Publishing the names of the accused

[Novorobo]

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.

[Ashmoria]

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.

[Pope Joan]

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/

[Chessmistress]

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.

[Pope Joan]

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.

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.

[Nordrgard]

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.

It should only be published if the person is found guilty. Being charged with a crime does not mean you are guilty.

[Chessmistress]

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.

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.

[New Grestin]

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.

People will make judgement based simply on the fact that they were accused, even if they weren't convicted.

Saying it will "make women aware they can be a threat" is implying guilt without any real evidence.

It's like saying that the man is on the verge of murder-raping someone just because they were accused of it, even if they weren't even involved, and that kind of shit ruins people's lives.

[Big Jim P]

Unless convicted it is no ones business.

[Blakullar]

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.

Except you're not 'saving' anyone by dragging an innocent's name through the mud - and 'temporary embarrassment' is a colossal understatement of said innocent's disposition.

The solution to this is simple: do not publish the name of the accused until they have been proven guilty.

[Ashworth-Attwater]

I read the title as "publishing the memes of the accused" and of course, I would obviously support that.

[Twilight Imperium]

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.

No.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You seem to make a distinction between 'acquitted' and 'proven innocent'. While there might exist such a thing in the mind of your average person, that is not a legal distinction to make. A judge can't say "well, I don't have enough evidence to convict you, but I think you might have done it, so... We're going to give some sort of half punishment". That sentiment is based on basic misunderstanding of court procedure and legal principle. So no, those names should not be released.

The US should really consider changing their attitude to crime and convicted criminals in general. People who served their time served their time, after all. That should be enough, no need to add insult to injury.

[States of Glory]

I accuse everyone who posted in this thread of causing undue distress. Make your names known!

In all seriousness, my view on the matter is that unless the defendant is convicted, it's up to them whether or not they reveal that they are facing trial. Due process and all that.

[Vassenor]

The presumption of innocence also extends to the court of public opinion. So no, I do not think a person who has not been formally charged with an offence should have their name released.

[Nordrgard]

You seem to make a distinction between 'acquitted' and 'proven innocent'. While there might exist such a thing in the mind of your average person, that is not a legal distinction to make. A judge can't say "well, I don't have enough evidence to convict you, but I think you might have done it, so... We're going to give some sort of half punishment". That sentiment is based on basic misunderstanding of court procedure and legal principle. So no, those names should not be released.

The US should really consider changing their attitude to crime and convicted criminals in general. People who served their time served their time, after all. That should be enough, no need to add insult to injury.

Depends on the crime. Murder should never be forgiven.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

You seem to make a distinction between 'acquitted' and 'proven innocent'. While there might exist such a thing in the mind of your average person, that is not a legal distinction to make. A judge can't say "well, I don't have enough evidence to convict you, but I think you might have done it, so... We're going to give some sort of half punishment". That sentiment is based on basic misunderstanding of court procedure and legal principle. So no, those names should not be released.

The US should really consider changing their attitude to crime and convicted criminals in general. People who served their time served their time, after all. That should be enough, no need to add insult to injury.

Depends on the crime. Murder should never be forgiven.

Not if they've served their sentence? That's when they've paid for their mistake.

[Costa Fierro]

So...from what I get from the OP, the US doesn't have name suppression?

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.

So presumably you would be OK with the names of accused women being released to the media regardless of the pleas they have made or whether or not they've committed crimes?

[Wisconsin9]

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.

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.

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

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.

Well that was certainly sexist

[Wisconsin9]

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.

Well that was certainly sexist

CHESSMISTRESS PROTOCOL ACTIVATING

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

CHESSMISTRESS PROTOCOL DEACTIVATING

[Mankind Redefined]

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.

Because any criminal = Misogynist

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

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.

[Vassenor]

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?

[Coalition of Minor Planets]

Well that was certainly sexist

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!!