[kirklancaster]

The new program on Chanel 4; 'The Paedophile Hunter' raises a very complex issue; should any person accused of any crime in this country ever have his identity revealed to the public until he has been indicted, tried in a Court of Law and found guilty? Can publicising an accused's name ever be justified in a country which prides itself on the maxim that; 'A man is innocent until proven guilty'?

There are thousands of cases where ordinary people have been arrested for alleged crimes, only for the case to be subsequently dropped due to 'Lack of Evidence' or to be eventually found 'Not Guilty' after a trial, yet from being arrested, their identities have been made known to the public.

Being 'acquitted' is fine, but there are always people around who will know of the arrest and charge but do not learn of the subsequent acquittal. This means that an acquitted person can be often subject to condemnation, stigmatisation and rebuke, or even at risk from 'vigilante' attacks despite being cleared.

A particularly notable case of this is Michael Barrymore - who was found not to have committed any crime, but whose flourishing TV career was ended - due I believe - to public castigation at his gay lifestyle.

Celebrities who have been arrested, and charged then cleared, in cases such as Operation Yew Tree and similar ops, can attest to the above and to the truth in the adages that 'There's no smoke without fire' and 'mud sticks'.

I realise that there's times when the Police must release suspects details to the public - as in Crimewatch or in the case of suspected terrorists, but I'm referring specifically to people who have been arrested and charged but not tried and found guilty.

It's a tricky one. What do you think?

[Livia]

I don't think it's tricky at all. Of course an accused person should remain anonymous until he (or she) is proven guilty. You only have to read this forum to know that some people don't understand the concept of someone being innocent even though they may have been arrested, or even just questioned by the police. It's detrimental to the court case too, because if the person is famous and the press get hold of it, the accused is unable to have a fair trial because the jury have prior knowledge of the case. The CPS claim that they release details in the case of famous people being accused because it brings other "victims" forward. I think they are overstepping their mark. To me it looks like their touting for business.

[LeatherTrumpet]

The other day on LBC James OBrien was discussing his show with his staff and they were doing this subject. A famous chap in the early 90s came up who was falsely accused of being a paedo by a fantasist - his name was dragged through the mud and when it got to court it was quickly dismissed as bollocks and he was naturally cleared.

2 of the people in that meeting still thought he had been done!!


mud sticks

[bitontheslide]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

It's a tricky one. What do you think?

Anonymity unless it is in the public interest for that protection to be removed. The difficulty is in determining when it is in the public interest to know.

[MTVN]

I find there is a fairly clear and logical argument behind naming them in that it does encourage other victims to come forward. Though the argument in support of anonymity is also clear and logical so it is a tricky one imo.

I would say though that I dont think its necessarily the case that mud sticks even after someone has been cleared and that they will forever be castigated about it. For a couple of recent examples look at Bill.Roache and Michael Levell. Both cleared in a court of law and met with a wave of public sympathy as a result, and both were then able to enjoy the support of their bosses and were back on Corrie within weeks

[arista]

Not sure its wise to put it on Ch4
what is one of them on it
is murdered.

Then its another crime

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Livia

I don't think it's tricky at all. Of course an accused person should remain anonymous until he (or she) is proven guilty. You only have to read this forum to know that some people don't understand the concept of someone being innocent even though they may have been arrested, or even just questioned by the police. It's detrimental to the court case too, because if the person is famous and the press get hold of it, the accused is unable to have a fair trial because the jury have prior knowledge of the case. The CPS claim that they release details in the case of famous people being accused because it brings other "victims" forward. I think they are overstepping their mark. To me it looks like their touting for business.

Yes, I have nothing to add to this,this post says it all really.

[Tom4784]

I agree that suspects should remain anonymous, not just for their sake but for their family's too. Innocent until proven guilty.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by MTVN

I find there is a fairly clear and logical argument behind naming them in that it does encourage other victims to come forward. Though the argument in support of anonymity is also clear and logical so it is a tricky one imo.

I would say though that I dont think its necessarily the case that mud sticks even after someone has been cleared and that they will forever be castigated about it. For a couple of recent examples look at Bill.Roache and Michael Levell. Both cleared in a court of law and met with a wave of public sympathy as a result, and both were then able to enjoy the support of their bosses and were back on Corrie within weeks

A good post, but I think with Roache and Le Veille being long-serving characters in the longest running, most popular soap in Britain, served them in good stead when it came to public support.

[lostalex]

No, I think the courts should be 100% transparent. I also think all court rooms should be filmed, and all records accessible to the public.

[Livia]

Originally Posted by lostalex

No, I think the courts should be 100% transparent. I also think all court rooms should be filmed, and all records accessible to the public.

I'm not sure what good it would do to film all court cases (the majority of which are sooooo booooooring...) and then allow free access to the public to view them. It would be nothing more than titillation in most cases. There is a public gallery in court, if people are interested in a case there's nothing to stop them sitting in. Expecting to have a case offered up like a movie is lazy and dangerous. As for transparency... they're already transparent. Sometimes you just have to trust the legal system. It is far from perfect, but it's the best system we have.

Hey Alex, nice to see you.