe' be involved in, or falsely accused of, a crime, despite being found innocent, and not involved. As a direct result of that, it is not uncommon to hear about people actually turning to crime because they can't find work due to such reputation damages, and still need to survive.

[Luziyca]

If the crime is serious, and they are formally charged with the crime, absolutely. Especially in cases like school shootings, brutal homicides and sexual assault cases, so that we know who to shun from society and have them serve as a warning to others to not go down that path.

Just charged? So when it comes out they didn't do it and they've already been disowned and fired while in custody, not to mention had their name branded as a mass-murdering nutcase nationally and internationally, they're free to live their lives hiding away from the world with an employability just above that of someone actually guilty?

Well, better safe than sorry.

I mean, I think for serious crimes, even if the person is under 18, their names should be published (so if a 17 year old shot up a school or brutally kidnapped somebody), but if it is something minor like petty theft, their name shouldn't be published if they are under 18.

[Risottia]

This issue pops up a lot in sexual assault cases, but really, it applies to a myriad of other crimes. If someone is accused of a crime, but not yet convicted, should their names be published?

Yes.
The whole point of it is having a public trial, with public allegations and public proceedings, which anyone can follow, also through the media, and eventually file a complaint against how it was conducted. If we were to allow for secret trials... tyranny is always just a step away.

People - and especially the media - should quit their rather nasty habit of equating an accusation for a conviction though. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE IN A FAIR TRIAL for fuck's sake.

[Luziyca]

This issue pops up a lot in sexual assault cases, but really, it applies to a myriad of other crimes. If someone is accused of a crime, but not yet convicted, should their names be published?

Yes.
The whole point of it is having a public trial, with public allegations and public proceedings, which anyone can follow and eventually file a complaint against how it was conducted. If we were to allow for secret trials... well, tyranny is just a step away.

People - and especially the media - should quit their rather nasty habit of equating an accusation for a conviction though. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE IN A FAIR TRIAL for fuck's sake.

That part, innocent until proven otherwise in a fair trial is a good idea, but justice can be slow sometimes. Sometimes, it's better to just pick things up a notch.

[Noraika]

Well, better safe than sorry.

I mean, I think for serious crimes, even if the person is under 18, their names should be published (so if a 17 year old shot up a school or brutally kidnapped somebody), but if it is something minor like petty theft, their name shouldn't be published if they are under 18.

So we shouldn't subject someone to the court of public opinion because they 'maybe' did something unless its something that could damage an individuals reputation, as a member of the community and law-abiding citizen, even more than usual?

That isn't better safe that sorry. That's better sorry than safe.
Better safe than sorry is saying that an individual should be properly tried and convicted, to ensure they actually did the crime they're being accused of, before subjecting them to the court of public opinion. Better sorry than safe is saying that a person should be subject to the court of public option, and then just go 'oops' if they are found innocent, despite all the damages already done to that person's reputation.

[Noraika]

That part, innocent until proven otherwise in a fair trial is a good idea, but justice can be slow sometimes. Sometimes, it's better to just pick things up a notch.

So...just because someone COULD/MAYBE be guilty of a crime we should treat them the same as someone who is properly tried and convicted, and PROVEN guilty of a crime? Then why not just throw everyone nearby a crime scene in prison, and wait until they're proven innocent, because they were 'in the area, and could have/maybe been involved. If anyone is capable of committing a crime then anyone can be arrested at any time, and thrown in prison for any crime. Because screw evidence, its lynch mob time!

[Risottia]

Yes.
The whole point of it is having a public trial, with public allegations and public proceedings, which anyone can follow and eventually file a complaint against how it was conducted. If we were to allow for secret trials... well, tyranny is just a step away.

People - and especially the media - should quit their rather nasty habit of equating an accusation for a conviction though. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE IN A FAIR TRIAL for fuck's sake.

That part, innocent until proven otherwise in a fair trial is a good idea, but justice can be slow sometimes. Sometimes, it's better to just pick things up a notch.

Better slow than sorry.

[Luziyca]

Well, better safe than sorry.

