Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Should people accused of crimes be granted anonymity?

135

Comments

  • #62
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Phoebas wrote: »
    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.

    Sorry, but I can't follow that train of thought - why would you need to know any names to see if justice has been done or not? Surely you'd base that on the facts of the case as presented and the verdict, not on the names?


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Being falsely accused doesn't make you a victim.

    It very much does if you are named as accused in this tiny society, as you'll discover if you try to rebuild your life after your name is cleared, only to encounter obstacles to your career and happiness via suspicion from people from the "no smoke without fire" school of thought. And all to satisfy the profits of media organisations and inquisitiveness of people with no gainful employment (to put it euphemistically).
    Phoebas wrote: »
    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.

    I was questioned by AGS about a murder once. It didn't affect me in the slightest. Now, if I had been named in public as accused of that murder that would be a gamechanger. There is no comparison at all between both.


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

    It's life-changing for the innocent person in this very small society who is named as accused. It is nosiness on the part of the patently underemployed members of the public who have nothing better to do than find something to gossip about.

    Phoebas wrote: »
    How can justice be done in public if the accused isn't named while that justice is being done?

    You still haven't explained how publicly naming the accused benefits justice. Reminder: the accused, as opposed to the guilty, is not synonymous with the "criminal".
    Phoebas wrote: »
    It would hardly be justice if the victim had to be named and the witnesses had to be named, but not the accused.

    The officially-designated "victim", as you mentioned, can choose not to be named. The accused has no such right, even though nothing has been proven against them and such an allegation will have devastating consequences for their future.



    Phoebas wrote: »
    Justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done.

    And to return to the thread title how is publicly naming an accused person (as opposed to a guilty person) contributing to that?


  • #64
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Why the obsession with "no smoke without fire"? If someone's name is cleared its cleared. We are not all vigilante gombeens who think someone must be guilty even if they were found not guilty. The accused is tried in a court of law by a jury of his or her peers remember.


  • #65
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Sorry, but I can't follow that train of thought - why would you need to know any names to see if justice has been done or not? Surely you'd base that on the facts of the case as presented and the verdict, not on the names?

    Would you be happy if I made an allegation against you and I brought 4 witnesses to corroborate this allegation, and you as the accused wasn't allowed to know who was telling lies about you?

    A person has the right to face their accuser on an equal basis.


  • #66
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Why the obsession with "no smoke without fire"? If someone's name is cleared its cleared. We are not all vigilante gombeens who think someone must be guilty even if they were found not guilty. The accused is tried in a court of law by a jury of his or her peers remember.

    We don't all need to be - it's quite sufficient if some of us are.
    And there have been people giving personal experiences of how a community will judge and ostracise a person for being named as accused of a crime.

    I realise that this might come across as really weird, but I feel punishment for crimes should be meted out by a court, not the general public.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Would you be happy if I made an allegation against you and I brought 4 witnesses to corroborate this allegation, and you as the accused wasn't allowed to know who was telling lies about you?

    A person has the right to face their accuser on an equal basis.

    Why would I want to know that? And more important to the topic at hand, why would I want to find out by reading the newspaper?


  • #68
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Shenshen wrote: »
    We don't all need to be - it's quite sufficient if some of us are.
    And there have been people giving personal experiences of how a community will judge and ostracise a person for being named as accused of a crime.

    I realise that this might come across as really weird, but I feel punishment for crimes should be meted out by a court, not the general public.

    I don't understand why you feel the need to resort to sarcasm here, I am quite in agreement with you on this.

    There will be loo-lahs in all walks of society (for example the neanderthals who attacked a paediatrician a number of years back, believing him to be a paedophile). Should we upend the entire legal process because of some people's stupidity? I think not. If we start over-hauling the system to accommodate the intellectual capacity of all members of society, the system will cease to function. Most reasonable rational people know that an accused is innocent until proven guilty, and if found not guilty, is in fact, not guilty.


  • #69
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Why would I want to know that? And more important to the topic at hand, why would I want to find out by reading the newspaper?

    Why would you want to know who they are? So you can challenge them on what they are saying? You have a constitutional right to a trial in due course of law, and if an allegation is made against you, you have the right to challenge that allegation.


  • #70
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    I don't understand why you feel the need to resort to sarcasm here, I am quite in agreement with you on this.

    There will be loo-lahs in all walks of society (for example the neanderthals who attacked a paediatrician a number of years back, believing him to be a paedophile). Should we upend the entire legal process because of some people's stupidity? I think not.

