Arrested on Suspicion and all know the suspects name?

Question

and address.... Remember... it's only a suspicion. Do you think it right that a name and address is publicised before it is proven that a crime has been committed by the person?

Yes, kpk, I'm talking about thecase of the women that were murdered in Ipswich, Suffolk

Answer 1

Innocent till PROVEN guilty?

The UK media will hang, draw and quarter you then pay you out later when you sue them.

Lovely piece of journalism.

Sadly people will only remember you for the headlines, not the fact you didn't do anything and this can destroy lives. As for "if your innocent whats the problem with people knowing your name"? There are a lot of idiotic people who will do stupid things because they read the SUN and lack the intelligence to figure out the truth.

Did you hear about the bloke who's house was vandalised with graffiti because the local half-wits thought he was a paedophile? He was in fact a paediatrician! A Doctor for gods sake!

The media have to act responsibly but I have yet to see it.

Answer 2

If you are referring to the Ipswich case then it was not released by the police authorities. The suspect has a 360 site and some people who know him just couldn't wait to reveal his identity. Even if the guy is proven innocent his life is already ruined. It is not right and laws should be passed to stop it. There have been many wrongful arrests and it isn't right that their names and address are given out before they are proven guilty.

Answer 3

for the reason that justice is meant to be equivalent in democratic international places to all regardless of infamy or acceptance be they wealthy or destructive in artwork or no longer, Joe bloggs from down the line could be named so why no longer Rolf Harris. There are circumstances the place naming ability defendants isn't proper because of the media frenzy who declare its interior the wide-unfold public interest whilst its no longer something of the style its to sensationalize thoughts and sell print. If the clicking are constrained in what they'd print then whoever leaked this needs to sense the great weight of the regulation themselves. that's no longer whistle blowing, that's disgraceful invasion of privateness.

Answer 4

Court dockets are matters of public record, there's little way around that. I once got charged with something which I was later cleared for, but in the meanwhile received a slew of letters from lawyers, some boldly proclaiming the charge right next to my name on the front of the envelope. I didn't feel that it was right that the mailman and my roomates should get that kind of broadcast, especially considering my innocence.

Answer 5

I don't know anyone's name so no. "All" do not know it. However, I don't think a person's name ought to be published anywhere unless they are guilty of something. If it turns out that they are not guilty then I would address the problem of having an innocent name published wherever it is at.

Answer 6

I guess it depends on the circumstances doesn't it? If that person has been "bragging" to the media about their antics and then get themselves arrested, then do they still have the right to be protected?

I'm guessing you're on about the recent prostitute murders...?

Answer 7

No its not right its supposed to be Innocent until proven guilty but its always the other way around.

Answer 8

The name was released even before a charge was laid - even worse. But it was leaked by a newspaper, not the police.

Answer 9

thelaw covers this quite well so no problem

Answer 10

it all depends on the crime murder then yes i think is right