I know it was enivitable that the media was going to get hold of Steve Wright's name but should they be allowed to publish it? I think it's highly likely that both men in custody for the Suffolk killings will be released at the end of the week. Shouldn't they wait until someone is charged before releasing names?
2006-12-19 21:59:23 · 33 answers · asked by niccog26 3 in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
Actually Skippy I haven't bought any paper I watched the news last night and both names were mentioned. They showed the front pages of the papers and again both names were mentioned. I really don't believe that the media have any right to say who's in custody. I know that Tom Stephens put himself in the frame and I think that's fair do's. But, Steve Wright has in no way drawn any attention to himself and should be intitled to a fair hearing as such.
2006-12-19 22:08:28 · update #1
Janice, to me it seems as though you've already got these two guy's convivted "We, as a society have gotten to the point were no one is held responsible for their own actions and we do not want to cause the criminals to feel bad about what they have done" For all we now these guys are innocent so have no reason to feel bad about what they have done.
2006-12-19 22:11:39 · update #2
I'm sorry bty9... but I completely disagree!! What about innocent untiul proven guilty? There will always be vigilante groups waiting to strike!
2006-12-19 23:11:49 · update #3
I agree completely. The negative effects outweigh any remote possibility that naming suspects may be beneficial. The media claim that they have a right to know while at the same time anyone who has been arrested and not charged will be "named and shamed" without good cause. Their lives will be tainted and stained even if there has been no wrongdoing. The press believe this is in the "public interest" but if someone is not charged then what is the interest other than salacious sensationalism in order to keep a story running and filling acres of media with speculation. Reading some of the reports are highly offensive - whatever these suspects have or have not done - the notion that one was a vile web pervert - and having seen his profile all I can say is it was innocuous - he had a profile on MySpace as do many millions of others. Claims and lies form those who "know" the suspect and little chance of redress or a life worth living if they are not charged.
This country should embrace and defend to the last breath against this government and their attempt to get rid of jury trials in a number of cases and against the media and their spurious claims, the notion of innocent until proven guilty.
The law should also change so that papers who engage in sting operations that mean exposure and name and shame before someone has been charged are outlawed and that only once someone has been charged should they be named. Breaches of this law should be met with stiff and punitive penalties.
It is all too clear as well that the actions of the media have in the past and in many other instances jeopardised trials.
2006-12-20 23:09:06 · answer #1 · answered by Gilly S 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No they shouldn't. I have no sympathy for whoever committed these crimes, but we dont know for sure that it was these two men. They should be innocent until proven guilty and no face trial by the media before this a proper trial.
I worry that it will affect the trial. At the very least, the jurors will already think they know these men before hearing any evidence and in a worst case scenario is could lead to a mistrial. Now, if these men are guilty and the press coverage leads to them being acquitted then that would be a travesty.
No details should be published or broadcast until the trial begins.
2006-12-20 01:08:15 · answer #2 · answered by Searching 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
i totatlly agree, firstly these two might not even be the guilty parties, you cant really hold two men individually for the same crimes and expect them to both be guilty of all. its impossible. Plus i totally agree inocent until proven guilty.
Also im not too sure if any one knows about this by the Soham murder case nearly got thrown out of court due to the 'trial by media' it was felt Ian Huntly wouldnt have been given a fair trial. Luckkily it went ahead but it seems the british Media has not learned its lessons.
I just hope that someone can get caught convicted and put away for this crime!
2006-12-19 23:30:27 · answer #3 · answered by hopper13 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
The news media, as well as all of us, have a First Amendment right here in the United States to release the names of people suspected of committing crimes.
The damage that could be caused by NOT disclosing the identity of suspects far outweighs the damage that could be caused by such a disclosure, even when the disclosure comes before an indictment.
If the news media were barred from disclosure, the government would have a greater incentive to trample on the due process rights of suspects. We're seeing this happen today with the Bush administration's zeal to round up suspected terrorists when evidence is scant and refusing to identify suspects in public.
Imagine a police state in which your neighbor, friends, or relatives suddenly disappear. If the news media were prohibited from reporting arrests, who but the government would know what happened?
Let's say a person you had a fight with last week turns of dead. The police learn of the fight and peg you as a suspect, so they arrest you. A neighbor of yours knows you couldn't have committed the crime because you were home. Well, if your arrest can be hidden from the public, your neighbor wouldn't know what happened to you. He wouldn't be able to come to your defense and say to the media or even the district attorney, "Hey, John couldn't have killed that guy; I saw him at his home at the time of the murder."
Allowing the news media to publicize arrests and indictments gives the public oversight over the actions of the government, giving the government an incentive to play fair in the justice system.
This is a sacrifice we must all be willing to make so that we can live in a free society.
2006-12-20 02:36:05 · answer #4 · answered by Ryan R 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I just think that if I was innocent of a crime that I did not commit I would want protection from vigilantes. Lets be honest the newspapers have never let the truth get in the way of a good story. We do have innocent until proved guilty in this country, except in the press, And when you consider the combined intelligence of the average "Sun" reader you get mistakes happening like this.
There was a bloke recently attacked because the thickos thought that a paediatrician was a paedophile. So I would like my name to remain anonymous until proved guilty.
2006-12-19 23:34:02 · answer #5 · answered by simon m 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
What is worrying is the chance of a fair trial for these men. And remember it has to be SEEN to be fair - so even if they are found guilty and the police find that there is a lot of evidence against them the men in question could claim that the jury was biased by the pre-charge reporting.
It seems to me that the reporting of this case has been very unfair and it is trial by tabloid and by tabloid television.
2006-12-19 22:15:52 · answer #6 · answered by NORSE-MAN 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
No, both newspapers and the BBC should hold their horses - they risk jeopardising any future trial and, as the two men in question have yet to charged, i would have thought there were libel issues if these two men are released. With 24/7 rolling news it would seem events just don't happen fast enough for our media so they leap somewhat ahead of themselves!
2006-12-20 06:54:05 · answer #7 · answered by Dr Watson (UK) 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If it was me, and I was released without charge, I would sue there as*es off, for public humiliation, defamation of character, and what ever other human rights violations I could drum up. Not to mention the pain and suffering caused by their malicous attitude. Lost wages, because lets face it, would hire either one of them now?? These poor fu*kers are fu*ked if they are innocent. There must be a case there somewhere. I agree they should wait until charged. But tabloid media are scumbags, so are the people that promote their dirty media by buying the sh*t rags.
2006-12-19 22:16:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
No they shouldn't.
By doing so apart from the years of torment if they are released without charge, the media has possibly compromised the trial if they are charged.
All the jury will have read or heard something in the media about the individuals so how could it be a fair trial.
Irresponsible journalism.
2006-12-19 22:06:39 · answer #9 · answered by GeneHunt 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes they should. If Tom Stevens and Steve Wright are innocent, then they will always live under constant scrutiny. I think the fact that these people have been named is totally unfair.
They should be found guilty before any names are mentioned.
2006-12-19 22:01:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