    Sorry, as I have said before I'm from a country where the press is not allowed to report names in court cases. Victims, witnesses, accused, convicted - unless there's a particular requirement for public knowledge, in which case the court can lift the anonymity. But anonymity it pre-assumed, explicitly to make sure that the punishment will be handed out by the court, not by the media or the public.
    If you attend court, you will of course hear the names, but the media are not allowed to mention them.

    It still strikes me as very peculiar that the trial by public opinion here is regarded as an unfortunate side-effect of any criminal trial. And that people here are happy enough to put both innocently accused and the families of accused through those trials, all because they want to be given names no matter what.
    I'm still not sure what the benefit of publishing those names is to either the general public or to the legal system.


  • #71
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I was questioned by AGS about a murder once. It didn't affect me in the slightest. Now, if I had been named in public as accused of that murder that would be a gamechanger. There is no comparison at all between both.
    This doesn't make sense.
    Being questioned wouldn't effect you in the slightest, but being accused and subsequently cleared would be 'life-changing'!

    What if the Gardai raised you house, but didn't find any evidence?
    What if you were arrested but released without charge?
    How about if you were charged but the charges were dropped and the case didn't go to trial?

    All of these can be part of the same continuum. I don't know how one doesn't effect you in the slightest but another is life-changing.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    The officially-designated "victim", as you mentioned, can choose not to be named. The accused has no such right, even though nothing has been proven against them and such an allegation will have devastating consequences for their future.
    This isn't true, except in very limited circumstances.

    Deleted User wrote: »
    And to return to the thread title how is publicly naming an accused person (as opposed to a guilty person) contributing to that?
    Justice can't be seen to be done if it is hidden from public.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Why would you want to know who they are? So you can challenge them on what they are saying? You have a constitutional right to a trial in due course of law, and if an allegation is made against you, you have the right to challenge that allegation.

    I might have absorbed the debatting tradition of attacking the post, not the poster a bit too much. I would challenge the allegation, but why would I need a name for that?


  • #73
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Sorry, as I have said before I'm from a country where the press is not allowed to report names in court cases. Victims, witnesses, accused, convicted - unless there's a particular requirement for public knowledge, in which case the court can lift the anonymity. But anonymity it pre-assumed, explicitly to make sure that the punishment will be handed out by the court, not by the media or the public.
    If you attend court, you will of course hear the names, but the media are not allowed to mention them.

    It still strikes me as very peculiar that the trial by public opinion here is regarded as an unfortunate side-effect of any criminal trial. And that people here are happy enough to put both innocently accused and the families of accused through those trials, all because they want to be given names no matter what.
    I'm still not sure what the benefit of publishing those names is to either the general public or to the legal system.


    Hmmm I'm somewhat in agreement with you on this actually. I fully support the concept of justice being administered in the public domain, but I find I agree with the ban on media reporting specific names. As you said, it serves no purpose.


  • #74
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    Shenshen wrote: »
    I might have absorbed the debatting tradition of attacking the post, not the poster a bit too much. I would challenge the allegation, but why would I need a name for that?

    Well, presumably you (or more likely, your legal representative) would be cross examining this person in court. You will see and hear the person. I admit you wouldn't necessarily need their name, but this was not what I was referring to. I was referring to the ability to cross examine an accuser. Otherwise their evidence would be hearsay, if they were not present.


  • #75
    Phoebas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,373 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    Shenshen wrote: »
    Why would I want to know that? And more important to the topic at hand, why would I want to find out by reading the newspaper?
    Fair enough if you'd be happy for anonymous people to be able to bring allegations against you under the cover of their anonymity.

    I wouldn't, and I'd say that would be the case for most people.


  • #76
    armaghlad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,660 ✭✭✭armaghlad


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Hmmm I'm somewhat in agreement with you on this actually. I fully support the concept of justice being administered in the public domain, but I find I agree with the ban on media reporting specific names. As you said, it serves no purpose.
    There was an article in my local paper regarding a man accused of an internet offence (sexual in nature obviously). The man is married with a daughter. The newspaper posts some of its articles on facebook (mostly court reports) and this one received 100+ comments in the space of a few hours.

