Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

VisibleGorilla

Yes of course.

Cathy.C

gramar wrote: »

That was a bizarre case indeed. How the CPS thought that even needed to be investigated is beyond anyone. The person making the complaint should be charged for wasting police time and making false accusations/perverting the course of justice. Those investigating deserve some form of punishment too for taking it as far as they did.

Without question. Here's an interview with him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIG7nXR4LZQ

tritium

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

There is of course a difference between being a criminal and being accused of a crime, you get that right?

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

I though it was one of the core tenets of a fair judicial system to have the process be open and visible?

If we took that to its obvious point we'd also name the accusers. Would you be in favour of that?

DEFTLEFTHAND

I believe the person who made the false accusation in the above mentioned case is part of the Game Of Thrones cast. And older woman I believe.

I don't watch it so have no idea who she is.

B0jangles

Hang on, I've just been looking at the DPP's website and it says that in rape and sexual assault cases both the accused and the victim have the right not to have their name revealed - the accused loses that right on conviction:

https://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice-system/category/5/#a36

tritium

B0jangles wrote: »

Hang on, I've just been looking at the DPP's website and it says that in rape and sexual assault cases both the accused and the victim have the right not to have their name revealed - the accused loses that right on conviction:

https://www.dppireland.ie/brief-guide-to-the-criminal-justice-system/category/5/#a36

Correct for Ireland, though there are freasonaby frequent calls to change to for the accused in line with the UK. Given the more local nature of Irish society I doubt it will happen though equally anonymity is harder to meaningfully enforce. In the UK there were move to change back to the Irish model which were subject to very high profile lobbying campaigns

seamus

The principal is fine - that all cases should be heard in public to ensure the transparency of the justice system. Cases being heard behind closed doors leaves room for corruption & injustice.

However, that principle comes from a time before we were so well interconnected. And well before we understand the suggestibility and falliability of the human mind.

The freedom of the press to report at all on ongoing cases should probably be restricted. Continue to hold court proceedings in public, record them on video and keep transcriptions. But make it a criminal offence to publish any details of who is in court and what evidence was heard that day. Only when the jury returns with a verdict should the press be then permitted to report on it. And the court system should publish the video of the trial for a period of 2 years and the transcripts permanently, free for all to access and reveiew to their hearts' content.

Thus, while the anonymity of an accused person is not guaranteed (pub gossip can't be clamped down on), they are at least protected from seeing themselves splashed all over the media until a verdict has been returned. At which point the media will be required to state guilty or not guilty rather than being able to imply anything.

This works the other way too - some lunatics love the attention. This restriction would starve them of that attention until they're locked up and incapable of enjoying it.

If the public is really interested, the media can still say, "the trial of a person for the murder of Joe Bloggs began today", etc.

Anyone who is actually interested in the case is free to go to the courtroom and watch it.

Anyone who is interested from a curiosity point of view will have full and unrestricted access to the video and transcript of the trial.

But everyone else - like the 99% of use - who's just a justice porn voyeur won't get the satisfaction of having our opinion formed in the way that the media wants it to be.

Saipanne

Cathy.C wrote: »

Yeah it's crazy really, it's a wonder why we do it at all. Seems so pointless.

One young lad in the UK took his life last year such was the impact that the false accusation had upon him.

Feminists, take note.

Stealthfins

tritium wrote:

There is of course a difference between being a criminal and being accused of a crime, you get that right?

A criminal is someone convicted for a crime.

I never mentioned someone accused of a crime.

tritium

Stealthfins wrote: »

A criminal is someone convicted for a crime.

I never mentioned someone accused of a crime.

Equally I don't think too many people here are looking for anonymity for convicts. Its not actually what was asked either......

A Dub in Glasgo

People are conflating two different scenarios into one

First scenario - people accused of a crime - named or not
Second scenario - people convicted of a crime - named or not

My view is not for the first one and named for the second one

Two Tone

Still cannot see how it would be of benefit to name while the accused has not been found guilty. I know some examples of this happening to a positive end were given, but if/when they are convicted they can be named to peoples' hearts' content.

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

Sometimes a loved one or someone they look up to are misbehaving,so the emotional or needy connection cannot be severed at any cost.

I say out every last one of them.
It's better to know who you're employing or giving a moral or secure responsibilities to.

I've seen X criminals get promoted and if their employers knew their past shenanigan s and seeds of deception,lying and how they manipulate situations they'd be out the door.

Out every last one of them.

I'm all for forgiveness but wary all the same.

