Should names of the accused be published before they are pronounced guilty?

[yllus]

I imagine there are a number of reasons that the names of the accused should be published when they are accused of a crime, but I have a hard time justifying "the public should know" over the life-ruining nature of being accused of a serious crime. Would anyone else like a debate on whether an accused's name should be allowed to go to press before they are found guilty?

 

[airdata]

"The Accused" would be more politically correct.

What if Casey Anthony didn't kill her kid? You've got most people thinking she did now despite her being found innocent of the crime.

 

[MotF Bane]

I think the First would override any such notion.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

I had an acquaintence who was accused of something quite horrific years ago. Was published and his life became complete hell both work and socially. Turns out it was completely false but that rarely gets followed up on. I have never supported divulging names before conviction because the court of public opinion will always judge you guilty.

 

[theeedude]

Prosecution should be liable for damage done by a false accusation.

 

[airdata]

Prosecution should be liable for damage done by a false accusation.

absolutely.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Prosecution should be liable for damage done by a false accusation.

This

Then the issue is what is a false accusation (knowingly) vs being found innocent by trial.

If there is no trial, then the information/indictment should be sealed

 

[monovillage]

I see this particular poll question as a 1st Amendment issue. Restricting what the press can publish or what people can talk about is a restriction on a free press and as such is unconstitutional.

 

[Infohawk]

These are not practical ideas. People are usually in jail waiting their trial. That cat is out of the bag then as a practical matter. And when someone isn't convicted, it doesn't mean they're innocent. It just means they weren't proven guilty. You can't penalize prosecutors for a "false" accusation and you probably couldn't prove it was a false accusation. There are already rules on the books for dishonesty by prosecutors.

Also, there's the issue of judicial transparency. If a senator's kid is charged with a crime, we want to know he is being prosecuted with the same fervor that a kid in the ghetto is being prosecuted. There's a reason most trials are open to the press and public, it's because we all need to keep an eye on how our justice system is working.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

These are not practical ideas. People are usually in jail waiting their trial. That cat is out of the bag then as a practical matter. And when someone isn't convicted, it doesn't mean they're innocent. It just means they weren't proven guilty. You can't penalize prosecutors for a "false" accusation and you probably couldn't prove it was a false accusation. There are already rules on the books for dishonesty by prosecutors.

Also, there's the issue of judicial transparency. If a senator's kid is charged with a crime, we want to know he is being prosecuted with the same fervor that a kid in the ghetto is being prosecuted. There's a reason most trials are open to the press and public, it's because we all need to keep an eye on how our justice system is working.

But what about protections from dishonesty of accusers? Sure you can sue them after the fact, you have a very slim chance of winning too, but the damage is done at that point.

 

[monovillage]

"Which office do I go to get my reputation back?"

Unfortunately it's going to happen, one thing we could do is strengthen the laws in this country against libel and slander and increase the penalties for filing false charges.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I see this particular poll question as a 1st Amendment issue. Restricting what the press can publish or whyt people can talk about is a restriction on a free press and as such is unconstitutional.

That's true, however I'm in the should be not must be camp. Since we cannot prevent disclosure I would agree with others that if there is false arrest based on wilful negligence or failure of due diligence then the party should be handsomely compensated.

 

[theeedude]

These are not practical ideas. People are usually in jail waiting their trial. That cat is out of the bag then as a practical matter. And when someone isn't convicted, it doesn't mean they're innocent. It just means they weren't proven guilty. You can't penalize prosecutors for a "false" accusation and you probably couldn't prove it was a false accusation. There are already rules on the books for dishonesty by prosecutors.

Also, there's the issue of judicial transparency. If a senator's kid is charged with a crime, we want to know he is being prosecuted with the same fervor that a kid in the ghetto is being prosecuted. There's a reason most trials are open to the press and public, it's because we all need to keep an eye on how our justice system is working.

What country are you posting from? In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. And we have laws on the books for defamation, and they should apply to the prosecution, especially for statements outside of court, which is more than just presenting evidence. The burden would still be on the accused to prove by preponderance of evidence that what the prosecutor said is a lie, so getting acquitted would not be sufficient.

 

[Infohawk]

But what about protections from dishonesty of accusers? Sure you can sue them after the fact, you have a very slim chance of winning too, but the damage is done at that point.

There are already civil and criminal remedies for that. You might argue you want to make it easier to convict false accusers, but then you're potentially harming genuine accusers.

 

[dmcowen674]

Should names of the accused be published before they are pronounced guilty?

Depends on where you are talking about.

In the U.S. you are guilty until proven innocent.

Other places around the world have it like it used to be here, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

There are already civil and criminal remedies for that. You might argue you want to make it easier to convict false accusers, but then you're potentially harming genuine accusers.

Yeah, don't think having my life completely ruined over a false accusation is offset by maybe receiving a judgement in civil litigation that would probably never be paid even if I won.