It should be, but it seems perfectly legal under some "freedom of the press" bullshit.

I mean, if the paper actually said they were guilty, that could probably be actioned. But just anouncing the person is on trial is legal. However, to many people, there is no difference. On trial; guilty "enough". We either need to kill all the people stupid enough to think that way, or stop the papers printing information the public have no need to know.

Actually I agree: publishing their face isn't consistent with innocent until proven guilty. It's "come jump on the bandwagon". Why not publish random people's faces off the street, just in case someone recognises their rapist that way? The time to bring another case against them is when this one is already done. And if they're not guilty, you're screwing with an innocent man in the first place. "Did this man rape you too? We haven't established he raped anyone yet. But take a look anyhow."

(April 25, 2016 at 4:20 am)pool the great Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 4:06 am)Goosebump Wrote: I think it comes down to the claim. The "innocent until proven guilty" thing really comes out of the "burden of proof" being on the prosecutor. The Claim has to be proven. Publishing the name gives the opportunity for more claims to be made, that may bias a jury but it doesn't change the fact that it's just more claims, and the claimant has to prove their claim.

I understand what you are saying,but hear me out, suppose the photo of a person that is accused of rape is released to the press. The reasoning is that it will encourage other victims, if any, to come forward. 1.This type of reasoning can be applied with someone actually proven to be guilty but someone still only being accused? 2. I would argue otherwise, because applying this type of reasoning to someone that is still only being accused assumes the accused is guilty before proven guilty. Even if two other people come forward claiming to be the victims of the accused in question, what weight does it have on the current case? How can the other accusations have any weight on the current case?  Let's assume for a moment that the people that did come forward with further accusations really are being truthful(which actually has to be proved s separately first), this doesn't mean that in the current case the accused did rape the other party,the accused may very well have raped the other parties that came forward and not done anything to the accuser in the current case.

*** NUMBERS MINE ***

1. I'm not arguing that, I don't think anybody is. If somebody was proven guilty sure, why not publish their info so that other folks can drawl justice. But I'm not sure anybody is arguing FOR that in this thread unless I've missed a post, which is likely.

2. So say, if I was accused of murder or rape, and they put my name and photo in the paper (I have not done these things) would that be assuming I'm guilty. I don't think so.

Here is why. Because a court room is not a press room. It actually matters what evidence is available and the "beyond a reasonable doubt". Sure there is the remote possibility that some ex might testify against me but I'd have confidence in the process to discredit that witness at the least bias, at the most motivated to see my guilt through vindictiveness. That's the process at work.

I might have some crap in the community because of the press coverage, but that's the on the press and the educational system and the personal responsibility of the community members themselves. Not the justice system.

Quote:2. So say, if I was accused of murder or rape, and they put my name and photo in the paper (I have not done these things) would that be assuming I'm guilty. I don't think so.

Simply putting your name and photo doesn't assume you're guilty. Putting your name and photo for the purposes of encouraging the other victims of your wrong doings come forward however does assume you are guilty before proven guilty.

I am against posting pictures of people on paper unless and until they are proven to be guilty, even in the rape cases the accused's photos are published but the supposedly victim's isn't. The reasoning for posting the photo of the accused is that it'll encourage the other victims of his rapes come forward which is treating the accused as a rapist before analysing evidence and arriving at whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Essentially anyone accused of rape is by default a rapist until the accused can provide enough evidence to prove innocence. (Guilty until proven innocent.)

(April 25, 2016 at 4:55 am)pool the great Wrote:

Quote:2. So say, if I was accused of murder or rape, and they put my name and photo in the paper (I have not done these things) would that be assuming I'm guilty. I don't think so.

Simply putting your name and photo doesn't assume you're guilty. Putting your name and photo for the purposes of encouraging the other victims of your wrong doings come forward however does assume you are guilty before proven guilty.

