I think its sickening that when a person is accused of a crime, they lose almost all semblence of a normal life while the accuser can generally claim victimhood and stay out of the spotlight.
I understand that in matters like rape, we want to protect the accuser because otherwise, many more such crimes would go unreported. Thats fine, its wonderful that we do that. But because our system of justice is based on innocence until proven guilty, why shouldnt the accused rapist get the same protection? I hope that nobody will be tempted to come into this thread and recount some rape case in which the accuser was in reality guilty, because that doesnt apply to here. Accused people, no matter what you want to believe about them, are not guilty people. Only when a trial is finished and a verdict found can you rightly call them guilty or innocent. So yes, I can envison cases where an accused rapist may go out dating under cover of anonymity and rape some more. But I also know that there are people who have had their lives ruined by the mere accusation of a crime
People like Richard Jewel, the Atlanta Olympic security guy who was mistakenly identified as the bomber, or the Duke Lacrosse team that had their whole season canceled are victims of the inequity in our law. Such accusations often linger for years after even an innocent verdict.
Of course there are scum who would probably exploit this, but I feel that justice demands our swallowing some of the hatred and anger we feel towards some of these guilty criminals. There is no good reason why vigilante harassment or voyeuristic sensationalism should trump equality.
In practical matters, it would be up to the person himself to explain his circumstances to friends or family. To those who are jailed to prevent a flight risk, for example, its up to them to explain to their boss why they have to disappear for 2 months. Of course the court can offer a note to give the boss, but it should be up to the accused how he wants to deal with it, not splashed across the news.
I think the tendency for people is to think that the accused is usually guilty and thats the kind of mentality I want people to move away from
On the one hand, I believe that habeus corpus somewhat demands that the government answer the question “what did you do with Bob, and why is he in jail?” We must have some way to hold the government accountable.
On the other hand, we should have some kind of blanket rule against any party holding press conferences along the lines of “Bob hasn’t even gone to trial yet, but I’m an armchair expert on Court TV and a distinguished professor of cellulite and I think Bob should rot in hell! And then he should lose his job. And his children should live in shame. Then, maybe, we’ll have a trial.”
Both attorneys should be saying stuff like, “I will not comment on this case. Bob is innocent until proven guilty. The prosecution will present their evidence in court and the jury will consider it carefully.”
New Zealand does practise name surpression for the accused - meaning the media cannot publish names. But it must be applied for and a valid reason given.
Sure, the government shouldn’t be allowed to publicize information on the accused for the purpose of ruining his life, but, slander and libel laws permitting (which I think do need to be more strictly enforced), third parties should be allowed to say whatever they want under the First Amendment.
Valete,
Vox Imperatoris
ETA: This seems more like a Great Debate than an opinion to me.
This is hardly a new thing, it goes back at least to the days of the penny newspapers. Jesse Pomeroy, the teen killer, in the 1870s complained of the unfairness of the media convicting him and he was just 14.
Outside of rape cases, the victim is almost always named, so I don’t see what the issue is. When an arrest is made, it’s public record and thus fair game.
OTOH, if a minor commits a crime, sometimes that name is withheld while the name of the victim is public record.
It’s a different issue when information about an ongoing investigation is leaked. But even then, the victim is named (other than rape and cases involving minors).
In the U.S., the media has the right to publish (air, etc.) anything anyone says to them. “Gag” orders are not issued against the media, but against those participating the trial. And anyone who is party to an investigation/trial can request a gag order. In fact, in many small towns, the local constabulary will refuse to release information – as is perfectly their right – for as long as possible, citing “under investigation” or “hampering the investgation” criteria. One has to ask oneself why those who don’t shut the fuck up about a pending trial don’t, in fact … shut the fuck up. Having been an active, practicing and avid member of the media almost my entire adult life, I believe that the only reason the accused don’t have any pre-trial privacy is because there are people who nave no ethics, and they’re not in the media. Well, okay, yes they are, but you know what I mean.
[Nitpick that drives me insane] The options for a jury are either “guilty” and “not guilty.” Either the prosecution proved the defendant was guilty of the crime charged [“guilty”] or it did not [“not guilty”]. “Innocence” never enters into it. [end nitpick]
I think the media should be more responsible about releasing names to the public. Of course it’s public record, but most people are not going to go through the trouble of checking out the official records. It’s very unfair. But as long as profit outweighs “news”, I don’t expect it to end.
The word innocent is compounded from the prefix in-, meaning not, and nocent, meaning wicked, evil, or guilty. We speak of a “presumption of innocence,” not a “presumption of not guiltiness.” The construction you’re criticizing seems reasonable to me; why does it vex you?
[Nitpicking your nitpick] I know I know but that has always bothered me. They really should just change it to Guilty and Innocent. The argument for saying the defendent is merely not guilty of the crime can be reversed with simply the fact that you can also say he’s innocent fo the crime.
Another nitpick of your nitpick; it’s very rare, but apparently there IS such a thing as being found “innocent”, instead of being just found “not guilty”. There was a case some years ago here in California where a guy managed it; the news story I read about it mentioned that it’s so rare because the standards are much higher than for “not guilty”. So it’s almost never even tried for, much less accomplished.
Are you saying that I personally am innocent until proven guilty, or that defendents are in general? Because the weight of history seems to be that I’m probably guilty of SOMETHING.
Exactly – I always caveat that [the state] is required to *consider *the accused innocent until proven guilty. The state of actual guilt or innocence accrued at the moment the crime was committed (by the accused, or by someone else, in the case of the accused’s innocence).
but that has always bothered me. They really should just change it to Guilty and Innocent. The argument for saying the defendent is merely not guilty of the crime can be reversed with simply the fact that you can also say he’s innocent fo the crime.