Controversial views

[Tiberius]

The counterpoint to my own position (other than freedom of the press) is that publishing a name of the accused may allow other victims to come forward which could help strengthen the case against the accused.

Circular reasoning.
You're welcome.

How is that circular reasoning? My issue with publishing names of people accused of crimes is that the media drags their name through the mud, and often judges them to be guilty before they are tried. In some cases, having a name / photo of the accused publish can help convince their victims to come forward (lots of rape cases happen this way). Or perhaps you got scammed by someone, reported it to the police, but they were unable to find the person, and then later you see them being tried in a separate case. You can then go to the police and say "that's the person who scammed me", which could bring further charges.

---

Here's a couple of other "controversial" views I thought of:

1) Affirmative action policies are (ironically) racist themselves and should be banned.

2) Gun manufacturers should not be sued when their gun is involved in a murder.

[KevinM1]

How's this for controversial:

Maple syrup on bacon is utterly disgusting.
Butter in addition to maple syrup on pancakes/waffles/French toast is also disgusting.
Hamburgers should never be cooked below well-done. Get your raw-in-the-middle crap away from me.

[Edwardo Piet]

Prince was overrated. Yes, even now that he is dead.

[Athene]

*gasp*

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

Circular reasoning.
You're welcome.

How is that circular reasoning? My issue with publishing names of people accused of crimes is that the media drags their name through the mud, and often judges them to be guilty before they are tried. In some cases, having a name / photo of the accused publish can help convince their victims to come forward (lots of rape cases happen this way). Or perhaps you got scammed by someone, reported it to the police, but they were unable to find the person, and then later you see them being tried in a separate case. You can then go to the police and say "that's the person who scammed me", which could bring further charges.

---

Here's a couple of other "controversial" views I thought of:

1) Affirmative action policies are (ironically) racist themselves and should be banned.

2) Gun manufacturers should not be sued when their gun is involved in a murder.

The counterpoint to my own position (other than freedom of the press) is that publishing a name of the accused may allow other victims to come forward which could help strengthen the case against the accused.

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?

In some cases, having a name / photo of the accused publish can help convince their victims to come forward (lots of rape cases happen this way). Or perhaps you got scammed by someone, reported it to the police, but they were unable to find the person, and then later you see them being tried in a separate case. You can then go to the police and say "that's the person who scammed me", which could bring further charges.

After the accused is proven guilty then the photo of the guilty can be released which can encourage others that had also been wronged by the guilty to come forward, what do you think?

[Goosebump]

Circular reasoning.
You're welcome.

How is that circular reasoning? My issue with publishing names of people accused of crimes is that the media drags their name through the mud, and often judges them to be guilty before they are tried. In some cases, having a name / photo of the accused publish can help convince their victims to come forward (lots of rape cases happen this way). Or perhaps you got scammed by someone, reported it to the police, but they were unable to find the person, and then later you see them being tried in a separate case. You can then go to the police and say "that's the person who scammed me", which could bring further charges.

---

Here's a couple of other "controversial" views I thought of:

1) Affirmative action policies are (ironically) racist themselves and should be banned.

2) Gun manufacturers should not be sued when their gun is involved in a murder.

Neither of those are controversial, oh wait, Sarcasm! damit! fooled again.

[Goosebump]

How is that circular reasoning? My issue with publishing names of people accused of crimes is that the media drags their name through the mud, and often judges them to be guilty before they are tried. In some cases, having a name / photo of the accused publish can help convince their victims to come forward (lots of rape cases happen this way). Or perhaps you got scammed by someone, reported it to the police, but they were unable to find the person, and then later you see them being tried in a separate case. You can then go to the police and say "that's the person who scammed me", which could bring further charges.

---

Here's a couple of other "controversial" views I thought of:

1) Affirmative action policies are (ironically) racist themselves and should be banned.

2) Gun manufacturers should not be sued when their gun is involved in a murder.

The counterpoint to my own position (other than freedom of the press) is that publishing a name of the accused may allow other victims to come forward which could help strengthen the case against the accused.

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.

[robvalue]

The problem with the media is that far too many people believe "no smoke without fire". They are that unthinking. It's embarrassing, but it's reality.

So publishing the names of people on trial is tantamount to them being declared guilty by a large proportion of the population. That is enough to fuck them over, regardless of whether there's even a case against them. And it's bullshit.

I understand about others coming forward with potential new evidence, but personally I don't think that's a worthy trade off.

[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.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

The problem with the media is that far too many people believe "no smoke without fire". They are that unthinking. It's embarrassing, but it's reality.

So publishing the names of people on trial is tantamount to them being declared guilty by a large proportion of the population. That is enough to fuck them over, regardless of whether there's even a case against them. And it's bullshit.

I understand about others coming forward with potential new evidence, but personally I don't think that's a worthy trade off.

Is it not legal to sue the newspaper for damaging personal image in this case?