Should the media be allowed to make suspects' names public? - General

The point is simple: If someone is being charged with a crime; murder, arson, jaywalking, whatever... Should the media be allowed to release their name for all to know? In fact, should the media be told their name in the first place? First off, isn't the Number One rule of law, "Innocent until proven guilty"? And yet we frequently see the names of people who have been arrested for murder, kidnapping; people who have not yet been proven guilty in a court of law. What good does releasing their name do, in the first place? Do we need to know that Alice Messerschmidt has been accused of murdering their ex-boyfriend? Wouldn't a simple "A suspect has been arrested" suffice? And another thing, the jury's opinion could be swayed by what they see or hear in the media; the jury is supposed to be unbiased, chosen from people who have the least possible link to the suspect. The final say rests with them; could it not be considered dangerous or perverse for the media to have a possible impact on the jury beyond what is heard during a trial? Finally, what about those cases (And they do happen) where a man is accused, arrested, and found innocent in a trial by their peers? Their reputation is permanently smeared by the fact that they were accused of that crime; even if their records remain clean, people are not so quick to forget. People will still poke fingers, "Hey, that's the person accused of kidnapping that kid back in 1992!". Are they supposed to live with the fact that people will constantly relate them to an incident they had nothing to do with? I point to a recent case that most brits will know of - Joanna Yeates. Her landlord, the person originally accused; their name was in the paper for days, weeks - but they were eventually released. People instantly assumed that he was the killer. Why? Because his name was in the paper. People made a big deal about it. And then the new suspect, her neighbour. When he was arrested, someone ORGANISED for a mob of people to attack the police van carrying him, chasing after it, throwing bricks at it, harassing him, without even KNOWING that he was guilty. Was it proven? No. Has it been proven? No. What if he's found innocent after all? What if he had nothing to do with it? All those people ASSUMED it was him. They assumed he was guilty until proven innocent. What kind of country is it where the law can state one thing, but the media can allow the opposite to occur? I propose that the media be forbidden from printing, broadcasting, stating the names of suspects for everyone to hear. People need to be discouraged from making assumptions or judgements because of who has been arrested. Not every suspect goes on to be proven guilty, and yet they are all treated the same beforehand. So no, we cannot allow possibly innocent people to be named. Innocent until proven guilty has been, is, and should always be the fundamental rule of law, and no one should be allowed to surpass the law. We cannot ban people from judging others, but we can prevent perversion due to media influence. Forbid the names of suspects to be released to the public. At least until they're proven innocent. Judgement should be for the law, and the law alone.

If the criminal was already captured, imo they should not release the name. There is no point in public knowing his name. If he's on the run thought, it's a must.

I always here "The suspects names have not been released yet" so I thought there were at least some loose guidelines they were following.

Freedom of the press and all that...

[QUOTE=johan_sm;29758698]If the criminal was already captured, imo they should not release the name. There is no point in public knowing his name. If he's on the run thought, it's a must.[/QUOTE] Well, if you're on the run, there is an implication of guilt there, so it's reasonable for them to release that I guess.

No, not untill they're released published as innocent or a criminal. Well that's my opinion.

[QUOTE=Whatwhat1337;29758741]Freedom of the press and all that...[/QUOTE] There's no reason for the press to know the name, though.

If the subject is compliant, then I say no, they shouldn't release his name, there is no point for them to. If he/she is running, then yes.

i think the suspect has to consent first

The thing is, if they're faceless goons with blanked out names, I don't think anyone would really care about the stories. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Good for privacy, bad for general public awareness of crimes. In a lot of cases such as those involving child porn, I think it should be kept secret until the person is actually convicted. People lose reputations and lives over baseless accusations and I think that's terrible.

