Until you are found guilty, your name as a suspect should be banned from publication

[yllus]

Information dissemination in the age of the Internet has become so easy and so cost-efficient that, in my opinion, the notion of allowing media organizations to publish the names of the accused - especially in lurid murder or sexual assault cases - does more harm than good.

I think this rule should be flipped on its head: Until you are found guilty, the names of the accused should not be released to the public.

That also means no photos of the accused looking disheveled as they are hustled to the back of a police cruiser.

No mug shots.

No court photos in an orange jumper or televised footage while in court (unless identity-protecting technology is utilized).

The main reason given to justify the release of the accused's identity is because the public has the right to know. But that must now be weighed against the incredibly destructive effect of simply being accused of a crime, even if it is dropped later for the lack of evidence or judicial mismanagement.

We already grant identity protection to minors; it's time to recognize that assaults on our good name are impossible to defend even after one reaches the age of 18.

 

[soccerballtux]

Interesting idea. "Alleged _______" is enough to ruin your life, regardless of guilt.

 

[shortylickens]

I think arrests and arraignments are considered public record, you'd have to tackle the law from that angle. Trials are public record too. Also acquittals.
I'll mention it to my law professor tomorrow.

 

[yllus]

I think arrests and arraignments are considered public record, you'd have to tackle the law from that angle. Trials are public record too. Also acquittals.
I'll mention it to my law professor tomorrow.

I left a specific avenue of attack open on this debate question and this touches upon it.

I think that we'd best be served by keeping those things as public records, but simply ask that media organizations not report on identities. You'd then still be able to find those names if sufficiently motivated or via sketchy Internet blogs (that can never be stopped). But the instant world-wide shaming of the accused would be checked.

 

[shortylickens]

I dont know how well that would work. If its public record, the journalists can access it. If its good juicy stuff, you'll know they'll wanna report it.

Case in point: That 14 year old who killed her baby, in Florida. Because she was charged with 1st degree murder she was tried as an adult, and her identity was revealed. I dont see how the media would pass that up, and if you tried to prevent them they'd scream about the first amendment. And rightly so.

I will agree it stinks that merely being accused can ruin your life.

 

[darkxshade]

Even for those who are quite obviously guilty?

 

[waggy]

I agree with the OP. a charge of child mollestation or rape will ruin a persons life. even if latter it is found out that it is made up.

 

[Murloc]

in my country it's already this way. Names are always omitted from news report, at least until the process starts, and there are no pics. I don't know if it's a privacy protection law that causes the name omission, or if it's socialist journalists trying to defend the notion that most criminals aren't actually foreigners, or if there are no ways to obtain that info from the police (probably this one since journalists write about what they get from police reports usually). Most names never end up being revealed because the processes are uninteresting so without video allowed there's no fodder for incompetent journalists.
If a case generates uproar, generally someone who knows will write the names in the comments and find some FB pic so people end up knowing anyway. There's a lot of self-restraint before this happens though.
I am always amazed at how US media splatter everything right from the moment of the arrest, and even more amazed that the police gives out the mugshot and filming non-special processes is allowed. It's unethical imho, it's like a pillory without due process. Video and pics should definitely not be given out, they don't add anything to public information and press control over the judicial system, it's just entertainment.

 

[JulesMaximus]

How would this impact police asking for public assistance when trying to catch a fugitive? That Dorner guy was wanted for murder but he wasn't convicted.

 

[techs]

In my small town every few days they publish the police log with the names of people arrested and what they did to get them arrested.

Its by far the most read articles in the newspaper.

I admit I read it.

From time to time I recognize a name. I had one regular customer who got arrested for "shoplifting" a five dollar item. I know this person makes a pretty good living so I was surprised. A few months later they came in for some work and she explained the store dropped the charges after they saw the surveilance video. She had the item with her when she entered the store and had purchased it a few days prior and didn't notice it had a sticker still on it. It never made the papers that the charges were dropped.

 

[yllus]

Even for those who are quite obviously guilty?

There is never a case in which someone is quite obviously guilty. It wasn't that long ago (maybe a year) that I read an article a woman wrote about being viciously raped on a beach during the day while on holiday. She wrote that she looked at the man's face and took comfort in the fact that she would have him found and he would pay for this. And indeed they did find a man and convict him. Except that she identified the wrong man. I'll try to find that article - it's stunning.

What it comes down to for me is that human justice is simply too error-prone to let mere accusations destroy people's lives.