I am against posting pictures of people on paper unless and until they are proven to be guilty, even in the rape cases the accused's photos are published but the supposedly victim's isn't. The reasoning for posting the photo of the accused is that it'll encourage the other victims of his rapes come forward which is treating the accused as a rapist before analysing evidence and arriving at whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Essentially anyone accused of rape is by default a rapist until the accused can provide enough evidence to prove innocence. (Guilty until proven innocent.)

If your just going to cherry pick my posts I'm not continuing.

(April 25, 2016 at 4:57 am)Goosebump Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 4:55 am)pool the great Wrote: Simply putting your name and photo doesn't assume you're guilty. Putting your name and photo for the purposes of encouraging the other victims of your wrong doings come forward however does assume you are guilty before proven guilty.

I am against posting pictures of people on paper unless and until they are proven to be guilty, even in the rape cases the accused's photos are published but the supposedly victim's isn't. The reasoning for posting the photo of the accused is that it'll encourage the other victims of his rapes come forward which is treating the accused as a rapist before analysing evidence and arriving at whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Essentially anyone accused of rape is by default a rapist until the accused can provide enough evidence to prove innocence. (Guilty until proven innocent.)

If your just going to cherry pick my posts I'm not continuing.

Sorry, I suppose I agree with all the other parts of your post, sorry for not addressing it, the quote I extracted from your post was the only thing that quickly caught my eyes, which I disagreed with.

(April 25, 2016 at 4:57 am)Goosebump Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 4:55 am)pool the great Wrote: Simply putting your name and photo doesn't assume you're guilty. Putting your name and photo for the purposes of encouraging the other victims of your wrong doings come forward however does assume you are guilty before proven guilty.

I am against posting pictures of people on paper unless and until they are proven to be guilty, even in the rape cases the accused's photos are published but the supposedly victim's isn't. The reasoning for posting the photo of the accused is that it'll encourage the other victims of his rapes come forward which is treating the accused as a rapist before analysing evidence and arriving at whether the accused is innocent or guilty. Essentially anyone accused of rape is by default a rapist until the accused can provide enough evidence to prove innocence. (Guilty until proven innocent.)

If your just going to cherry pick my posts I'm not continuing.

*** Emphasis Mine ***

Two Things:

Where is the innuendo so far that it is clearly declaring guilty? Even if it were to do so (and I in no way concede that it does), since when is the press the court room and how is that any different then my argument to your second point ?

(April 25, 2016 at 3:59 am)pool the great Wrote: How can there be a victim if the accused is innocent until proven guilty?

That should be obvious. A murderer is innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still a victim who is dead. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean a crime hasn't taken place, it just means the accused hasn't been found guilty of that crime yet. It's not necessarily the accused's victim, but it's a victim nonetheless.

Quote:Assuming publishing the names of the accused is beneficial because it allows other victims of the accused to come forward assumes that the accused is guilty before he is proven guilty,is my reasoning sound?

I don't think it's sound. Publishing the name of the accused doesn't presume guilt; it's just stating a fact: that the person has been accused of a crime.

Trials work by gathering evidence and using that evidence to try and convince a jury / judge that the accused is guilty.

Imagine that there was a rape at some club, and the rape victim told police that X did it. The police do some preliminary investigations, get CCTV at the club, see X follow the victim around, perhaps even into the area that victim says they were raped in. The police arrest X and charge them with rape. Now, if police weren't allowed to release details of the accused, they would probably have to ask the public "If anyone was at the club on this night, and saw anything suspicious, please contact us." That's pretty vague; people might not come forward as eyewitnesses.

Alternatively, if the police are allowed to post the photo of the accused and their name, it might prompt more responses.

So in that sense it might help investigators do their job better. It could also potentially help the accused, if someone saw them doing something else at the time of the rape, that might be enough to acquit them.

(April 25, 2016 at 12:37 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(April 25, 2016 at 3:59 am)pool the great Wrote: How can there be a victim if the accused is innocent until proven guilty?

