Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Question

with the arrest on the Ipswich murders and numerous rape cases, why should people's names be released until they are proven, beyond reasonable doubt to have comitted the crime.

Im sure its a breach of human rights and data protection.

I dont think it should be allowed.

Discuss

with the arrest on the Ipswich murders and numerous rape cases, why should people's names be released until they are proven, beyond reasonable doubt to have comitted the crime.

Im sure its a breach of human rights and data protection.

I dont think it should be allowed.

Discuss

Im not disputing the law itself, just the moral of it. I work in a law firm.

Answer 1

It's the culture. For all the corrupt police stories we hear or watch on TV, we still have faith in them, and believe that they wouldn't arrest someone unless they were guilty... Unfortunately, that's not how it works, and we do need to be more judicious about "innocent until proven guilty."

Case in point: John Mark Karr. A complete sicko? Definitely! The murderer of John Benet Ramsey? Obviously not... Stop jumping to conclusions. Even when someone confesses, it doesn't make it true... People lie, convictions are overturned and thrown out, etc. There's a reason why they call it "circumstancial" evidence most of the time, and it's not a sure thing...

Answer 2

The presumption of innocence is a restriction on the courts in some countries like the U.S. and I believe Britain though not France. This is not a restriction on what people may think or what the press can report.

Any responsible media outlet will describe the accused as just that: the accused or the suspect. You, as a responsible citizen, should understand what that means. Any reporter, however, would be remiss in his duty to his profession if he did not report an arrest in such a high profile case.

Answer 3

I Agree it shouldn't be allowed but you know what , it happen's all the time. More people should make it there business especially when it happens to them to stand up for for themselves and actively do something about it, Write the Editor of your newspaper. The first thing that came to my mind was file a personal lawsuit. File a lawsuit yourself if you have to., it not hard. Some lawyers might not think its important enough for them to handle. You could sue them for, Invasion of privacy., Slander, defamation of caracter, intent to defame,intent to cause financail hardship by ruining a person's reputation in the community, get them where it hurts in their wallets. People do want to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Then again its a lot more fun and profitable to air someone else's dirty laundry. You could apply for free Grant money from the federal govt. and open up an Office for The Rights of the Accused , or a Resource Clinic to Assist other people with simular experiences. Best of luck.

Answer 4

You are right.

But the Police didn't release the mans name. They only stated a 37 year old man had been arrested.

It was the media that worked out who it was and then released it. In fact the man arrested had actually given an interview to a Sunday Newspaper yesterday.

The media shouldn't release details as it damages the evidence the Police can present in court. His legal team can claim an unfair trial because he was misrepresented in the tabloid press.

Answer 5

It actually isn't allowed. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, it's illegal to name a suspect before the case comes to trial. The media have shot themselves in the foot really because even if this guy is guilty it will be impossible to acheive a safe conviction because he's already been tried by the media.

Answer 6

I agree, if he is not guilty, his reputation will be tarnished forever and he may receive death threats. Of course, he may have agreed to the publicity, but i still think it should not be divulged yet. Only minimum info- such as a man has been arrested and charged etc.

Secondly, if he is guilty, his defense lawyers will accuse the media of publicity that could influence the jury.

For both reasons, it seems quite wrong and jeopardises the legal process.

Answer 7

Well, quite frankly you're wrong. Innocent until proven guilty only stands IN THE COURT ITSELF. As for the media, they have a right to publish whatever they want to under the 1st amendment. If a person's reputation is damaged, they can sue in civil court. As per the Supreme Court it is not a breach of human rights or data protection, and infact it is encouraged under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

Answer 8

In earlier times, when the government was not required to disclose their identities, their state, and their locations, after people were arrested and taken into government custody, these people had a habit of "dissappearing." So we require government to disclose arrests to keep people from dissappearing, and the media starts putting dots together about why they were arrested and what is happening to them legally. Sometimes, the media decides that they are guilty, but false reports and defamy can really come back to hurt them hard, so they have to be a little careful about their bias.

Government also tends to hold people in their custody indefinitely (see Guatanamo Bay) while collecting evidence against them. When we started requiring government to file their charges soon after arrest, this tactic dissappeared (until the advent of terrorist prosecution in the War on Terror, which has a lot of people worried about bad policies and bad precedent). Arrests without prosecution or release can be used as psychological tools for forced confessions: "We'll release you if you just confess your part and your friend's part in [whatever]." So we force government to disclose its charges publicly so that the watchful public eye discern unlawful arrests and covert prosecutions against unsuspecting persons.

BTW, by law, jurors are instructed to maintain isolation from the press and from other non-court-approved sources regarding the trial, so as to minimize thir effects on the trials, or else be held in contempt of court

Answer 9

Innocent*

Means suspected of a crime, but not proven to have committed one. You cannot be punished for the suspicion of a crime. But you can be put in jail while you wait for your trial. And the newspapers can print that you were arrested and on what charge.

And freedom of the press means that such information will be leaked and spread. Even if it were illegal, such information would still be trafficking.

I agree the situation seems unfair, but what would be more unfair is treating those under suspicion of a crime like they aren't, and letting them go free, and suppressing the freedom of the press makes for oppressive government.

Answer 10

I think unless they are presenting damning evidence againts an adult, the name should be kept quiet until proven guilty. Being wrongly accused can ruin a persons reputation and life.