 

[Greenman]

in my country it's already this way. Names are always omitted from news report, at least until the process starts, and there are no pics. I don't know if it's a privacy protection law that causes the name omission, or if it's socialist journalists trying to defend the notion that most criminals aren't actually foreigners, or if there are no ways to obtain that info from the police (probably this one since journalists write about what they get from police reports usually). Most names never end up being revealed because the processes are uninteresting so without video allowed there's no fodder for incompetent journalists.
If a case generates uproar, generally someone who knows will write the names in the comments and find some FB pic so people end up knowing anyway. There's a lot of self-restraint before this happens though.
I am always amazed at how US media splatter everything right from the moment of the arrest, and even more amazed that the police gives out the mugshot and filming non-special processes is allowed. It's unethical imho, it's like a pillory without due process. Video and pics should definitely not be given out, they don't add anything to public information and press control over the judicial system, it's just entertainment.

I assume the reason is to be sure everything is in the public eye. No secret accusations or trials.

 

[darkxshade]

There is never a case in which someone is quite obviously guilty. It wasn't that long ago (maybe a year) that I read an article a woman wrote about being viciously raped on a beach during the day while on holiday. She wrote that she looked at the man's face and took comfort in the fact that she would have him found and he would pay for this. And indeed they did find a man and convict him. Except that she identified the wrong man. I'll try to find that article - it's stunning.

What it comes down to for me is that human justice is simply too error-prone to let mere accusations destroy people's lives.

Lets say for example, a man tries to rob a bank and kills someone in the process. The silent alarm gets tripped. The police arrives and he gets arrested. Everything was caught on camera and you have dozens of witnesses... pretty much an open and shut case. IMO, for all intent and purposes, he's quite[obviously] guilty(of something) although the charges hasn't been filed yet because there still needs to be an investigation. You disagree? Explain

edit: I guess you can make some argument about extenuating circumstance but for the sake of this debate, when I say obviously, I meant 99.9%. Another example is if say the shooter of a school shooting decides to surrender themselves instead of suicide. Adam Lanza as another example would you not say is clearly guilty of murder if he was arrested on the spot?

 

[DrPizza]

Lets say for example, a man tries to rob a bank and kills someone in the process. The silent alarm gets tripped. The police arrives and he gets arrested. Everything was caught on camera and you have dozens of witnesses... pretty much an open and shut case. IMO, for all intent and purposes, he's quite[obviously] guilty(of something) although the charges hasn't been filed yet because there still needs to be an investigation. You disagree? Explain

edit: I guess you can make some argument about extenuating circumstance but for the sake of this debate, when I say obviously, I meant 99.9%. Another example is if say the shooter of a school shooting decides to surrender themselves instead of suicide. Adam Lanza as another example would you not say is clearly guilty of murder if he was arrested on the spot?

While I agree with what you're saying, what you're saying is that at some point, guilt is determined without the aid of a court.

 

[darkxshade]

While I agree with what you're saying, what you're saying is that at some point, guilt is determined without the aid of a court.

Well yes but I can make the opposite argument that a court determination of guilt(from the jury) also does not guarantee guilt. People have also been convicted when they were innocent and those families suffer just as much. Does this mean we should just protect all identities indefinitely just to be on the safe side? A court ruling is just the "official" one but not necessarily the correct one.

I get that we want to protect identity of the accused without due process when in this day and age that lives can be ruined from the spread of misinformation. But I also believe prior to conviction that there should be some minimum level of doubt to exist before someone is afforded this kind of protection. What that minimum is, is not up to me to decide. I just think that not all crimes/cases are equal, some are more blatant and obvious than others and if we simply just give everyone the same protection that it might actually provide an unfair advantage that would cause more harm than good.


On a side note, what about people with past convictions or a history with the law? Say someone who's been charged with drunk driving multiple times and have served jail time here and there but finally hits and kills someone and gets arrested? Do they deserve to be protected from public scrutiny? There's a lot of things to look at.

 

[Doppel]

How would this impact police asking for public assistance when trying to catch a fugitive? That Dorner guy was wanted for murder but he wasn't convicted.

That could be a special case, perhaps okayed by a judge for public release.

Information age has definitely made things worse for non-convicted accused individuals.

 

[yllus]

Lets say for example, a man tries to rob a bank and kills someone in the process. The silent alarm gets tripped. The police arrives and he gets arrested. Everything was caught on camera and you have dozens of witnesses... pretty much an open and shut case. IMO, for all intent and purposes, he's quite[obviously] guilty(of something) although the charges hasn't been filed yet because there still needs to be an investigation. You disagree? Explain

edit: I guess you can make some argument about extenuating circumstance but for the sake of this debate, when I say obviously, I meant 99.9%. Another example is if say the shooter of a school shooting decides to surrender themselves instead of suicide. Adam Lanza as another example would you not say is clearly guilty of murder if he was arrested on the spot?