    On the one hand it is important that the public is made aware of such cases; but on the other hand it is crushing for the family to try and cope with such a bombshell while being publicly exposed under such circumstances. If for some reason, however unlikely, that this man is found innocent; he will have to live with the stigma for the rest of his life and will be treated differently from what he was before. I'm not sure what the difference is between being named now and being named upon conviction, other than the possibility of having your life ruined if found innocent.


  • #77
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Listening to Pat Carey, the former Fianna Fail TD, on Raidió na Gaeltachta this minute. A perfect example of why naming an accused person is wrong.

    Former minister Pat Carey to sue gardaí over leak of allegations

    But how much monetary compensation could an innocent man in this very small society possibly get for having this allegation publicised? Mud sticks, especially when you make your living as a professional politician. It's absolutely disgraceful what has happened him.


  • #78
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    armaghlad wrote: »
    There was an article in my local paper regarding a man accused of an internet offence (sexual in nature obviously). The man is married with a daughter. The newspaper posts some of its articles on facebook (mostly court reports) and this one received 100+ comments in the space of a few hours.

    On the one hand it is important that the public is made aware of such cases; but on the other hand it is crushing for the family to try and cope with such a bombshell while being publicly exposed under such circumstances. If for some reason, however unlikely, that this man is found innocent; he will have to live with the stigma for the rest of his life and will be treated differently from what he was before. I'm not sure what the difference is between being named now and being named upon conviction, other than the possibility of having your life ruined if found innocent.

    Even if he is found guilty - how just is it to force the wife and daughter to live with the stigma of association for the rest of their lives, just to satisfy the public's curiosity?


  • #79
    SeanW
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 10,056 ✭✭✭✭SeanW


    Saipanne wrote: »
    Feminists, take note.
    Feminists don't care. After all, the victim was only a male. He didn't matter.

    https://u24.gov.ua/
    Join NAFO today:

    Help us in helping Ukraine.



  • #80
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 26,219 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The only problem is that when the accused name is made public, it gives other victims an opportunity to come forward and corroborate.

    Jimmy Saville managed to quell his accusers one by one, if he had gone to court and we'd seen other victims come forward to support the evidence, it might have saved tens or hundreds of kids suffering.

    But, on the other hand, it's still an awful trial by media for a person who is still innocent until proven guilty to go through. So I see both sides, but it'd take wiser heads than mine to come up with a fair and transparent middle road that protects a person and their family from unwarranted attention until they're proven guilty, but acts in the best interest of society by giving other victims a chance to add their voice if their attacker is being brought to justice.


  • #81
    Fleawuss
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,681 ✭✭✭Fleawuss


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Listening to Pat Carey, the former Fianna Fail TD, on Raidió na Gaeltachta this minute. A perfect example of why naming an accused person is wrong.

    Former minister Pat Carey to sue gardaí over leak of allegations

    But how much monetary compensation could an innocent man in this very small society possibly get for having this allegation publicised? Mud sticks, especially when you make your living as a professional politician. It's absolutely disgraceful what has happened him.

    Garda leaks are a serious problem. Balancing that with needed whistleblowing...


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Fleawuss wrote: »
    Garda leaks are a serious problem. Balancing that with needed whistleblowing...

    Exactly. No matter what anybody thinks of Clare Daly's politics, what happened to her having publicly been at the forefront highlighting the quashing of penalty points by members of AGS was nothing short of police state tactics: arrested on suspicion - mar dhea - of drunk driving, the arrest leaked and name widely publicised in the media. Some time later it was conceded she was well under the limit and had done nothing wrong. Message clearly received: "See what we can do Clare when you come after us?"

    Front page news: Clare Daly stopped by gardaí on suspicion of drink driving (29 Jan 2013)

    And tucked inside the paper sometime afterwards: Clare Daly cleared of suspected drink driving


    Gardaí involved in arrest of Clare Daly ‘failing to cooperate with investigation’

    Another allegation leaked by people in power that we apparently just had to know.


  • #83
    Two Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 513 ✭✭✭Two Tone


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Why the obsession with "no smoke without fire"? If someone's name is cleared its cleared. We are not all vigilante gombeens who think someone must be guilty even if they were found not guilty. The accused is tried in a court of law by a jury of his or her peers remember.
    The phrase "no smoke without fire" can be rubbish, but unfortunately the phrase "mud sticks" is more on point I think. If a person is on trial for something they did not do, and they are named, the ostracisation and hostility they would experience during this time would be difficult to undo even if they were found not guilty ultimately.