The thread asks just in relation to the accused though, not the convicted.

Two Tone

Two Tone wrote: »

Still cannot see how it would be of benefit to name while the accused has not been found guilty.

Because it is a tangent to freedom of the press, that the press can make accusations of wrongdoing against people and, if they are wrong, they put their money where their mouth in terms of the exposure to defamation litigation. The press and media make allegations of wrongdoing every day, it would seem to me that if there is some ban on doing so until one is convicted it could see a serious inroad in the freedom of the press. Maybe it could be considered in some very narrow context, like people accused of sexual offences, but I would be against some blanket ban as it would become a charter for rogues.

wakka12

I think revealing people's names does nothing but encourage witch hunts or mob mentality which can put a potentially innocent person in danger. Regardless of what the person has done even if theyre guilty, I still think everyone has a right to personal privacy and safety from vigilante justice

Cathy.C

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

I believe the person who made the false accusation in the above mentioned case is part of the Game Of Thrones cast. And older woman I believe.

I don't watch it so have no idea who she is.

Yeah, her name was leaked a while back.

Here's something quite weird. If you Google her name and nothing else but her name, the Daily Mail article about the case is the third result that comes up, but yet they don't name her in that article.

Seems kinda odd.

mynamejeff

monkeysnapper wrote: »

The two that accused her said they both witnessed the incident but said it happened in two different places!!! .

The police took statements over phone !!!!! Judge got fairly angry at police officer giving evidence .

You really couldn't make it up .

My mum was so worn out after trial she didn't want to take it further . The two accusers were scum and didn't have feck all money , wasn't worth the bother .

We were on our way to car after trial and two of the jurors approached us and wished us all well and told us the two were vicious bitches .

Solicitors wanted her to plead guilty because she was guaranteed a suspended sentence , but she took it all way and risked 2 year prison sentence, I'm so proud of her for having the courage .

Back on thread , the write up of trial in paper was very small compared to reports leading up to trial , that's the way media works .

My mother couldn't get a job after in her profession , she got job working in a school canteen for last 4 years up to her retirement .

Hang on there where are you saying this happened ?

The police took statements over the phone ?? There was no written statement? no signed statement ?

and the case was before a jury ? so circuit court at least in Ireland would have gone through the officer dealing with it two layers of supervision then the DPPs office and then the state solicitors office and barristers for advice on proofs before everything got handed over to the defense pre trial and no one picked up on a very basic issue that would make the whole case
impossible to prosecute in any western country

I CALL BS

Stealthfins

Stealthfins wrote: »

Usually the people who object to criminals being outed have something up their own sleeve,a few cats in the bag,underlining guilt or have dodgy morals.

Thread title: Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

Being accused of a crime and being convicted of a crime are not synonymous. Nobody accused of a crime is a criminal of that crime until they are convicted. The difference should be obvious. There are many times in life when innocent people are falsely accused of something. It is a double injustice to take their good name by publicising their name when they are merely accused of a crime.

And do you mean 'skeletons in the cupboard' rather than 'cats in the bag'?

Two Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

Because it is a tangent to freedom of the press, that the press can make accusations of wrongdoing against people and, if they are wrong, they put their money where their mouth in terms of the exposure to defamation litigation. The press and media make allegations of wrongdoing every day, it would seem to me that if there is some ban on doing so until one is convicted it could see a serious inroad in the freedom of the press. Maybe it could be considered in some very narrow context, like people accused of sexual offences, but I would be against some blanket ban as it would become a charter for rogues.

The Eamon Cooke case has made me reconsider my stance on this. Depends on the individual case I think. If Cooke was still alive and that allegation came out, not gonna be losing sleep about his anonymity.

Two Tone

Two Tone wrote: »

The Eamon Cooke case has made me reconsider my stance on this. Depends on the individual case I think. If Cooke was still alive and that allegation came out, not gonna be losing sleep about his anonymity.

But what about the other people who are alleged to have done something they never did? Should they be named just because some alleged people are ultimately found guilty? No, I don't believe justice lies there. The best way to handle this is investigate such allegations comprehensively first, bring the accused to court, and then if found guilty they can be named.

Two Tone

Deleted User wrote: »

But what about the other people who are alleged to have done something they never did? Should they be named just because some alleged people are ultimately found guilty?

People with no previous convictions? Most definitely not. That's what I meant when I said it depends on the case. So absolutely anonymity most of the time. But in the case of someone like Eamon Cooke (ok he is dead but if he were still alive) - well I can see where Conor74, and someone else who said it can encourage other victims to come forward, are coming from.

