Should rape suspects be named before the trial?

I wasnt aware of this story until a friend of mine told me over the weekend - BBC News - Coronation Street's Michael Le Vell in child sex arrest

Now im not defending or accusing him of anything but how many people have been accused of a crime that have since been found innocent but had their lives ruined by "Trial by Media". What happened to John Leslie for example?

Personally all victims and alleged perpetrators should remain anonymous until after a fair trial by an appointed Court

I fear irrespective of the outcome of this, people have already judged and made their own mind up and his career could potentially be tarnished.

Why have we as a Nation got a thirst for scandal and want to act as Judge, Jury & Executioner before ALL the facts are known?

Welcome any comments on the "Trial by Media" and not the actual case mentioned above.

__________________
Thanks
Clive

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation

Afraid it the 24 hour news media frenzy culture we live in.

Justice, ensuring the right person is convicted comes second to headlines and selling papers. Destroying peoples lives who later turn out to be innocent is a byproduct.

It is a scary world, no smoke without fire syndrome, a media accusation now carries as much weight as an official court of law. Could argue the sentence carried out by media trial is worse, a life in hiding, reputation in tatters etc.

Take Amanda Knox, she has been cleared of murdering Meredith Kercher, but reckon she will now lead a normal life? Half the planet is still convinced she's guilty.

Courts may get it wrong from time to time, but a trial by telly must be terrifying...

__________________
cheers Steve
Forum Admin - teaboy and general gofer...

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance | Find me on Google+ | or even Facebook!

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban

A valid point and have to agree with you garde! Though must admit seems to be the world we live in today. Also reminds me of when Matthew Kelly was arrested very publicly but he was then subsequently cleared.

He seems to have moved into acting and fortunately if wikipedia is correct seems to be doing ok now.

__________________
Web: mrb design
Twitter: mrbdesign

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance

Could possibly be because 24hr news as already mentioned. All might be cause some people believe they are good judges of character thus they get to decide who is guilty and not guilty based on the information presented to them via the media.

The court should be the ones that decide on these cases. The decision on whether the individuals names should be publish should be made by the judges.

I slightly disagree - not everyone can afford to get an injunction to stop their name being published in a paper of an alleged crime.

We tend to have an attitude of no smoke without fire, thus if the paper suggests someone may have committed an offence we automatically think they are guilty. God forbid i get accused tomorrow of a crime i didn't commit, mistaken identity for example, how many people would assume i was guilty if my name was published?

Im all for anonymity until proven Guilty by Trail, then publish away but no-one should be prejudged.

Think MRB mentioned earlier the case of Matthew Kelly - he was not even charged in the end but anyone remember the cringe worthy interview when Frank Skinner said Kelly looked like a peodo, it was awful.

__________________
Thanks
Clive

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation

Wasn't talking about injunction as in injuctions/super injunctions the rich (footballers etc) take out. Was just suggesting that the judges should decided on whether the names are published based on the circumstances of the case. Its a sticky area but do feel that innocent till proven guilty seems not be true, and that it seems to be a case of guilty until proven innocent in many cases like these.

Well if the Daily Mail readership have anything to do with it, everyone of those accused would have been hung, without even attending court or having a verdict read out.

This is a thorny issue.

Pragmatism has brought about anonymity for the victim. On a quid pro quo this could/should be extended to suspects/defendents.

I am not convinced by the arguments that this is not the way we do/should do criminal justice.

__________________
Barristers Chambers in Wiltshire | Direct Access Barrister | Motoring Offences Lawyer | Lasting Power of Attorney

Imagine waking up one day and be a 100% wrongly accused of some wrong doing. As a barrister you would probably be even more newsworthy for some of the gutter press.

Camera lenses in your front garden, people going through your rubbish, neighbours being interviewed on chav TV, "I always knew there was funny about him". Would you really be able to move on and go back to a normal life afterwards? Or would there be a whispering campaign that followed you around for the rest of your life?

Hopefully I'll never experience it, unless I'm actually convicted of something, then fair play, report away

__________________
cheers Steve
Forum Admin - teaboy and general gofer...

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance | Find me on Google+ | or even Facebook!

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation

If you're here to spam, then expect a ban

Bearing in mind ive known Steve for nearly 30 years you'd think id have some dirt to sell, fortunately we are both squeaky clean

__________________
Thanks
Clive

Forum Rules and FAQ's at a glance

My Local Services - The UK and US Online Business Directory | JobsVitae - Recruitment Help and CV Creation