That should be obvious. A murderer is innocent until proven guilty, but that doesn't change the fact that there is still a victim who is dead. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean a crime hasn't taken place, it just means the accused hasn't been found guilty of that crime yet. It's not necessarily the accused's victim, but it's a victim nonetheless.

Quote:Assuming publishing the names of the accused is beneficial because it allows other victims of the accused to come forward assumes that the accused is guilty before he is proven guilty,is my reasoning sound?

I don't think it's sound. Publishing the name of the accused doesn't presume guilt; it's just stating a fact: that the person has been accused of a crime.

Trials work by gathering evidence and using that evidence to try and convince a jury / judge that the accused is guilty.

Imagine that there was a rape at some club, and the rape victim told police that X did it. The police do some preliminary investigations, get CCTV at the club, see X follow the victim around, perhaps even into the area that victim says they were raped in. The police arrest X and charge them with rape. Now, if police weren't allowed to release details of the accused, they would probably have to ask the public "If anyone was at the club on this night, and saw anything suspicious, please contact us." That's pretty vague; people might not come forward as eyewitnesses.

Alternatively, if the police are allowed to post the photo of the accused and their name, it might prompt more responses.

So in that sense it might help investigators do their job better. It could also potentially help the accused, if someone saw them doing something else at the time of the rape, that might be enough to acquit them.

My point is, posting photos of an accused on papers so that other victims of the accused can come forward assumes the accused is guilty before proven to be guilty or not guilty.
In all cases the accuser is assigned with the task of presenting witnesses that support his/her allegation, am I right? So why should the photo of the accused be published so that witnesses can come forward? Even then, the logic is that the crime the accused is accused of has been already committed before proven(why else would the photo of the accused posted in papers so that witnesses can come forward?). Circular reasoning.

Saying that posting the photo of the accused can potentially help the accused if someone comes forward and says they were doing something else is nonsensical in my opinion because it has a scent of "guilty until proven innocent". I believe the accused is innocent until proven guilty, it is the job of he accuser to prove the accused is guilty, not the other way around. It's also no secret even a fake rape claim can ruin someone's life,socially and otherwise, so why should the photo of the accused be posted? What if tomorrow someone accused you of a (fake) rape claim?

(April 25, 2016 at 4:42 am)Goosebump Wrote: 2. So say, if I was accused of murder or rape, and they put my name and photo in the paper (I have not done these things) would that be assuming I'm guilty. I don't think so.

Here is why. Because a court room is not a press room. It actually matters what evidence is available and the "beyond a reasonable doubt".

You have a very idealistic view of courtrooms, fair trials and the whole bunch, to say the least. If a potential juror saw your mug and name associated with a particular crime, it will be that much harder to get you off the hook. Especially if you can't afford a first class legal team.

Truth is, there are laws against that in many countries. Unless the case is in the public interest. Say, a politician being suspected of lining his pockets when in office. The press can say that he's on trial but has to add that he's assumed to be innocent until proven differently. We had that quite a lot in recent years. We also don't have the anglosaxon trial system of a jury being present at any felony case. It's only murder trials and other capital cases where a jury decides.

(April 24, 2016 at 2:47 am)robvalue Wrote: OK this is a well sourced post about animal testing. I'll keep looking for more. If anyone finds proper rebuttals on the net, I'd be interested.

Basically, humans are too different to animals for the results to be meaningful.

http://www.peta2.com/boards/topic/33-rea...pointless/

Sorry this took so long Rob. Took awhile to look at the quotes and sources. I only looked at the first 10 then stopped.

Well, you certainly stayed with the thread topic. PETA is controversial. They have a love and emotion for animals and animal rights that would be hard to surpass. However, that amount of emotion often makes rationality take a back seat. Remember this?:

http://madworldnews.com/peta-greased-pig-on-ice/
http://www.rightrelevance.com/search/art...malrrights

Rob, this is only my response and not meant to change your position. I like your passion about animals.

I've put the quote and reference from the site directly following each other (less scrolling). My thoughts are in that funny slanted type. Some sites for your perusal then follow.

