I believe all names should be suppressed until the person is found "guilty". Why should a potentially innocent person be identified and reputation harmed before the "guilt" is confirmed by a court.
Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
I believe all names should be suppressed until the person is found "guilty". Why should a potentially innocent person be identified and reputation harmed before the "guilt" is confirmed by a court.
Last edited by kiwitt; 07-21-2005 at 23:16.
We work to live, and to live is to, play "Total War" or drive a VR-4
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
One reason names shouldn't be suppressed.
Take the cases of pedophile priests for example. When it happened to them, the victims felt alone, that they could trust no-one to whom they can tell their story. When the story broke, suddenly more victims came forward, feeling that there is an atmosphere of support for their claims. In other words: there have been always pedophiles, but this has been shushed by society.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
When the person is found guilty.Tabloids would go bancrupcy bu who cares.
Ja Mata Tosainu Sama.
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
When convicted.
I mean so many people are ruined by false sexual allegations which are disproven in a court, but it's too late, everyone thinks they are paedophiles or whatever and they will never get a job in their community again.
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
Ditto.Originally Posted by BDC
BTW, what's the difference between being found guilty and being convicted? I thought they were the same. Pindar, where are you when I need you?
"What, have Canadians run out of guns to steal from other Canadians and now need to piss all over our glee?"
- TSM
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
It is usually a 4 step process.
1) Arrested
2) Charged with a crime
3) Found Guilty, They are usually held until a sennce is passed.
4) Convicted, i.e. Sentence Passed
Note: In some jurisdictions 3/4 are combined
Last edited by kiwitt; 07-22-2005 at 01:39.
We work to live, and to live is to, play "Total War" or drive a VR-4
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
When found guilty. Often the slur of being named as a suspect in a serious crime is just as damaging to a person as actually being convicted. Naming someone before they are found guilty by a jury just leads to that person being found guilty and convicted by the media.
Cowardice is to run from the fear;
Bravery is not to never feel the fear.
Bravery is to be terrified as hell;
But to hold the line anyway.
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
Since trials should always be open to the public, I would have to say when charged.
I think that the trials are important for the public. It's also the responsibility of the state to get a lost conviction published.
Nobody should have to fear the legal process.
Re: Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?
I agree with the general sentiment. Theres no reason to drag someone through the mud before they are found guilty.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks