Publishing the names of the accused

[Ethel mermania]

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?

Mainly minors, in civil cases there are more exceptions. Usually not In criminal.

[Costa Fierro]

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?

Mainly minors, in civil cases there are more exceptions. Usually not In criminal.

That seems a bit...concerning given that there should be criminal cases where the identities of the defendants should be protected if not for their safety then certainly for the safety of their families.

In New Zealand, the courts can grant name suppression in those circumstances.

[The Two Jerseys]

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.

So we should also publish the names of those women so that we can save men by making them aware that those women are lying bitches.

[Infected Mushroom]

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.

Yes but red flags are raised when someone is charged with a crime and proceedings are in progress

[Infected Mushroom]

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?

the burden of proof is only with the final finding of guilt or innocence, it has nothing to do with taking precautions beforehand

If I hear that my neighbour's been accused and is being tried for being a mass murderer and they are out on bail... I am taking precautions NOW. The court can take its time. I'm going to play safe and I have a right to know.

[Wallenburg]

I strongly support publishing such information. Trials and the criminal justice system must be open to the public. Otherwise, we leave dangerous room for courts to operate outside of the law and outside of public scrutiny. The only case in which I would oppose publishing the accused's name is if he/she is a minor. Even then, the other details of the trial should be public.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

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.

They're pretty clearly quite different. Many people commit crimes and never get convicted. Many people get convicted of crimes they never actually committed.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

I strongly support publishing such information. Trials and the criminal justice system must be open to the public. Otherwise, we leave dangerous room for courts to operate outside of the law and outside of public scrutiny. The only case in which I would oppose publishing the accused's name is if he/she is a minor. Even then, the other details of the trial should be public.

You can open the trial to the public, and still take the name out of it. As a law student, I've seen many, many civil cases in which the name of the parties was taken out entirely. While a criminal case is something different entirely, because it deals with the government punishing an individual, the same principle can be applied. Open up the case, but take out the name. That way, if a person feels he is being treated unjustly, he can take out the case and scream 'Here! This is me! Damn gubment taking away my rights!'

[Ostroeuropa]

I strongly support publishing such information. Trials and the criminal justice system must be open to the public. Otherwise, we leave dangerous room for courts to operate outside of the law and outside of public scrutiny. The only case in which I would oppose publishing the accused's name is if he/she is a minor. Even then, the other details of the trial should be public.

Does this extend to publishing the name of the accuser?

[Anywhere Else But Here]

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

They're pretty clearly quite different. Many people commit crimes and never get convicted. Many people get convicted of crimes they never actually committed.

And some people are accused despite them being innocent. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

[Bloody Xmas]

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?

the burden of proof is only with the final finding of guilt or innocence, it has nothing to do with taking precautions beforehand

If I hear that my neighbour's been accused and is being tried for being a mass murderer and they are out on bail... I am taking precautions NOW. The court can take its time. I'm going to play safe and I have a right to know.

Exactly.
As I already wrote, it's about saving - by making them aware of potential threats - potential new victims.

I strongly support publishing such information. Trials and the criminal justice system must be open to the public. Otherwise, we leave dangerous room for courts to operate outside of the law and outside of public scrutiny. The only case in which I would oppose publishing the accused's name is if he/she is a minor. Even then, the other details of the trial should be public.

I agree even more, I have to admit that I didn't thought about the issue of the public scrutiny, that it's an even more reason to publish accuseds' personal informations.
I have just only a doubt about a thing: if the accused is over 16, why authorities shouldn't publish his personal informations?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

They're pretty clearly quite different. Many people commit crimes and never get convicted. Many people get convicted of crimes they never actually committed.

And some people are accused despite them being innocent. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

And? Would you care to actually relate that to the distinction between guilt and conviction?

[Fanosolia]

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.

I mean, if we're punishing people just in case they're guilty, without actually having to prove it, then we may as well just go over to a system where you're presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I mean many "patriots" act that way when it comes to people immigrating so to only makes sense to extend that to everyone /sarcasm

Yeah, I think it's obvious that I'm on the names guilty not accused. One reason is so then the public isn't either jumping on them or defending them because of their biases to the person accused. Though I don't how you can do that with news being what it is.

I'm also going to note you can't really fault Chess this time when the system HAS failed those people. Just look at the Jain Ghomeshi trail.

[Bloody Xmas]

I strongly support publishing such information. Trials and the criminal justice system must be open to the public. Otherwise, we leave dangerous room for courts to operate outside of the law and outside of public scrutiny. The only case in which I would oppose publishing the accused's name is if he/she is a minor. Even then, the other details of the trial should be public.

Does this extend to publishing the name of the accuser?

Nope, because the two positions are very different: accuseds can be innocent or guilty, but there's no no way that the accuser is guilty about something.
Nor even a (very rare) false accuser can be considered guilty, because the process is not about a false accusation, is just only about another crime.
An eventual false accuser will be "accused" in another process, losing the right to anonimity.
The protection of the alleged victim should be a pillar of the legal process.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

And some people are accused despite them being innocent. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

And? Would you care to actually relate that to the distinction between guilt and conviction?

You know that's not my point. You have been arguing for publishing the names of the accused. I have highlighted a situation in which doing so had a horrible effect on (and might well have shortened) somebody's life. Avoiding my point by telling me to go more off-topic is rather pathetic.

[Caracasus]

A paper in the UK published the names, addresses and photos of pedophiles about a decade and a bit ago. It was something of a disaster. You see, what happened was that it managed to a) drive several sex offenders deeper into hiding and away from where the police had an eye on them and knew where they were and b) resulted in quite a few people getting damn near killed due to the wrong info being published. Whilst others tend to call for, or discuss some sort of situation where the justice system releases this information, it does highlight some of the major issues with releasing that kind of information.

