NationStates

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:The interesting thing about this conversation is that publishing the name and the crime of the accused is protection for the accused. This way they do not disappear into the night and fog. And the proceedings can be followed by the public to ensure a fair process.

Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

You don't even need a specific system for that - just add "unless authorised by the defendant or their representative" to whatever legislation you're drafting. That way all a newspaper needs is a letter or something from their lawyer saying it's OK.

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:The interesting thing about this conversation is that publishing the name and the crime of the accused is protection for the accused. This way they do not disappear into the night and fog. And the proceedings can be followed by the public to ensure a fair process.

Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

It's the free and unfettered public access that makes it transparent.

DARGLED wrote:Never. Only the convicted as innocence is always presumed.

This, one hundred percent. Publishing names can ruin lives.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Galloism wrote:Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

It's the free and unfettered public access that makes it transparent.

Also which causes effective collective social and economic punishment in the face of an acquittal.

I can see both sides.

There's two sides to this question: If it should be legal, and if it's ethical.

1. The question of legality
   
   This question, of course, falls squarely in the realm of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In short, there needs to be a compelling reason to disallow the media from publishing the names. While there may be some good reasons for why we should - by law - refrain from publishing the names of the accused, in my opinion they don't carry sufficient weight. Also, there are good reasons beyond the freedom of expression and freedom of the media for allowing the publishing of names. For example, it serves to keep a check on who the government is prosecuting, it allows potential witnesses to come forward in defence of the accused on their own accord and it allows for people to come forward to provide evidence against him or her.
   
   So yeah, I say it should be legal. Which then leads to
   
   
2. The question of ethics
   
   This is actually more difficult to give a general answer to. Basically it needs to be a judgement call based on the circumstances of the case. For example, vulnerable people (including children) should be offered greater protection, while on the other hand the more important the case the more the public has an interest to know. The media has to exercise caution, and should follow a set of ethical guidelines on when to publish and when to keep the accused anonymous.

Galloism wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:The interesting thing about this conversation is that publishing the name and the crime of the accused is protection for the accused. This way they do not disappear into the night and fog. And the proceedings can be followed by the public to ensure a fair process.

Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

Nope, that possibility shouldn't exist.
It could lead to powerful people bribing the judges and wriggling their way out of criminal charges easily and without the public noticing anything fishy (let's make an easy example: Berlusconi?) on one side. And to other people being forced to accept a secret trial even if it's not in their best interest.
Trials have to stay completely public.

Risottia wrote:

Galloism wrote:Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

Nope, that possibility shouldn't exist.
It could lead to powerful people bribing the judges and wriggling their way out of criminal charges easily and without the public noticing anything fishy (let's make an easy example: Berlusconi?) on one side. And to other people being forced to accept a secret trial even if it's not in their best interest.
Trials have to stay completely public.

I have a feeling if you had your choice you'd shove Berlusconi out of the space station into deep space with limited oxygen so he could think about what he's done.

What's your solution to deal with the fallout?

Ethel mermania wrote:The interesting thing about this conversation is that publishing the name and the crime of the accused is protection for the accused. This way they do not disappear into the night and fog. And the proceedings can be followed by the public to ensure a fair process.

The proceedings can also be followed by the more sensational elements of the media. I can't see that possibly going wrong!

Rawhein wrote:

Galloism wrote:Arguably, we could devise a system where it's the choice of the defense.

You don't even need a specific system for that - just add "unless authorised by the defendant or their representative" to whatever legislation you're drafting. That way all a newspaper needs is a letter or something from their lawyer saying it's OK.

That seems like a decent idea to me.

Gravlen wrote:This question, of course, falls squarely in the realm of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Apparently, freedom of speech and freedom of the press now extend to ruining people's lives for no good reason.

Risottia wrote:It could lead to powerful people bribing the judges and wriggling their way out of criminal charges easily and without the public noticing anything fishy (let's make an easy example: Berlusconi?) on one side.

I'm going to be honest here, I don't follow your logic.

Ashmoria wrote:if a person is formally charged with a crime then it needs to be made public.

if he is just THOUGHT to be maybe chargeable sometime in the future its best not to soil his reputation by naming him when he may never face legal proceedings.

^This. If people's names are given out when they haven't been found guilty then they may be vulnerable to a trial-by-media.

Chessmistress wrote:I strongly agree with publishing the name of the accused, always, because such information can save other women making them aware he can be a threat.

Eh, I see your point, but I would very much rather err on the side of not contributing to the potential marginalization and/or defamation of someone who could ultimately be proven innocent.

Galloism wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
such a system would endanger people needlessly, it is therefore infeasible

it is clear you have not been paying attention to what I have been saying, because you are misinterpreting what I have demonstrated. But I cannot expect everyone to be able to understand my logic fully.

Actually, you've demonstrated that point quite well.

I didn't say you argued it. You demonstrated it.

It's like if someone were arguing guns were dangerous, and you were arguing to opposite, and during such argument you shot yourself in the leg.

No its not. You are incorrect. I have not said anything to that effect. I suggest you reread everything.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Galloism wrote:Actually, you've demonstrated that point quite well.

I didn't say you argued it. You demonstrated it.

It's like if someone were arguing guns were dangerous, and you were arguing to opposite, and during such argument you shot yourself in the leg.

No its not. You are incorrect. I have not said anything to that effect. I suggest you reread everything.

I did.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Galloism wrote: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 wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
No its not. You are incorrect. I have not said anything to that effect. I suggest you reread everything.

I did.

Infected Mushroom wrote:
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

Denial is not just a river.

I see no problem in publishing the names of those that have been charged with a crime. Though seeing as I have never been charged with a crime, I suppose I am biased towards publication.

Soldati senza confini wrote:

Galloism wrote:
I did.

Denial is not just a river.

Its not even A river (let alone anything else in addition).

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Soldati senza confini wrote:
Denial is not just a river.

Its not even A river (let alone anything else in addition).

Keep denying and deflecting. It really shows

As if to drive the point home, this story about Kesha and Dr. Luke didn't exactly protect the name of the accused, but the company it's referring to sided with the accused nonetheless, dismissing the accusations to the extent of dismissing even the idea of separating the accused and accuser until further notice. It really highlights the tradeoff when it comes to the rights of the accused.

Novorobo wrote:As if to drive the point home, this story about Kesha and Dr. Luke didn't exactly protect the name of the accused, but the company it's referring to sided with the accused nonetheless, dismissing the accusations to the extent of dismissing even the idea of separating the accused and accuser until further notice. It really highlights the tradeoff when it comes to the rights of the accused.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make.

I think that in order to publish the name of the accused, a judge should have to be convinced it is in the interest of gathering further evidence, and that the risk is proportional to potential benefits, in each individual case.
Similar to a warrant.

It's all well and good to argue that rummaging through peoples belongings is necessary because it yields important evidence, but we don't just have it done willy nilly because it's recognized that this is unfair to the accused.
Publishing names is similar in that respect.

Whether the bar would be higher or lower, I won't comment on.