I mean, I think for serious crimes, even if the person is under 18, their names should be published (so if a 17 year old shot up a school or brutally kidnapped somebody), but if it is something minor like petty theft, their name shouldn't be published if they are under 18.

So we shouldn't subject someone to the court of public opinion because they 'maybe' did something unless its something that could damage an individuals reputation, as a member of the community and law-abiding citizen, even more than usual?

That isn't better safe that sorry. That's better sorry than safe.
Better safe than sorry is saying that an individual should be properly tried and convicted, to ensure they actually did the crime they're being accused of, before subjecting them to the court of public opinion. Better sorry than safe is saying that a person should be subject to the court of public option, and then just go 'oops' if they are found innocent, despite all the damages already done to that person's reputation.

Ideally, we wouldn't do that at all. However, because people may be concerned that for serious crimes that we were trying them in secret courts or trying to hide something, this is the best we got.

[Luziyca]

That part, innocent until proven otherwise in a fair trial is a good idea, but justice can be slow sometimes. Sometimes, it's better to just pick things up a notch.

So...just because someone COULD/MAYBE be guilty of a crime we should treat them the same as someone who is properly tried and convicted, and PROVEN guilty of a crime? Then why not just throw everyone nearby a crime scene in prison, and wait until they're proven innocent, because they were 'in the area, and could have/maybe been involved. If anyone is capable of committing a crime then anyone can be arrested at any time, and thrown in prison for any crime. Because screw evidence, its lynch mob time!

No.

This is why that after they have been formally charged, and the charges are read to them, the name should be published.

[RawHein]

-

Can both of you please fix your posts? Honest mistakes, I get it, but I didn't say those things. And the trials can be public, just with anonymity for the defendant (and alleged victim, if they desire) enforced on the media.

[Noraika]

No.

This is why that after they have been formally charged, and the charges are read to them, the name should be published.

Formally charged does not mean a person is involved in a crime though. In addition, withholding the names of those involved is not the same as a secret court proceeding. The details of the crime and evidence may still be released, but just not the names, since that is entirely irrelevant to the administration of justice. Withholding the names of the accused does nothing to endanger the public, nor does it harm the proper functions or administration of justice.

With that said, it does harm the accuser and the person accused, and their reputations, ability to maintain a livelihood and sometimes even the safety of themselves and their families, to release their names to the public before the courts have ruled whether the people charged are even involved, whatsoever, with the crime in question.

If a person is innocent, then publishing their names essentially screws over an innocent person, and can even put them in danger. I'd like to avoid the suffering of innocent people as much as possible, and this is a damn simple way to help with that.

[Luziyca]

No.

This is why that after they have been formally charged, and the charges are read to them, the name should be published.

Formally charged does not mean a person is involved in a crime though. In addition, withholding the names of those involved is not the same as a secret court proceeding. The details of the crime and evidence may still be released, but just not the names, since that is entirely irrelevant to the administration of justice. Withholding the names of the accused does nothing to endanger the public, nor does it harm the proper functions or administration of justice. It does harm the accuser and the person accused, and their reputations, ability to maintain a livelihood and sometimes even the safety of themselves and their family's, to release their names to the public before the courts have ruled whether the people charged are even involved, whatsoever, with the crime.

If a person is innocent, then publishing their names essentially screws over an innocent person, and can even put them in danger.

Personally, I don't really think the accuser's names should be published, since it adds nothing to the case. So I agree with you for the accuser.

But if we have the name of the accused, we'd know who the person is. We'd know what he or she (allegedly) did, and we have full confidence that there is actually a free and fair trial.

[Australian rePublic]

Innocent till proven guilty=not publishing names till proven guilty

[Noraika]

Personally, I don't really think the accuser's names should be published, since it adds nothing to the case. So I agree with you for the accuser.

But if we have the name of the accused, we'd know who the person is. We'd know what he or she (allegedly) did, and we have full confidence that there is actually a free and fair trial.

That's part of the problem though. The court of public opinion is hardly ever a rational place, and by the time a person is proven innocent, all sorts of people have already made up their minds, and typically erring on the side of assuming their guilt. The reputational damage has already been done, and, for serious crimes, acts of anger or retaliation against the accused have likely already been taken, or threatened, against the accused or their significant other, friends, or family. All because people decided for themselves before the courts could come to a conclusion. That's not justice!