1) Less than 2% of human illnesses (1.16%) are ever seen in animals. Over 98% never affect animals.
1) Page, Dr T, “Vivisection Unveiled”, John Carpenter, 1997, p6
Can’t review online. Animal rights activists. Maybe be true in nature. Does not address engineering animal models.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3902221/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/the-animal-model/

2) According to the former scientific executive of Huntingdon Life Sciences, animal tests and human results agree “5%-25% of the time.”
2) ‘Animal Toxicity Studies:Their relevance to man Lumley & Walker (ed) pp57-67, Quay, 1989.
Lumley appears to be Cynthia Lumley. She is animal testing.
http://het.sagepub.com/content/11/3/155.short

3) Among the hundreds of techniques available instead of animal experiments, cell culture toxicology methods give accuracy rates of 80-85%
3) Clemedson C, McFarlane-Abdulla E, Andersson M, et al. MEIC Evaluation of Acute Systemic Toxicity. ATLA 1996;24:273-311, http://www.pcrm.org/resch/anexp/in_vitro_tests.html
Their reference no loner online. Cell toxicity does not translate to whole system toxicity (i.e. organ).

4) 92% of drugs passed by animal tests immediately fail when first tried on humans because they’re useless, dangerous or both.
4) Nature Biotechnology 1998; 16:1294
Can’t review online. Appears to be taken out of context.
http://www.understandinganimalresearch.o...ontext.pdf

5) The two most common illnesses in the Western world are lung cancer from smoking and heart disease. Neither can be reproduced in lab animals.
5) Heart disease: Gross, D, Animal Models in Cardiovascular Research, Martinus Nijhoff Pub 1985. Smoking: New York Times, December 6 1993
Read the site.
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/bmri/2011/497841/

6) A 2004 survey of doctors in the UK showed that 83% wanted a independent scientific evaluation of whether animal experiments had relevance to human patients. Less than 1 in 4 (21%) had more confidence in animal tests than in non-animal methods.
6) GP survey (2004) commissioned by patient safety group Europeans for Medical Progress (http://www.safermedicines.net)
Survey not found on site referenced. Read the site:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2002542/

7) Rats are 37% effective in identifying what causes cancer to humans – less use than guessing. The experimenters said: “we would have been better off to have tossed a coin.”
7) F J Di Carlo, Drug Metabolism reviews15, p409-13
Can’t review online.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6489158

8) Rodents are the animals almost always used in cancer research. They never get carcinomas, the human form of cancer, which affects membranes (eg lung cancer). Their sarcomas affect bone and connective tissue: the two are completely different.
8) R Peto, World Medicine Vol 79, 1979
It appears in other animals. Google: carcinoma in animals.
http://emice.nci.nih.gov/aam

9) The results from animal tests are routinely altered radically by diet, light, noise, temperature, lab staff and bedding. Bedding differences caused cancer rates of over 90% and almost zero in the same strain of mice at different labs.
9) D.Spani, M. Arras, B. Konig and T. Rulicke, ‘Higher heart rate of laboratory mice housed individually vs in pairs’, Laboratory Animal Welfare, Vol. 37, No. 1, Jan 2003, Science Magazine
Can’t review online. This addresses housing of the animal models to eliminate testing variance between animals and humans.
 
10)Sex differences among lab animals can cause contradictory results. This does not correspond with humans.
10) EJ Calabrese, ‘Toxic Susceptability: Male/female differences, quoted in Page “Viv Unv.”, p41
Can’t review online. Discusses sex differences, not response differences to chemicals from animal models to humans. Refer to another site where it is referenced:
http://alternativestoanimalresearch.org/...ations.pdf
 
Some additional reading:
https://speakingofresearch.com/extremism...d-science/
https://speakingofresearch.com/facts/arg...-research/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23954708
http://web.stanford.edu/group/hopes/cgi-...-research/
http://animal-testing.procon.org/#pro_con
http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/usin...-cons.html

Sorry if I went overboard. I sometimes do that.