PDA

View Full Version : Name Suppression ... When should it be applied ?


kiwitt
07-21-2005, 23:14
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.
sharrukin
07-21-2005, 23:28
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.
Kagemusha
07-21-2005, 23:29
When the person is found guilty.Tabloids would go bancrupcy bu who cares. ~;)
BDC
07-21-2005, 23:42
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.
Goofball
07-21-2005, 23:58
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.

Ditto.

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?
kiwitt
07-22-2005, 01:37
Ditto.

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?

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
Al Khalifah
07-22-2005, 09:40
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.
bmolsson
07-22-2005, 11:58
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.
PanzerJaeger
07-22-2005, 15:40
I agree with the general sentiment. Theres no reason to drag someone through the mud before they are found guilty.