Should the name and information of the accused be kept out of the media, the same as the proverbial victim?

[MrShaun]

I see a lot of reports that withhold the name of the "victim" but produce all kinds of info for the person being accused. Isn't one suppose to be considered innocent until proven guilty?

[normalice]

Hard to say. Ideally, yes. But if you want to alert others to the chance of an attack, it's a good idea.

But it's all kind of moot, really. The overwhelming majority of crimes goes unreported or the person's name doesn't really make headlines until after a verdict, if even then. It's only high profile people who can afford expensive lawyers that would likely be able to get them off on technicalities, anyway. And you dont need to worry about them.

However, topics like these only normalize the idea that assailants should be treated like the real victim. The fact that they can get you to actually use your time defending their rich ass should only underscore that you don't need to worry about them..

[OddBeMe]

Yeah, I mean that’s a big deal to potential jurors if prosecutors are saying the defendant is guilty before the trial or jury is even picked.

That could be why 90% of court cases are bargained. That’s way too high. Police don’t have a 90% success rate. There are innocent people serving wrongful sentences. It may be 18 months which never gets on the news.

AND these folks aren’t angels themselves- not that it matters. But we the public have pretty blasé views on which crimes prisoners serve time for. Yeah he sold crack, but he didn’t rob the liquor store he was put in jail for. That’s a fundamental error in our Justice system.

[whirled_up_girl]

It does seem unfair that some people particularly famous people be tried in the court of public opinion before an actual trial by a jury of their peers. I think the conflict comes if the person is considered dangerous and manages to get out on bail. Sometimes the judge will set the bail so high as to discourage them from getting out but then GoFundMes can sometimes gather up enough money. It's tough though because everyone should be considered innocent until proven guilty so I guess I don't know.

[Agape93]

Nope. If someone is arrested or accused of rape, I wanna know exactly who it is, so I know who to look out for when the system fails a victim yet again.

[ɹǝʇʇɐɥpɐW]

No. The fact it even went that far means there's enough evidence to have a trial. That doesn't mean they are guilty, but it is enough to warrant issuing a warning to people.

If someone is accused of pedophilia and there's enough evidence to hold a trial, wouldn't you want to be told that before you send your kid on a field trip with them as the chaperone?

[msc545]

If the person is accused of pedophilia (or many other crimes) and is male, his life is ruined even if he is found not guilty. That is not fair.

[DryGermanGuy]

The United States needs stronger privacy laws like we have in Europe. Here you can’t just record other people and publish it, let alone the defendants in a courtroom.

[jshm2]

Depends on the crime and type.

For example an armed robbery suspect isn't really going to be much trouble. But if you have a gang doing these, then it is not something you want to let on too quick.

[DarkLegacy]

For sexual offences yes, it can ruin their reputation and people seem to not believe in innocent until proven guilty these days.

[KostasKouvalis]

I think so, but it should be applied equally across the board. Don't just extend that courtesy to non-White criminals. Especially if they haven't been found guilty yet

[inhua]

the media doesn't care

if they want to destroy your reputation they'll do it and they have no remorse about it

[Snakeyes7]

In an age where there is no social respect for someone's right to due process, yes this is absolutely necessary.

[msc545]

Yes, it should be confidential, and for women it often is. For men it Never is.

[grega239]

Yes. Accusations aren't guilt