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,094 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    People, myself included, may not like Cliff Richard but this morning despite very public leaking of his name and a very public raid on his home concerning allegations of sexual abuse, there is "insufficient evidence to prosecute" him. At 75 years of age, the mud

    Well, hopefully the senior police officers involved got their promotions before this result. A cloud will always hang over Richard's reputation.

    No further action following Cliff Richard probe

    Here's 75-year-old Cliff Richard's view on the topic of this thread:
    "This was despite the widely-shared sense of injustice resulting from the high-profile fumbling of my case from day one. Other than in exceptional cases, people who are facing allegations should never be named publicly until charged.

    "I was named before I was even interviewed and for me that was like being hung out like 'live bait'. It is obvious that such strategies simply increase the risk of attracting spurious claims which not only tie up police resources and waste public funds, but they forever tarnish the reputations of innocent people.

    "There have been numerous occasions in recent years where this has occurred, and I feel very strongly that no innocent person should be treated in this way.

    "I know the truth and in some peoples' eyes the CPS' announcement today doesn't go far enough because it doesn't expressly state that I am innocent; which of course I am. There lies the problem.

    "My reputation will not be fully vindicated because the CPS' policy is to only say something general about there being 'insufficient' evidence.

    "How can there be evidence for something that never took place! This is also a reason why people should never be named publicly until they have been charged unless there are exceptional circumstances."


  • #85
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Would the 66% here who believe that those accused of wrongdoing deserve anonymity agree that this story should be removed from the media, or the names and identity of the charity removed, until they are convicted of some offence?

    Surely we should cherish basic freedoms such as the freedom to publish the names of those accused of wrongs, but to be liable to be sued should those accusations prove wrong.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057615737


  • #86
    Chris_Heilong
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,972 ✭✭✭Chris_Heilong


    They should be publicly flogged.


  • #87
    Shenshen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,453 ✭✭✭Shenshen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Would the 66% here who believe that those accused of wrongdoing deserve anonymity agree that this story should be removed from the media, or the names and identity of the charity removed, until they are convicted of some offence?

    Surely we should cherish basic freedoms such as the freedom to publish the names of those accused of wrongs, but to be liable to be sued should those accusations prove wrong.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057615737

    I had never heard of these people before, never met them and it's unlikely I ever will.

    What purpose did printing their names everywhere other then discredit the work of the charity itself, which despite not receiving their full funds due to fraud probably still was doing good work?


  • #88
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,046 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    In 99% of cases. However, there was a case in Hanoi recently where a guy who was wanted for child abuse in Korea and then Thailand I think skipped it all and came here and did the same. He was finally caught recently and will spent a good chunk of time in a Vietnamese prison.

    Technically, I guess he was never charged so he was innocent? Anyways, if they skip and are wanted, then yeah it should be very public. That guy was involved in the social life here and was in a band and was well known, though I never went to the places he did so never met him.


  • #89
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Would the 66% here who believe that those accused of wrongdoing deserve anonymity agree that this story should be removed from the media, or the names and identity of the charity removed, until they are convicted of some offence?

    Surely we should cherish basic freedoms such as the freedom to publish the names of those accused of wrongs, but to be liable to be sued should those accusations prove wrong.

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057615737

    Not relevant, as there was no court case. The thread is specifically talking about people who have been officially accused and due to go on trial.

    If people were responsible enough to act fairly and rationally with information I'd be more in favour of them having it; but they aren't so I'm not.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 22,384 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Not relevant, as there was no court case. The thread is specifically talking about people who have been officially accused and due to go on trial...

    But that makes no sense, those who are accused of wrongdoing so significant that it is a matter for the Gardai and the Courts be protected, those who haven't actually been the subject of an investigation have their names publicised.

    Do you think this story should be published? If the people are charged with fraud and the matter ramped up...do you then think they should be granted anonymity? That's just not logical.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    Not relevant, as there was no court case. The thread is specifically talking about people who have been officially accused and due to go on trial...

    But that makes no sense, those who are accused of wrongdoing so significant that it is a matter for the Gardai and the Courts be protected, those who haven't actually been the subject of an investigation have their names publicised.

    Do you think this story should be published? If the people are charged with fraud and the matter ramped up...do you then think they should be granted anonymity? That's just not logical.

    Makes perfect sense because being accused of a more serious crime has more serious consequences.

    Should the story have been published? No opinion, but no problem because he did actually do what he was accused of.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



Advertisement
Advertisement