Controversial views

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

How can there be a victim if the accused is innocent until proven guilty?
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 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. This type of reasoning can be applied with someone actually proven to be guilty but someone still only being accused? 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.