Newspapers reporting arrests

Let’s you are a suspect in a crime and are arrested. The next day your name appears in the paper. You are later eliminated as a suspect. Shouldn’t the newspaper print that?

Should it even be legal to print arrest reports? Many papers have a “Police Blotter”-type column, but don’t print names (e.g. “Man arrested for DUI, charges pending.”).

There have been some cases where a woman accuses a man of rape and the guy is arrested, but it turns out she only wanted revenge. In most of these cases, the woman’s name isn’t published. Why not? SHE’S the one who committed a crime - false accusastion.

Even though a person arrested may not be guilty, there is a stigma attached to just being accused. Some people might say, “Well, how did they get themselves into a situation where this sort of thing could happen?”

I think arrest records should not be published until AFTER a person is convicted.

And you…

I agree totally. Presumption of innocence, and all that. When the verdict comes in, that’s when to run him through the mud.

I’ll balance it with this thought, though: Too often, the verdict is “not guilty”, and the accused publicizes how he was needlessly accused. I think that juries should have the option to render a verdict of “not proven guilty”, meaning that they are not convinced of his innocence, but the evidence isn’t enough (for whatever reason) to convict him either.

[quote}I think that juries should have the option to render a verdict of “not proven guilty”, meaning that they are not convinced of his innocence, but the evidence isn’t enough (for whatever reason) to convict him either.[/quote]

Um…that’s what a “not guilty” verdict is. Juries don’t find people innocent. They find that the state didn’t prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Big difference. Ask O.J.


JB
Lex Non Favet Delicatorum Votis

In the UK, your name is not released until you are charged.