Okay, so that guy is obviously guilty. What's the harm of protecting his identity anyways until a court of law agrees?

JulesMaximus's case is interesting. I think an exception would have to be made for fugitives from justice.

 

[darkxshade]

Okay, so that guy is obviously guilty. What's the harm of protecting his identity anyways until a court of law agrees?

The harm might not be immediately apparent but if you think about it, anonymity makes people bold. You see this on the internet everyday with trolls where they will say things they would never say in real life because they are behind a computer. It's not 100% the same but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this may very well translate to real life to a certain degree if the mindset is that no one is going to know unless you're found guilty. Basically a mindset of gambling by doing the crime now and throw the dice later hoping to get away with it. Because a lot of criminal do get away with it and I would bet there are many that are on the brink of committing crimes but decided not to because of the harm it would bring to their families should they be caught and make headlines. So we do need a certain level of transparency if only to deter those who are a hair away of doing something stupid which is why I think it's worth it to reveal ids when guilt is obvious or maybe even for those that aren't provided a suspect had prior convictions.


Furthermore, I can go on to ask what the harm is of protecting identities forever? Just because a court determined guilt does not necessarily make a defendant guilty. They can still be innocent. Why don't we just never reveal anything? I meant they're already caught and convicted, what's the point of releasing their id anyway?

 

[JulesMaximus]

The harm might not be immediately apparent but if you think about it, anonymity makes people bold. You see this on the internet everyday with trolls where they will say things they would never say in real life because they are behind a computer. It's not 100% the same but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that this may very well translate to real life to a certain degree if the mindset is that no one is going to know unless you're found guilty. Basically a mindset of gambling by doing the crime now and throw the dice later hoping to get away with it. Because a lot of criminal do get away with it and I would bet there are many that are on the brink of committing crimes but decided not to because of the harm it would bring to their families should they be caught and make headlines. So we do need a certain level of transparency if only to deter those who are a hair away of doing something stupid which is why I think it's worth it to reveal ids when guilt is obvious or maybe even for those that aren't provided a suspect had prior convictions.


Furthermore, I can go on to ask what the harm is of protecting identities forever? Just because a court determined guilt does not necessarily make a defendant guilty. They can still be innocent. Why don't we just never reveal anything? I meant they're already caught and convicted, what's the point of releasing their id anyway?

That's kind of a stretch if you ask me. Someone isn't going to commit a crime because if they are charged they're afraid of the public humiliation it might cause their family? I think being afraid of being caught and the punishment would far outweigh the embarrassment.

 

[darkxshade]

That's kind of a stretch if you ask me. Someone isn't going to commit a crime because if they are charged they're afraid of the public humiliation it might cause their family? I think being afraid of being caught and the punishment would far outweigh the embarrassment.

It's a stretch but all things in life fall on a spectrum. You can have guilty people who are innocent which is extremely rare and you have innocent people who are really guilty. And to that point, there are very likely cases however of a stretch you might think where crimes will have been committed or not committed otherwise as a result of anonymity. A lot of people love to gamble whether it be speeding, drinking and driving, etc and if you add a layer of protection, I will bet any amount of money if it can be accurately determined that crime will in fact go up if we decide to protect absolutely everyone from the public eye when they are caught.

All I'm saying is that this idea of identity protection should be more complex than simply giving it to everyone in every situation. It's sloppy and not exactly a great idea. If there is doubt, ok protect them until a sentence is set, otherwise if someone is clearly guilty then they get nothing. And I'll go further in that if they had prior convictions, they lose this right as well.

 

[Craig234]

There's an underlying issue here of how the public views people who are arrested - and the law of unintended consequences applies, in that the more effective the system is at 'only arresting the guilty', the less distinction the public makes between 'arrested' and 'convicted'. Nevermind the issue of how many innocent people are convicted (and how many guilty are not). I understand in Japan there's a 99% conviction rate, so 'charged' and 'convicted' are pretty much the same thing.

It's catering to the public's wrongly treating 'arrested' as 'convicted' that would drive the increased privacy - which causes its own problems. One of those is the protection that publicity for someone arrested - the fact the police can't make 'secret arrests' - can protect innocent people from wrongful arrest. Something people don't consider much since it's public - but could become more of an issue if that changed.

There's the whole 'sunlight is the best disinfectant' idea - but that does have the issue of the innocent person arrested paying a price with their reputation.

There aren't any perfect answers, but I'd lean towards the current system.

On the shoplifting anecdote, a suggestion to the paper and a letter to the editor about following up on the results of the arrest might be a good idea.