I am really, really against publishing that kind of information, and most definitely if the accused has not actually been found guilty of a crime. I completely understand that it comes from a desire to protect people, but the unintentional consequences of what happens when such legislation is put into place can be catastrophic. I would much, much rather see more funding put into rehabilitation and probation to ensure that those who have served their sentences for this sort of crime are released into society under a very watchful eye.

I'd much rather any sex offenders near where I live are under supervision from the authorities than driven out, made homeless and put into a situation where it becomes more difficult for probation services to keep track of them.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

And? Would you care to actually relate that to the distinction between guilt and conviction?

You know that's not my point. You have been arguing for publishing the names of the accused. I have highlighted a situation in which doing so had a horrible effect on (and might well have shortened) somebody's life. Avoiding my point by telling me to go more off-topic is rather pathetic.

Not the point? So you just quoted me pointlessly with no intention of addressing anything about the post?

I don't think it pathetic to expect someone to grasp the idea behind quoting

[Anywhere Else But Here]

You know that's not my point. You have been arguing for publishing the names of the accused. I have highlighted a situation in which doing so had a horrible effect on (and might well have shortened) somebody's life. Avoiding my point by telling me to go more off-topic is rather pathetic.

Not the point? So you just quoted me pointlessly with no intention of addressing anything about the post?

I don't think it pathetic to expect someone to grasp the idea behind quoting

Very well, I shall quote an earlier post that was on-topic:

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.

Sometimes the press accuses people falsely. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

So how do you justify the harm done in publicly accusing people who would never have to go through all that if we let the police quietly investigate and gave the accused their anonymity? You'd better not tell me that I've gone too far up the quote stack and that you won't respond on that point.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Not the point? So you just quoted me pointlessly with no intention of addressing anything about the post?

I don't think it pathetic to expect someone to grasp the idea behind quoting

Very well, I shall quote an earlier post that was on-topic:

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.

Sometimes the press accuses people falsely. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

So how do you justify the harm done in publicly accusing people who would never have to go through all that if we let the police quietly investigate and gave the accused their anonymity?

If you had been reading my earlier posts, you already know my stance on the issue. The government punishing victims for speaking out about what happened to them is the worst of the possible outcomes. Much better for freedom of speech and the press to remain protected.

How would you justify punishing a victim of crime for exercising their right to tell their story and perhaps protect other potential victims?

You'd better not tell me that I've gone too far up the quote stack and that you won't respond on that point.

Can you not discuss without whining?

[Fartsniffage]

Not the point? So you just quoted me pointlessly with no intention of addressing anything about the post?

I don't think it pathetic to expect someone to grasp the idea behind quoting

Very well, I shall quote an earlier post that was on-topic:

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.

Sometimes the press accuses people falsely. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

So how do you justify the harm done in publicly accusing people who would never have to go through all that if we let the police quietly investigate and gave the accused their anonymity? You'd better not tell me that I've gone too far up the quote stack and that you won't respond on that point.

The press didn't accuse McAlpine, Twitter did.

[Wisconsin9]

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.

Yes but red flags are raised when someone is charged with a crime and proceedings are in progress

If proceedings are in progress, then they're probably either still in jail, or the police are keeping an eye on them. It doesn't seem particularly likely that they'll be able to get away with anything during a trial.

[Ethel mermania]

Mainly minors, in civil cases there are more exceptions. Usually not In criminal.

That seems a bit...concerning given that there should be criminal cases where the identities of the defendants should be protected if not for their safety then certainly for the safety of their families.

In New Zealand, the courts can grant name suppression in those circumstances.

Here, Usually names are announced upon arrest, prior to any process. Minors names are generally not released. So if six kids get arrested and 3 are minors, they will list 3 names and say "three minors".

And again I am fine with that arrests are public record. Public Record should be public.

[RawHein]

Only judges can properly judge someone's guilt or innocence. Until one says an accused is guilty, they don't deserve to be judged as such by their peers as well. For God's sake, if Tim Hunt can be reduced to tears and have his name blackened forever after a quick joke went viral then what do you suppose an actual crime would provoke?

[Noraika]

Unless the accused is found guilty, or is determined to be an at-large active hazard to the community by law enforcement services, in which case they should be immediately detained, and thus avoid the issue entirely, or in the case of an active manhunt for an accused whose escaped or avoided custody, names of the accused, should not be released to the public until after proceedings have concluded a guilty verdict upon the accused.

Likewise, in the case of those who make the accusation, anonymity is also important to be assured. Even in cases where the accused is found guilty the name of those who make the accusation should not be disclosed.

[Anywhere Else But Here]

Very well, I shall quote an earlier post that was on-topic:



Sometimes the press accuses people falsely. Lord McAlpine, for instance. How's he doing again?

Oh right, he died a year after the allegations, having spoken about how awful the experience was.

So how do you justify the harm done in publicly accusing people who would never have to go through all that if we let the police quietly investigate and gave the accused their anonymity?

If you had been reading my earlier posts, you already know my stance on the issue. The government punishing victims for speaking out about what happened to them is the worst of the possible outcomes. Much better for freedom of speech and the press to remain protected.

How would you justify punishing a victim of crime for exercising their right to tell their story and perhaps protect other potential victims?

I would justify it by the fact that, firstly, slander/libel are illegal, and you can't expect to be allowed to relentlessly smear someone, potentially turning the public against them without having to provide a shred of evidence. If you have a legitimate grievance, you take it to the police and let them conduct an investigation.

And I have read your posts, and I don't know how you justify the harm done to those who, being falsely accused, are exposed to the court of public opinion, where one is guilty until proven innocent.