It can also lead to lose of employment, and family and friends cutting off ties to them for fear of being seen as associating with them, and can cause the rejection of application for employment simply off the basis that they 'may have' committed a crime in the past. If anything, by doing that, and ruining the economic and personal livelihood of the innocently accused, it isn't uncommon to hear about them being pushed into criminal activity to survive. In the case of innocent persons, that can ruin that person's very life, reputation, and livelihood, and that is utterly abhorrent and disgusting. Their lives become ruined for a crime they never committed in the first place. That's injustice if I've ever heard it!

In the case of guilty persons, then their names are released after they have been convicted in a court of law, and the people can look over the proceedings and evidence to see how that guilty was determined, and the press will be allowed in to oversee the proceedings and release the permitted aspects of it just like they do now (just not to release names or take photographs), so I don't see how the people wouldn't be any more assured that a fair trial did indeed occur than they are now. Like I said previously, releasing of names is irrelevant to the administration of justice.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

So you do not know the meaning of libel. Here's a hint: the truth cannot be libel. Libel refers specifically to false statements.



That is undeniably false. At no point have I ever claimed that any of us can know everything. Actually, my statement on that topic was that sometimes we CANNOT know something.



They are not obligated to prove their comments are truthful. In order to be convicted of anything, it needs be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a prosecutor.

So why are you avoiding the questions?

That you don't know how libel laws work suggests that it is you who does not know the meaning of libel. In a defamation case the defendant must prove that their claims are true.

So you don't understand the concept

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth

or that convictions under the American legal system place the burden of proof on the prosecution

I haven't purposefully avoided any of your questions. If I've missed one, I apologise, please let me know which ones and I shall answer them.

This happens almost every time. 'Sure, I quoted the exact questions, but I've mysteriously lost my memory of them and my ability to scroll up and read'

"Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?"

"You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?"

[Wisconsin9]

Just charged? So when it comes out they didn't do it and they've already been disowned and fired while in custody, not to mention had their name branded as a mass-murdering nutcase nationally and internationally, they're free to live their lives hiding away from the world with an employability just above that of someone actually guilty?

Well, better safe than sorry.

I mean, I think for serious crimes, even if the person is under 18, their names should be published (so if a 17 year old shot up a school or brutally kidnapped somebody), but if it is something minor like petty theft, their name shouldn't be published if they are under 18.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

It is not leaving individuals 'ignorant'. Waiting for proper procedures to take their course reduces ignorance by weeding out the false accusations and 'maybes' and giving people the objective and concrete facts of the matter. Its like how any self-respecting scientific study doesn't publish and act on 'hunches', but actually tests, and properly ensures the accuracy of the data in their studies. You don't publish information unless you confident in them and assured of their legitimacy. Otherwise imagine what would happen in the medical field if we could just operate on hunches without subjecting it to proper objective studies.

Those who levy accusations would have to respect the rules of anonymity, and they would be subject to separate legal proceedings against them for publicly naming those involved with the case, yes. Neither has been found to be victim or victimizer until the issue has been fully addressed in a court of law, and anonymity protects both the accused and the accuser from having their reputation tarnished, or from public prejudices, particularly about crimes which can cause damage to public reputation for the accuser, such as rape or domestic abuse. With that said, in addition to legal penalties on the accuser for violating the law of anonymity, a Right of Reply for the accused should be included, for them to defend themselves in the same venues which the accuser published prior.

So apparently your answer is no. You actually support laws that would punish victims for naming their victimizer.

As for leaving individuals ignorant, there is no honest claim that your method doesn't do exactly that. Your concept blocks the release of accurate information.

How would you propose people GET information if you block release of it?

[Noraika]

It is not leaving individuals 'ignorant'. Waiting for proper procedures to take their course reduces ignorance by weeding out the false accusations and 'maybes' and giving people the objective and concrete facts of the matter. Its like how any self-respecting scientific study doesn't publish and act on 'hunches', but actually tests, and properly ensures the accuracy of the data in their studies. You don't publish information unless you confident in them and assured of their legitimacy. Otherwise imagine what would happen in the medical field if we could just operate on hunches without subjecting it to proper objective studies.

