Talk

Advanced search

To think if you haven't been found guilty of a crime

(8 Posts)
Sandunesaltyair Mon 08-Jun-15 22:35:54

Your full name, photograph and age shouldn't be published?

When found guilty, yes. But not before.

I am reading a case in the local paper and don't want to post a link as it will generate more hits, but I know if it was me, it wouldn't matter if I was found innocent or guilty. The embarrassment and shame would be enough.

Why is this acceptable?

Aermingers Mon 08-Jun-15 22:38:13

No. It could discourage witnesses and other potential victims from coming forward.

TheMoa Mon 08-Jun-15 22:38:34

Our local rag is always publishing photos of suspected shoplifters.

I hate it - it is just so lazy and trashy. I refuse to buy the rotten paper now.

theendoftheendoftheend Mon 08-Jun-15 22:41:31

Depends what the crime is, my understanding is it first came about when a suspect awaiting trial for sexual assault went on to commit 2 further offences before being found guilty etc, so the idea was to prevent that sort of thing from happening again through public awareness.
I can see both sides of the argument tbh.

SoldierBear Mon 08-Jun-15 22:57:01

There is the third option of not proven here in Scotland.

TracyBarlow Mon 08-Jun-15 23:30:17

Because one of the basic tenets of our justice system is open justice. If you start banning the reporting of the identity of people appearing in court then reporters stop going to court and you end up with no court reporting whatsoever.

Part of the reason we have such a well-established, fair and advanced legal system in this country is because it is transparent.

As long as reporting is fair, balanced and contemporaneous then there should be no problem. If your issue is that society automatically assumes that people appearing in court are guilty (the no smoke without fire argument) then that is a problem with society and not with newspapers.

I actually think the general public aren't stupid. They know that our justice system gives people the right to a fair trial and if, at the end of that trial, a not guilty verdict is reached, in the main people accept that.

WinterOfOurDiscountTents15 Mon 08-Jun-15 23:55:17

Tracy, I have to say I think thats an incredibly naive way of looking at society, a massive over-estimation of the intelligence and fairness of your average rag reader, as well as the reporting standards of tabloids.

I wish your post were all true but I don't believe a single word of it.

worridmum Mon 08-Jun-15 23:58:38

sadly about sex crimes they are that stupid even if your found not guilty in court you are still seen as a rapist but just one thats escaped punishment (yes I know the conviction rate is really really low but to have fair justice system the nonsense that if your found not guilty of a crime even a sex crime you should be free of susipion but sadly thats not the case )

And its not going to change high profile campagns have happened which support this instance where your guilty no matter what even if in the eye of the law you are innocent

Aka we belive you campain (while its intestions where great its been morphed into something its not be basically supporting the instance that if your accused of rape you are a rapist and if found not guilty your a lucky rapist that escaped punishment by quoite conviction rate being so low everyone must be guilty because the only other option is false accuations which do not make up even 2% of reported rapes which is being used to say only 2% of accused rapists are actully innocent etc)

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now