A mans life is ruined if he is falsley accused of crimes such as rape, his name is known to all before he has time to even defend himself. The two men now being held, surely should not be known to the public. The men arrested may be completely innocent, yet we now all know their dealings with the women, and the lives they lead. This cant be right, Anominity for men is virtually non-existant, how can this be fair? Women are protected in many cases, even after being found guilty of pointing the finger, inorder to get a man arrested.
Do you think anominity, should be standard practise for all suspects until they have convicted? I do.
2006-12-19 05:53:34 · 23 answers · asked by ? 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
Ok, this one requires a bit of give en take... there is the law as it stands and the law as it is implimented:
In the uk a suspect is never officialy named once arrested until trial... the law states that the suspect has rights and trys to see they are respected... HOWEVER... once the press get involved its a diffrent matter, they dig and root about and often recieve Anonimous tips from "sources within the force" that mr or mrs X has been held in relation to the crime.
In america the laws governing full discloser of public domain information cant be changed as they form the foundation of the nations constitution.
Even if the laws were changed to bann all discloser then the press will still print articals that come sooo close to saying mr or mrs X did it that the ruination of the innocents life would be just as compleat.
So.... lets change the law to ban all gutter press and put a fine of 500million dollars or pounds on any news group that breaks the ban on ANY discloser prior to trial of ANY suspects.
It might work.... or we could just shoot without trial the journalist responcible... after all that is what they do to the poor sods they drag through the dirt each time they get it wrong.
2006-12-19 06:08:55 · answer #1 · answered by Zarathustra 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Suspects in custody should be anonymous. They are no danger to anyone, so there is no reason to have their name all over the place.
If there is a suspect at large, and police are looking for someone who fits a description, the unfortunate reality is their identity will be made somewhat public. We need to know who a potentially dangerous person is if he is to be caught.
The right to a fair trial means the media should not pass judgement. If they do, they can be sued for libel/slander and other kinds of defamation.
If a man is found innocent, the media can do the proper thing and have a big "innocent" picture or page to clear the name (somewhat).
2006-12-19 06:17:39 · answer #2 · answered by dude 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree, the rumours going round are absolutely diabolical, true or not, it isn't any of our business, as they are supposedly innocent till proven guilty... or is it trial by media that's more common nowadays??
it's fairly obvious the police are looking to wrap this up as quickly as possible to make the public feel like our police forces are doing a fantastic job, in the name of justice.. i'm not saying these blokes are innocent but there's nothing to prove they aren't and i believe that in such a high profile case, the identities of the suspects should remain anonymous, as these suspects are always going to be regarded as the ones involved in the murder case... innocent or not..
2006-12-19 06:15:18 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think that people arrested for a crime should remain anonymous till they are found guilty, The press report things to get a paper sold. If found not guilty or are freed by the police, they should get compensation from the paper or papers concerned. I believe that the 1st man arrested by police for the 5 prostitute murders, was an attempt by the police to show they are doing something, even though they had no evidence just the fact he had spoken on the BBC about the girls and the fact he knew them.
2006-12-19 06:15:39 · answer #4 · answered by k4268133 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I posed a question ver similar to this yesterday.
I believe that anonymity should remain until the matter is tried and a conclusive result found. THe "beyond reasonable doubt" theory should exist.
I think it wholly unfair that people's names are draggged through the mud by the media with no evidence to back it up.
What makes it worse is that on Sky News earlier, this fresh arrest, the mans address and car registration were on show too... now, i am not judging on innocence or guilt yet however i think this is appalling to do this.
Its the same with Rape cases, anonymity of both parties should remain.
2006-12-19 05:59:02 · answer #5 · answered by button_mushroom_x 3 · 6⤊ 2⤋
I agree that the police should not release personal details of anyone until they are at least formally charged.If this first suspect is innocent his life is fucked now because of the way he has been portrayed in the media.As the old saying goes" if you sling enough **** some of it is bound to stick."No one could be naive enough to believe that he could just carry on his life as normal,it would be impossible. Sometimes I supose releasing these details can cough up new evidence or people who would not normally come forward when the suspects are at large. As for waiting until they are convicted,thats another double edged sword.Many innocent men have been convicted and guilty men found innocent.
2006-12-19 06:24:01 · answer #6 · answered by Pocket Battleship 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Just a wee second...despite asking a question on the same incident - the first man who was charged decided to open himself in - no less - the Sunday Mirror. He made it hard for himself from day one. And with the media being as it is in the UK, I fear his regret will arrive long before the case has finished...or perhaps he has a plan that will involve compensation.
2006-12-19 10:19:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anonymity should be standard to an extent. The public needs to know what is going on in the world around them, and although it isn't fare that women get more "quiet" cases than men, both genders should get equal amount of media time. (Or lack of media) However, if someone is accused of a crime they can not be arrested unless there is actual evidence against them. So, you may need to re-evaluate who you are defending... It's OK to stick up for someone you care about, but make sure you keep your eyes open to reality.
2006-12-19 06:04:25 · answer #8 · answered by sunnychick 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I agree with you about the idea of someones reputation being ruined just by being accused of a crime. On the other hand, what would you call it if a government takes someone into custody and refuses to tell anyone who they have in their custody? A dictatorship and worse, right? I think you are on to something though. Perhaps anonymity should be up to the person being charged (and held) for a crime.
-BD
2006-12-19 06:39:17 · answer #9 · answered by Perfectly Said 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Absolutely they should remain anonymous until convicted. If they are now released, without charge, and are totally innocent then there are enough idiots out there to make their lives a living nightmare. You only have to look at some of the answers on yahoo.
2006-12-19 06:08:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