Those who levy accusations would have to respect the rules of anonymity, and they would be subject to separate legal proceedings against them for publicly naming those involved with the case, yes. Neither has been found to be victim or victimizer until the issue has been fully addressed in a court of law, and anonymity protects both the accused and the accuser from having their reputation tarnished, or from public prejudices, particularly about crimes which can cause damage to public reputation for the accuser, such as rape or domestic abuse. With that said, in addition to legal penalties on the accuser for violating the law of anonymity, a Right of Reply for the accused should be included, for them to defend themselves in the same venues which the accuser published prior.

So apparently your answer is no. You actually support laws that would punish victims for naming their victimizer.

As for leaving individuals ignorant, there is no honest claim that your method doesn't do exactly that. Your concept blocks the release of accurate information.

How would you propose people GET information if you block release of it?

If a person violates the law, by publicly naming and shaming their superposed victimizer, or victim for that matter, because until the court determines the verdict there is only supposition of a victim or victimizer, then they should be subject to those laws. With that said, let us not make even more victims of potentially innocent people, by subjecting them to the court of public opinion and causing damage to their reputation and livelihood, and potentially the safety of themselves and their families, without first giving them at least the courtesy of a fair trial to determine if they have even done the crime they're accused of.

With that said, I don't see how 'withholding names' is the same as not permitting any information to be released. Have I said the press should not be permitted to cover the case (while excluding the names of those involved)? Have I said the names of the accused should not be published after they are convicted? Have I suggested the laws about access to information regarding the proceedings of the courts should be drastically changed to cut off information, and not just censoring the names of those involved?

No, to all of the above. The only thing that has been requested is that we don't cause more suffering for innocent people before those people have been proven guilty, and that we have a process which minimises damages to them if they are found innocent, but which doesn't infringe upon the proper administration of justice. How is information blocked - unless the names are truly all their is to a crime?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

That you don't know how libel laws work suggests that it is you who does not know the meaning of libel. In a defamation case the defendant must prove that their claims are true.

So you don't understand the concept

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth

or that convictions under the American legal system place the burden of proof on the prosecution

I haven't purposefully avoided any of your questions. If I've missed one, I apologise, please let me know which ones and I shall answer them.

This happens almost every time. 'Sure, I quoted the exact questions, but I've mysteriously lost my memory of them and my ability to scroll up and read'

"Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?"

"You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I was unaware that American defamation law works that way. In the UK it does not.

That I didn't answer the second question is down to this difference. I assumed we were working off the same laws, so the answer was more or less covered in the libel discussion. That due process is imperfect would not be a defence against libel in the UK; if you couldn't convict the person you're defaming, you couldn't print those same things about them, because you still wouldn't be able to prove your claims true, and thus could be sued.

Your first question is just...odd. It seemed to me that you were claiming we shouldn't punish people for "telling the truth", but since, in the scenario of defaming an acquitted criminal, any such "truth" would be indistinguishable from a lie because you wouldn't have evidence to back it up (if you did, they'd have been convicted). Thus you equally couldn't punish someone telling outright lies that would be equally unevidenced. Again, this is a little different under US defamation laws, where you could claim that an acquitted person did commit the crime and not be sued successfully. In the UK, the only way you could do that is if you had new evidence (in which case you ought to take it to the police).

[Pope Joan]

Until proven guilty, these people are presumed innocent.

Supposedly.

How do you propose to keep these innocent people from being harmed by false accusations?

Remember that the Innocence Project, started in Illinois and now replicated in many states and law schools, has used DNA evidence to prove the innocence of CONVICTS who had been arrested by police, charged by DAs, tried and found guilty by judges and juries. Yet they were completely innocent.

Let us please not be so quick to condemn.

I didn't say they're guilty.
I said that since there's a chance they're guilty, publishing their names can save other women.
Saving other women should be the priority, much more than the temporary embarassement of the few innocent accuseds: just only 2% accusations are false.