Phoebas

People accused of crimes are not granted anonymity. Our courts are held in public.

Sometimes reporting restrictions are put in place. But this is to protect the anonymity of the victim, not the criminal.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

People accused of crimes are not granted anonymity. Our courts are held in public.

Sometimes reporting restrictions are put in place. But this is to protect the anonymity of the victim, not the criminal.

the accused ≠ the criminal. The entire point of a court case is to determine if an accused person is guilty, or innocent: it is not to condemn them as guilty from the outset by virtue of being merely accused of something. The presumption of innocence has existed in Roman law since at least the 6th century AD, and accordingly in its successor modern legal systems across Europe in the 21st century. The onus of proof is on the accuser, something which most sane and rational people will agree is a very good safeguard.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

the accused ≠ the criminal. The entire point of a court case is to determine if an accused person is guilty, or innocent: it is not to condemn them as guilty from the outset by virtue of being merely accused of something. The presumption of innocence has existed in Roman law since at least the 6th century AD, and accordingly in its successor modern legal systems across Europe in the 21st century. The onus of proof is on the accuser, something which most sane and rational people will agree is a very good safeguard.

As has the concept of justice being done in public.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

As has the concept of justice being done in public.

Justice is never done, in public or in private, if the accused person is automatically deemed to be guilty.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Justice is never done, in public or in private, if the accused person is automatically deemed to be guilty.

The question is not "Should people accused of crimes be deemed to be guilty?".
The question is "Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?"

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

The question is not "Should people accused of crimes be deemed to be guilty?".
The question is "Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?"

Yes, but you equated the accused with the guilty in the post I responded to: "

Phoebas wrote: »

People accused of crimes are not granted anonymity. Our courts are held in public.

Sometimes reporting restrictions are put in place. But this is to protect the anonymity of the victim, not the criminal.

A person who is named as accused and is ultimately found to be innocent is a victim in our "no smoke without fire" society. Naming them as accused conveys guilt in the eyes of many. Naming them only serves the interest of the media and the mob, both of which are not usually distinguishable. By all means name people who are found guilty after a fair trial.

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but you equated the accused with the guilty in the post I responded to: "

Yeah - they're the same actor when a court determines guilt. The purpose of providing anonymity is to protect the victim, not the accused whether they be guilty or innocent.
Anyway, the presumption of innocence is a legal construct. It doesn't apply to me as an observer.

---

I'm in favour of justice being done in public - as a safeguard for accused people.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

The purpose of providing anonymity is to protect the victim, not the accused whether they be guilty or innocent.

And when the named accused is falsely accused and is therefore the victim?

Phoebas wrote: »

Anyway, the presumption of innocence is a legal construct. It doesn't apply to me as an observer.

When dealing with life-changing issues like being named for false, unsubstantiated allegations in our tiny society, the views of mere observers are irrelevant to the course of justice - no matter how many times media representatives go to court and claim "public interest" dictates that their business has a right to name people who are innocent until proven guilty. It's little more than nosiness.

Phoebas wrote: »

I'm in favour of justice being done in public - as a safeguard for accused people.

Me too, so how does naming them before they are found guilty/innocent benefit anybody (bar the profits of the media/gratification of the nosy vigilante type)?

Phoebas

Deleted User wrote: »

And when the named accused is falsely accused and is therefore the victim?

Being falsely accused doesn't make you a victim. The same as being questioned about a crime doesn't make you a victim or being stopped at a checkpoint doesn't make you a victim.

Deleted User wrote: »

When dealing with life-changing issues like being named for false, unsubstantiated allegations in our tiny society, the views of mere observers are irrelevant to the course of justice - no matter how many times media representatives go to court and claim "public interest" dictates that their business has a right to name people who are innocent until proven guilty. It's little more than nosiness.

I don't see how it could be 'little more than nosiness' and be 'life changing' at the same time.

Deleted User wrote: »

Me too, so how does naming them before they are found guilty/innocent benefit anybody (bar the profits of the media/gratification of the nosy vigilante type)?

How can justice be done in public if the accused isn't named while that justice is being done? It would hardly be justice if the victim had to be named and the witnesses had to be named, but not the accused. And it would hardly be justice if witnesses and accusers could make allegations under cover of anonymity. I wouldn't like to be accused of anything under those circumstances.

That wouldn't be justice - that would be a secret trial and would be a very dangerous road to be going down, save in very extreme circumstances.

Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.