NationStates

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:CHESSMISTRESS PROTOCOL ACTIVATING

It's not sexist. Sexism=predjudice+power, and women have no power, and thus can't be sexist.

CHESSMISTRESS PROTOCOL DEACTIVATING

Oh no, they got you!!

No, no, not at all. I still think it's idiotic and psychotic. I just figured we may as well get it out of the way.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
Oh no, they got you!!

No, no, not at all. I still think it's idiotic and psychotic. I just figured we may as well get it out of the way.

To the point where actual feminist literature calls such a definition bollocks.

Vassenor wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:No, no, not at all. I still think it's idiotic and psychotic. I just figured we may as well get it out of the way.

To the point where actual feminist literature calls such a definition bollocks.

I'm not claiming that most feminists believe that. It's just that that's Chessmistress's go-to (and as near as I can tell, only) "argument" whenever she's accused of sexism.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
To the point where actual feminist literature calls such a definition bollocks.

I'm not claiming that most feminists believe that. It's just that that's Chessmistress's go-to (and as near as I can tell, only) "argument" whenever she's accused of sexism.

Aye. It's a reasonably generic whitewashing tactic.

Vassenor wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:I think that the government should stay out of it.

Freedom of speech and of the press should guarantee that people can go to the press with their story and that those stories can be published.

So you would have no problems with, say, me going to the papers tomorrow with an entirely spurious accusation about you and them proceeding to rake you over the coals for it?

It certainly beats the alternative.

How would you feel if someone beat and sodomized you, and then the government threatens you with punishment if you tell others or publish your story?

Chessmistress wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:
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.

Lelwateven. Jesus, woman. It's like you don't even want to be taken seriously.

Being falsely accused of a crime and being branded as a criminal is far worse than just some "temporary embarrassment"? It has serious psychological implications and even when charges are cleared these people can remain branded by people in his life.

Mull things over a bit more next time ;)

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So you would have no problems with, say, me going to the papers tomorrow with an entirely spurious accusation about you and them proceeding to rake you over the coals for it?

It certainly beats the alternative.

How would you feel if someone beat and sodomized you, and then the government threatens you with punishment if you tell others or publish your story?

On the other hand, how would you feel if everyone believed you'd beat and sodomized someone, but actually hadn't?

I mean, I don't have a problem with telling your story, but for the sake of those who are falsely accused, it should at least wait until guilt is established.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
It certainly beats the alternative.

How would you feel if someone beat and sodomized you, and then the government threatens you with punishment if you tell others or publish your story?

On the other hand, how would you feel if everyone believed you'd beat and sodomized someone, but actually hadn't?

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.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I mean, I don't have a problem with telling your story, but for the sake of those who are falsely accused, it should at least wait until guilt is established.

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

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:On the other hand, how would you feel if everyone believed you'd beat and sodomized someone, but actually hadn't?

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.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I mean, I don't have a problem with telling your story, but for the sake of those who are falsely accused, it should at least wait until guilt is established.

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

But until they are proven guilty, they cannot be punished.

Big Jim P wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
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.

But until they are proven guilty, they cannot be punished.

We're not talking about them being sentenced for anything.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:
But until they are proven guilty, they cannot be punished.

We're not talking about them being sentenced for anything.

The stigma itself is punishment.

Edit: Note that I did not say "sentenced".

I don't think you can say that there is a public interest in having either the names of the accused or the accusers/victims/whatever term is appropriate publically available during a trial... and in most cases probably not after the trial either. However, there is a public interest in having transparent court proceedings so it would need to be a special case, to my way of thinking, where the names of an acquitted defendant would not be available after the trial's finished.

There are several reasons why there is no public interest pre and during trial. For one, interesting to the public is not the same as public interest. More significantly, the assumption is innocence and there's tendency for trial by media (which with certain crimes can even direct itself at the victim... although I think not as frequently), with the resultant ability to influence the outcome of the trial.

On the other hand, as some people will probably point out, a lot (most?) people prosecuted of crimes actually are guilty, in which case you can argue there's a public safety angle and, as such, there's a public interest. However, when I discussed this topic with a friend of mine, who studies law, he pointed out that maybe it is preferable to have fewer people out on bail rather than subjecting those who are erroneously tried to the long term ramifications of that.

Basically, it would be like universal name suppression... until the final decision (not including appeals etc.). I think this is the best balance of principles of justice and transparency.

Big Jim P wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
We're not talking about them being sentenced for anything.

The stigma itself is punishment.

Edit: Note that I did not say "sentenced".

You can consider that a punishment, it just wouldn't be accurate to say you cannot do it. You can stigmatize someone regardless of their conviction history, criminal history, or anything else.

Novorobo wrote: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?

No. Third parties can wait.

On the one hand, if someone is accused of a crime, but not convicted, but it's still plausible enough they may be guilty that the middle ground; of avoiding them just in case, but not throwing them in prison, could be followed accordingly.

A person is innocent before convicted, and that includes the most blatant criminal who confesses in open court. He is innocent until the court actually convicts him.

