Controversial views

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

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.

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?