Ok how do you feel about all people's in court having their identity protected until someone has been found guilty of a crime???
If you look at a crime like rape, the man's name is normally plastered all over the papers, whilst the victim is just called "Mrs X " or something. There has been a number of case's where the so called criminal has not been found guilty, but has had their life tarnished by just the mention that they had been accused of such a crime.
I tend to believe that all their names should be protected until guilt is found.
What say you??
Where Rob, he's our legal mind on these topics lol
I too think that identity should be protected until found guilty.
Too many cases of someone being found innocent and then going home to find they have no job because of the adverse publicity etc they have experienced.
If a person is found guilty the sentence should be enough punishment, so the fact that they havent received any adverse publicity doesnt come into the equation there either.
Mandy
Tough. In principle I think anonimity until proven guilty is a good idea. But some people who are later found guilty of crimes which are a danger to the public get released on bail before trial. Doesn't the public deserve to be given the option to avoid them?
roll Ummmm Monster now you are taking it down a dangerous road. So you are happy that people are guilty no matter what??? That goes against every legal system. The presumption of innocents. So may as well save the money and juct lock them up without any day in court.
People do get away from the system, but innocent people also get locked up. The system is not perfect, but its the best we have .
Screw this discussion, the police wouldn't accuse them if they weren't sure they were guilty, there's to many lily livered, commie pinko, pointy headed liberals getting in the way of quick justice. Try them quickly, try the fairly, and then kill them as cheaply as possible. They may have only stolen a car this time but they have demonstrated a contempt for the law; it can only get worse. Nip it in the bud; kill them now. Do this and it doesn't matter if people know their names. No recidivism, no expensive prisons.
QED Do it now
:roll: Ummmm Monster now you are taking it down a dangerous road. So you are happy that people are guilty no matter what??? That goes against every legal system. The presumption of innocents. So may as well save the money and juct lock them up without any day in court.
People do get away from the system, but innocent people also get locked up. The system is not perfect, but its the best we have .
Of course any man man thing is not perfect but in the case of crimes like rape there is much less of a chance of a inocent person being found guilty now we have D&A
Ok how do you feel about all people's in court having their identity protected until someone has been found guilty of a crime???
If you look at a crime like rape, the man's name is normally plastered all over the papers, whilst the victim is just called "Mrs X " or something. There has been a number of case's where the so called criminal has not been found guilty, but has had their life tarnished by just the mention that they had been accused of such a crime.
I tend to believe that all their names should be protected until guilt is found.
This is a old cripe with some folks and some defence lawyers it was very noticable in the cobi bryant case ,, wether or not this guy raped that girl i dont know i wasnt there and since it didnt go to trail (out of court settlement ) but his name was plastered all over hte press and she was miss x .no i dont think its fare the accused should be able to face his/.her accusers.
any other case the names are not protected mr smith accuses miss jones of something and both (or niether) names are in the press .
why is rape under differant rules ??
Kobi Bryant's attorneys played dirty (smart?) though.
Although they could not name the accuser in the criminal case, she had of course filed a civil suit for damages against the multi-millionaire. The Press requested permission to print the suit details, including her name, which the plaintiffs tried to block but ultimately failed because civil suits are not given the same protection.
This is how her name and lifestyle became public knowledge before and during the trial. Unfair? Perhaps but to quote Monster, "Tough" as that is the other side of the coin when you can go after someone for both justice and money. Perhaps plaintiffs need to make a choice as to which they want but accept that in these cases, they cannot have both.
Some said there that police won't accuse someone, if they weren't sure about it? Hmmmmm.....we all know the police are corrupt, they plant stuff sometimes to frame people of colour ( racism gets the better of them ).
Anonimity until proven guilty is all well and good, as long as it applies to everybody, not just to a certain race. Especially in a country like America, stereotype and racism runs deep, how many times have you seen a white middle class person being accused of something, and people come out and say " they couldn't have done it, they don't look like that sort of person", and later it turns out that they did.
Some said there that police won't accuse someone, if they weren't sure about it? Hmmmmm.....we all know the police are corrupt, they plant stuff sometimes to frame people of colour ( racism gets the better of them ).
Anonimity until proven guilty is all well and good, as long as it applies to everybody, not just to a certain race. Especially in a country like America, stereotype and racism runs deep, how many times have you seen a white middle class person being accused of something, and people come out and say " they couldn't have done it, they don't look like that sort of person", and later it turns out that they did.
Why don't you say "SOME" police are corrupt or Racist ..same as in every other part of society. I have friends who happen to be Police Officers in the UK and they have to put up with chants of PIG this and PIG that from people who have probably never had any run in with the law. the vast majority of police officers are decent law abiding people who put their lifes on the line everyday to protect us all.
oh and also there are also people of colour who are also racist , it doesn't just apply to one race alone
And before you say I am just causing trouble by picking on your comments, ..if your comments weren't so F**ing stupid i wouldn't have too
[quote="Glaswegian @ Fri Sep 02, 2005 5:41 am"]Some said there that police won't accuse someone, if they weren't sure about it? Hmmmmm.....we all know the police are corrupt, they plant stuff sometimes to frame people of colour ( racism gets the better of them ).
Anonimity until proven guilty is all well and good, as long as it applies to everybody, not just to a certain race. Especially in a country like America, stereotype and racism runs deep, how many times have you seen a white middle class person being accused of something, and people come out and say " they couldn't have done it, they don't look like that sort of person", and later it turns out that they did.
That works both ways if you would bother to research a subject before injecting your remarks , many many people not just the juries said OJ wasnt guilty cus he "doesnt look like that type of person" ,same thing with MJ there is racism everywhere in all races as has been pointed out to you its just a few (even one is not exceptable) but those are ones who get the publicity .
:roll: Ummmm Monster now you are taking it down a dangerous road.
Indeed. But this is a discussion, isn't it, not a plan of action? Surely all angles should be considered? What if a teacher is accused of molesting a student, but is released on bail? How do you protect his identity and the students? You suspend him from school -will his identity remain a secret? And what if someone is accused of crimes that have upset a "rough" neighborhood. If they are named and forced to move out, they might be safer than under the scrutiny of vigilantes on a witch hunt (which might also hurt innocent people).