[QUOTE=thispieiscold;29758816]i think the suspect has to consent first[/QUOTE] Why would you consent to this

The only good thing about releasing the criminals name is so that you can make bad puns

"In todays News, Mike Litrous was arrested on rape charges"

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29758884]Why would you consent to this[/QUOTE] maybe they want to be on television

[QUOTE=Turnips5;29758830]The thing is, if they're faceless goons with blanked out names, I don't think anyone would really care about the stories. I don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Good for privacy, bad for general public awareness of crimes.[/QUOTE] The only reason people should or want to know about crimes is to do with feeling safe or protected. If they don't care then the point is gone If the names aren't released then at least they know that SOMEONE has been arrested and they do feel like the police are doing something.

You can argue that releasing the suspect's name can interfere with the 6th amendment which is right to a fair and speedy trial by one's peers. If there is a lot of news coverage saying that the suspect is a rapist/murderer it can affect the bias of people who will be the jury and thus it would be an unfair trial. You might also be able to argue that it interferes with the 5th amendment, the right to not self-incriminate, however that might be a looser argument than the previous argument I stated. It is a very sticky situation because news coverage of a trial can affect a person's 6th amendment but it can also be in conflict with the 1st amendment.

[QUOTE=Valnar;29758971]You can argue that releasing the suspect's name can interfere with the 6th amendment which is right to a fair and speedy trial by one's peers. If there is a lot of news coverage saying that the suspect is a rapist/murderer it can affect the bias of people who will be the jury and thus it would be an unfair trial.[/QUOTE] This is what I was going to say. Whenever you release a suspect's name, you have a chance of poisoning the jury. Which, of course, can have dire effects on the outcome of the trial, dependent on what light the media puts him in.

I wouldn't want my name to be released to the public, especially before it was proven that I committed a crime.

I try to keep my opinions consistent when it comes to all information: the misuse of information is unfortunate but not enough of a reason to withhold it. Applies just as much to potentially dangerous information about weapons, bombs, chemicals, viruses (real and virtual) as it does to this case.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;29759481]I try to keep my opinions consistent when it comes to all information: the misuse of information is unfortunate but not enough of a reason to withhold it. Applies just as much to potentially dangerous information about weapons, bombs, chemicals, viruses (real and virtual) as it does to this case.[/QUOTE] Except we are dealing with infringing on people's rights to a fair trial, so misuse of the information is different than the other cases you stated. With the examples you gave, there is a clear and present danger but there isn't anything close to that regarding a suspect's name.

Limiting information is sweeping the problem under the carpet. The problem is the misuse of that information, which free information does not cause, only allows.

In this case, limiting information is not "Sweeping it under the carpet", because people's reputation, freedom and even lives are at stake if the information is misused.

suspects, no. people who have been proven guilty and are wanted by the police, yes

[QUOTE=Darth_GW7;29759664]In this case, limiting information is not "Sweeping it under the carpet", because people's reputation, freedom and even lives are at stake if the information is misused.[/QUOTE] People's lives are always at stake. You can ban all kinds of stuff because it's too dangerous for the public to know. I don't advocate that, so I can't advocate the withholding of this information based on merely its dangerousness to one person.

[QUOTE=ThePuska;29759851]People's lives are always at stake. You can ban all kinds of stuff because it's too dangerous for the public to know. I don't advocate that, so I can't advocate the withholding of this information based on merely its dangerousness to one person.[/QUOTE] So it is better to infringe on one person's rights than to withhold that person's identity from the public?

[QUOTE=ThePuska;29759851]People's lives are always at stake. You can ban all kinds of stuff because it's too dangerous for the public to know. I don't advocate that, so I can't advocate the withholding of this information based on merely its dangerousness to one person.[/QUOTE] What good does it do everyone else?

i would think no serious crimes like pedophilia will destroy a persons life, people have been accused of that shit and found innocent but are still viewed as a pedophile for the rest of their life because of that accusation i think it is the medias responsibility to respect the persons privacy until they are actually convicted

If they are in custody and not yet proven guilty, no. If they are in custody and proven guilty etc, yes. If they are suspected and running from police, yes.

The thing that gets me is they release suspects names, but you never see what the verdict was unless it was a huge story, so they always seem guilty anyway.

If they don't get published then one would presume that they were found innocent in the end.