Okay, I hereby accuse you of a vile crime! I need no proof, all I have to do is accuse.
Now, in order to protect some supposed victims (who do not exist, since of course I am fabricating this charge) you will lose your reputation, your job, and your future.
What fun! And it's all so easy!

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

If a person violates the law, by publicly naming and shaming their superposed victimizer, or victim for that matter, because until the court determines the verdict there is only supposition of a victim or victimizer, then they should be subject to those laws.

That's a circular argument. 'People should be subject to a law if they violate it...which they can only even do if they are subject to it...which they should be if they violate it...'

With that said, let us not make even more victims of potentially innocent people, by subjecting them to the court of public opinion and causing damage to their reputation and livelihood, and potentially the safety of themselves and their families, without first giving them at least the courtesy of a fair trial to determine if they have even done the crime they're accused of.

I concur with that exactly as I always have. I agree: let us not lie about other people.

With that said, I don't see how 'withholding names' is the same as not permitting any information to be released.

I've never seen anyone claim otherwise, so why bring it up?

How is information blocked - unless the names are truly all their is to a crime?

Um, information would be blocked when people don't share it because of the laws you would have against it. What about that did you need clarified?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

So you don't understand the concept

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/substantial-truth

or that convictions under the American legal system place the burden of proof on the prosecution



This happens almost every time. 'Sure, I quoted the exact questions, but I've mysteriously lost my memory of them and my ability to scroll up and read'

"Why would I seem to be saying something with no relation to anything I've actually posted?"

"You say it can all be handled in court...do you think everyone who ever commits a crime leaves behind evidence which will point to them beyond a reasonable doubt?"

I was unaware that American defamation law works that way. In the UK it does not.

That I didn't answer the second question is down to this difference. I assumed we were working off the same laws, so the answer was more or less covered in the libel discussion. That due process is imperfect would not be a defence against libel in the UK; if you couldn't convict the person you're defaming, you couldn't print those same things about them, because you still wouldn't be able to prove your claims true, and thus could be sued.

Your first question is just...odd. It seemed to me that you were claiming we shouldn't punish people for "telling the truth", but since, in the scenario of defaming an acquitted criminal, any such "truth" would be indistinguishable from a lie because you wouldn't have evidence to back it up (if you did, they'd have been convicted). Thus you equally couldn't punish someone telling outright lies that would be equally unevidenced. Again, this is a little different under US defamation laws, where you could claim that an acquitted person did commit the crime and not be sued successfully. In the UK, the only way you could do that is if you had new evidence (in which case you ought to take it to the police).

And it should scare anyone when the system works like: if the government fails to protect someone from a crime, and fails to punish the criminal, it can still punish the victim...based in part on the government's failure

I hope that isn't actually so, but I don't know very much about UK law.

[Esternial]

If the crime is serious, and they are formally charged with the crime, absolutely. Especially in cases like school shootings, brutal homicides and sexual assault cases, so that we know who to shun from society and have them serve as a warning to others to not go down that path.

Just charged? So when it comes out they didn't do it and they've already been disowned and fired while in custody, not to mention had their name branded as a mass-murdering nutcase nationally and internationally, they're free to live their lives hiding away from the world with an employability just above that of someone actually guilty?

Can't the vindicated suspect sue for damages?

I mean I'd sue my accuser for everything they've got. Make a big spectacle out of it. Maybe even do a couple interviews about how that vile person ruined my life.

[Noraika]

And it should scare anyone when the system works like: if the government fails to protect someone from a crime, and fails to punish the criminal, it can still punish the victim...based in part on the government's failure

I hope that isn't actually so, but I don't know very much about UK law.

By the words you use, it seems like you think that:

A) Every person who is accused of a crime is guilty until proven innocent.
B) Any person who is not found guilty in a court of law is a 'failure of justice', instead of perhaps a person legitimately being innocent.

Now I would hope that isn't the case, and perhaps you can clarify your position. With that said, criminal accusations, or other forms of speech which are "injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or injures a person in their business or profession", and which have been proven to either be unsubstantial in a court of law, or which are not even brought before a court of law, are no better than bullying.

Also, it is not circular reasoning to say "we have a law which says that the names of the accused and accuser may not be publicly released until they are tried and convicted", and then punish a person for violating said law.