In the same way that disclosure of a burglary suspect’s picture might bring forward other potential victims?
How often do we see our burglar? :dubious:
It’s common for burglars to case properties.
Which sure doesn’t argue that we should protect suspected burglars. Its irrelevant anyway as the news is filled with suspected burglars caught on home surveillance tape.
That must be really interesting when all ten people involved are the same age…
Is a convicted rapist who had consensual sex with somebody just a few months under the limit a danger to your family?
Is a convicted child molester who molested his two daughters and never showed a hint of interest in any other children a danger to your family?
But, IMO, accused child predators and accused rapists should be protected (to the extent that that is possible) because until a trial has concluded they are innocent.
Although, don’t most or all states keep the identities of juveniles accused of crimes confidential?
Security footage. Businesses have cameras inside and out. For houses, some homeowners have one or two, otherwise many times a neighbor will notice it and take cell phone pictures or happen to have a dashcam running. The police give the pictures to the media and put it on their social media pages and people call in with tips. It seems to be met with a certain amount of success and for something that’s costs no more than having an officer send an email off to a couple of news stations, why not?
It’s actually a question of whether or not you want to chill reporting of sexual abuse or not.
You are responsible for he consequences of speech, no? If you scream “fire!” in a crowded building, trigger a stampede and somebody gets hurt - you’re liable in both criminal and civil court. Likewise, if you slander or commit libel against someone, they have every right to sue the pants off of you.
The consequences of a sex-crime allegation are extensive, far reaching, and often crippling. They can cost people their jobs, their educational attainment, their prospects, family, etc. That’s a very, very large liability for damage, as if you accuse someone of something they were not actually doing, you’ve slandered/committed libel against them, slander that might cost someone their entire career. That’s at least $(Age - Career Retirement Age)*Average Income in damages, plus pain and suffering - an amount that will usually total in the millions for anyone pursuing a college degree.
So if we allow people to “go public” about allegations, we really must allow people to sue the everliving tar out of anyone involved in slandering and thus inflicting damage against them (schools, news media, initial slanderer). That means if you do get assaulted, but fail to prove it in court, you have potentially millions of dollars of liability.
Now, I’ve been sexually assaulted and didn’t report it because men “can’t be harassed” and it would have been impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt and a massive public embarrassment. Don’t you think adding millions of dollars of potential liability on top of that is a bad idea and might have even more of a chilling effect?
No, it’s best to keep allegations strictly private. Once a conviction is made, put the perpetrator on blast for all to see and hear… but it ought to stay hush hush unless or until a conviction is made.
How hush hush? Are we just talking about the media?