On the other hand, if someone is not merely acquitted, but outright proven innocent, then there's the issue of how they have to deal with people who've heard of the accusation, but haven't heard of the fact that someone had been proven innocent.

A person acquitted is always innocent.[/quote]

I suppose holding off on publishing the accused's name for a while, to give the courts a chance to prove them innocent, is another alternative, but sometimes it's years after an accusation before someone is "proven" innocent. If we are to extend that beyond the trial, how long is long enough? A month? A year? By what standard would we decide that?

The primary problem with publishing the name of a convicted criminal is as follows: his case may be re-opened in the future and overturned, and people who have the same name might suffer from undue infamy.

Personally, I'd focus on holding off until at least after the trial, but publishing the name of the accused whether they are convicted or not. I get that there's still a bit of a tradeoff between the possibility of being proven innocent and the public's use for this information, but the end of the trial seems like the only meaningful place to draw the line.

The public has no use for this information. They do not have a legal right to know whom the court has convicted.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:On the other hand, how would you feel if everyone believed you'd beat and sodomized someone, but actually hadn't?

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.

Wisconsin9 wrote:I mean, I don't have a problem with telling your story, but for the sake of those who are falsely accused, it should at least wait until guilt is established.

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

I said until guilt is established. You know, legally. Found guilty, and so on.

Chessmistress wrote:

Pope Joan wrote:
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.

Approximately 2% of reports of crimes areally fake. That has nothing to do with accusations.. there is a big difference between someone being accused of a crime, and a crime being reported.

Not to mention the other horribly sexist implication in your statement that it specifically benifits women.

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.

Just because he/she is a accused doesn't mean they're actually guilty of the crime.

Novorobo wrote: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?

On the one hand, if someone is accused of a crime, but not convicted, but it's still plausible enough they may be guilty that the middle ground; of avoiding them just in case, but not throwing them in prison, could be followed accordingly.

On the other hand, if someone is not merely acquitted, but outright proven innocent, then there's the issue of how they have to deal with people who've heard of the accusation, but haven't heard of the fact that someone had been proven innocent.

I suppose holding off on publishing the accused's name for a while, to give the courts a chance to prove them innocent, is another alternative, but sometimes it's years after an accusation before someone is "proven" innocent. If we are to extend that beyond the trial, how long is long enough? A month? A year? By what standard would we decide that?

Personally, I'd focus on holding off until at least after the trial, but publishing the name of the accused whether they are convicted or not. I get that there's still a bit of a tradeoff between the possibility of being proven innocent and the public's use for this information, but the end of the trial seems like the only meaningful place to draw the line.

Yes, in the name of Public Safety

The people have a right to know who might be a danger to them. Anyone who is being tried for a crime in court is potentially dangerous; the people should be warned in the name of Public Safety.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Novorobo wrote: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?

On the one hand, if someone is accused of a crime, but not convicted, but it's still plausible enough they may be guilty that the middle ground; of avoiding them just in case, but not throwing them in prison, could be followed accordingly.

On the other hand, if someone is not merely acquitted, but outright proven innocent, then there's the issue of how they have to deal with people who've heard of the accusation, but haven't heard of the fact that someone had been proven innocent.

I suppose holding off on publishing the accused's name for a while, to give the courts a chance to prove them innocent, is another alternative, but sometimes it's years after an accusation before someone is "proven" innocent. If we are to extend that beyond the trial, how long is long enough? A month? A year? By what standard would we decide that?

Personally, I'd focus on holding off until at least after the trial, but publishing the name of the accused whether they are convicted or not. I get that there's still a bit of a tradeoff between the possibility of being proven innocent and the public's use for this information, but the end of the trial seems like the only meaningful place to draw the line.

Yes, in the name of Public Safety

The people have a right to know who might be a danger to them. Anyone who is being tried for a crime in court is potentially dangerous; the people should be warned in the name of Public Safety.

Anybody I see on the street is potentially dangerous. That's why one of the first things we're taught is not to take candy from strangers.

Wisconsin9 wrote:

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:
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.

I said until guilt is established. You know, legally. Found guilty, and so on.

So you don't mean establish guilt, you mean convict of a crime.

Coalition of Minor Planets wrote:

Wisconsin9 wrote:I said until guilt is established. You know, legally. Found guilty, and so on.

So you don't mean establish guilt, you mean convict of a crime.

I don't really see a difference between the two. Not in most cases, at least.

Infected Mushroom wrote:Yes, in the name of Public Safety

The people have a right to know who might be a danger to them. Anyone who is being tried for a crime in court is potentially dangerous; the people should be warned in the name of Public Safety.

How do I know you're not potentially dangerous? How do you know I'm not potentially dangerous? This is why the burden of proof is on the accuser. I could accuse you of any crime I want to. In that case, would you advocate having your name released to the public?

Arrests are public record. The public has the right to examine public records. I have no problem with publishing the names of the arressted.

Someone didn't clarify this when I asked on the first page but does the United States not grant name suppression to defendants in court when certain factors are applicable?

Nobody should have their name published until after they've been found guilty, otherwise you run the risk of ruining someone's life for no real reason.