Look up any thread about rape. Then look up the definition of “hyperbole.” I’m not going to play this game anymore.
You remember that the next time you deign to ask for a cite on anything from anybody.
You misunderstand. I am sure that given ALL the evidence or coverage (like the Duke Lacross team) the public will be able to. However, this isn’t always going to be the case. If the reports all come out and say who is accused of rape but coverage ends there…
Well I’m sure you can fill in the blanks.
The right to a public trial is an important constitutional right that is intended to minimize corruption and unfairness precisely because the public eye is there to keep it in check. Sure, I think it’s unfair when innocent people are accused of crimes they didn’t commit and it damages their reputation. However, like with any right, that’s the trade-off that’s made and, quite frankly, I think that if that’s the case, I’d rather be free of punishment but stuck with a stigma than severely punishing innocent people or letting violent criminals walk.
That said, there probably should still be something done about it, but not by the legal system. What I’d rather see is the media be more responsible with their reporting and perhaps not making public issues out of these sorts of cases for the sake of ratings or readership. I’d also like to see us, as a society, not be so quick to judge people when the facts of the case aren’t at our disposal like they are for the jury.
Public trials are a right of the defendant. Perhaps we could give the defendant the ability to waive that right.
IIRC part of the reason (maybe even the primary reason) that the accused’s name is made public is to avoid secret arrests and trials. Thus the 6th amendment (IANAL and IANACLE)
“Valgard was arrested for mopery and straight dopery” means that people know who has got me and roughly where I am (somewhere in the legal system). If that information isn’t publicly available then I could just disappear and my friends and family wouldn’t have a clue as to what happened and why I missed the family dinner.
Of course. I never said otherwise. That is what I think should change. It shouldn’t go away of course, freedom of the press is quite important, but IMO the press should take it upon themselves to handle that freedom in a responsible manner, such as not publicly labeling individuals as criminals (or accused) until they have been found guilty. It is an ideal that I would like to see.
Thats easily solveable by allowing the accused to opt of secrecy if they so desire.
My idea for ages was this in terms of press coverage.
The amount of press that a person got while being accussed…well, they get the SAME amount of press (or free advertising space written by the accused) once found innocent.
Yeah, monkeys will fly outa my ass and warp drives will be common before that happens, but I think the idea has some validity if “secrecy” is your buggaboo.
Oh, and secrecy doesnt mean the press can’t come. It means they can’t report on it WHILE its happening. If some shady shit goes down, they can still blow the whistle after the fact.
Okay, I fracked up this edit, but you get the idea
Excuse my ignorance on this part of the law. I was under the impression that like minors, rape victims and alleged victims get some kind of automatic protection by the law and media. I remember during the Bryant trial, his lawyer repeated her name like 3 times to the annoyance of the judge. It was implied that he could cite her for comtempt if she kept doing it. That would seem to me like there is some legal mechanism that prevents victims and alleged victims from having to be publically known. Also, the court cameras are often disabled or pointed away from victims during their testimony. Since those cameras are controlled by the court and not the news channels, it further reinforces my assumption that our legal system provides protection for them.
If that I not true, then I would amend my thread to what I think should happen in the media as well, but that would be more difficult as they do things based on profit and sensationalism
For the most part, I’m with you on the equal treatment. But would you have special laws protecting certain classes of people? Mob informants, children, or national security agents? Or do you think all trials should be completely public in all instances?
They’re also the right of the public. The defendant can’t waive the right of the public.
I don’t think I’ve ever really seen the press doing it. Non-journalists in the media do it ([cough]Bill O’Reilly,) but I’ve never seen the press reporting as fact that “X is guilty,” before a conviction.
You still have the right of the public to deal with.
Violates freedom of the press. The government can’t tell the press what to print.
Yes they can. The Constitution says so. The government can’t stop them.
“X is accussed of Y” aint a hell of a lot better when it comes to the impression it gives to the teaming masses.
I think minors already have that protection. As to the rest, those don’t sound like defendants, they sound like witnesses.
That’s not the press’ problem. They are reporting a fact.
Not this crap again. Does every “I think the law should be this way” debate have to devolve into “thats not the way the law works” shinola?
The debate here is how SHOULD things work?, not how they DO. If you wanna argue why the constitution IS right in this regard, have at. Don’t just tell us “it is so and has always been” :rolleyes: