Publicly naming the accused.

[2sheikhs]

Do you think it’s right that someone who has been accused of a crime can be named in public before a trial?
I don’t want this to get into a left v right thing because it happens across all spectrums. Whether it’s a nurse at Stepping hill hospital or someone accused of grooming, mud sticks. Also, when someone has been found to have made a false accusation, why aren’t they then punished in relation to what the accused would have received?

 

[HellYeah]

I'd say no they shouldn't be named

And you're possibly correct in suggesting a false accusation should be met with a similar punishment to what the accused may have got

 

[feelymcfeel]

The accused should not be publicly named, until they are found guilty. If it's something like a false rape claim then that person's named is inexcusably and irreparably damaged.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime should be punishable by whatever the tariff would have been if the defendant was found guilty.

 

[malg]

Shouldn't happen. Mud sticks.

 

[taleofbluehalves]

Do you think it’s right that someone who has been accused of a crime can be named in public before a trial?
I don’t want this to get into a left v right thing because it happens across all spectrums. Whether it’s a nurse at Stepping hill hospital or someone accused of grooming, mud sticks. Also, when someone has been found to have made a false accusation, why aren’t they then punished in relation to what the accused would have received?

It’s everyone’s right to a fair trial. The recent public coverage of Cliff Richard with the police and BBC was a disgrace. Unless there is a real risk to public safety e.g. a murder suspect who’s on the run perhaps, then no.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The accused should not be publicly named, until they are found guilty. If it's something like a false rape claim then that person's named is inexcusably and irreparably damaged.

Falsely accusing someone of a crime should be punishable by whatever the tariff would have been if the defendant was found guilty.

Exactly this.
Numerous cases of rape accusations have resulted in acquittal, after long periods of the accused being pilloried and losing their livelihood and good name.
Insult is then added to injury when the accuser remains anonymous.
To me, this is a perversion of justice, brought about by activists demanding any and all methods of increasing convictions, however they get them.
It needs repealing.

 

[TheBlueDune]

To put the other side of the case .....

The police/CPS case is that publicity for the likes of Savile resulted in more victims coming forward and built a stronger case.
Don't know how many similar situations there have been to Savile, but is it into double figures?
To me the relatively few similar cases outweighs the greater number of people whose lives get ruined by false accusation/not guilty verdicts.

 

[Mon Autre]

There's no completely satisfactory way of dealing with it, someone will always lose out, but i think the way things are now probably makes for the best of flawed bunch.

Publicly naming the accused: I guess for some crimes there's no real public benefit to be had from naming the accused. There are some crimes however (unfortunately, the sort where mud really does stick) where there is a benefit to naming the accused. In cases of child abuse and sexual assault i.e. crimes where people tend to stay silent for years through fear of not being believed, naming the accused often means other victims feel they can come forward for the first time and vital evidence is gathered as a result. Given the low conviction rate for crimes like this and the number of people that get away with it, that evidence is priceless.

Publicly naming false accusers: This is a tough one but I think it's often difficult to distinguish from a false accusation from a genuine one where there simply wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt. You run the risk of shaming genuine victims of crimes where people are often reluctant to come forward in the first place through fear of not being believed. Where it can be 100% proven that someone made a false accusation out of malice then I'd like to see those people prosecuted but we do need to be mindful of the wider implications to genuine victims of crimes.

 

[Henkeman]

To put the other side of the case .....

The police/CPS case is that publicity for the likes of Savile resulted in more victims coming forward and built a stronger case.
Don't know how many similar situations there have been to Savile, but is it into double figures?
To me the relatively few similar cases outweighs the greater number of people whose lives get ruined by false accusation/not guilty verdicts.

The trouble there is with the wording, that the police routinely use, and that you've echoed. That it encourages more VICTIMS to come forward before anyone is convicted of an offence.

Now with a Saville, he's dead, so they can say what they want, but they repeatedly use that word when justifying publicity for an accused who is meant to be innocent until proven guilty. There aren't any victims until there's been a conviction. That's the whole point of the system.

It's not acceptable.

 

[Ancient Citizen]

There's no completely satisfactory way of dealing with it, someone will always lose out, but i think the way things are now probably makes for the best of flawed bunch.

Publicly naming the accused: I guess for some crimes there's no real public benefit to be had from naming the accused. There are some crimes however (unfortunately, the sort where mud really does stick) where there is a benefit to naming the accused. In cases of child abuse and sexual assault i.e. crimes where people tend to stay silent for years through fear of not being believed, naming the accused often means other victims feel they can come forward for the first time and vital evidence is gathered as a result. Given the low conviction rate for crimes like this and the number of people that get away with it, that evidence is priceless.

Publicly naming false accusers: This is a tough one but I think it's often difficult to distinguish from a false accusation from a genuine one where there simply wasn't enough evidence to prove guilt. You run the risk of shaming genuine victims of crimes where people are often reluctant to come forward in the first place through fear of not being believed. Where it can be 100% proven that someone made a false accusation out of malice then I'd like to see those people prosecuted but we do need to be mindful of the wider implications to genuine victims of crimes.

For me, low conviction rates are not a reason to subvert basic justice. At the stage of accusation, 'Victims' are nothing of the sort, they can be literally anybody with a grudge or harbouring malicious intent, both parties should be anonymous. To name people immediately after an accusation that, at this stage, is unproven, is the result of pressure put to bear on the failings of the system to obtain prosecutions.