Controversial views

[Goosebump]

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.