Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Celebs charged shouldnt published in news until they are found guilty - Yes or No?

I think it is terrible that men are put in the news and on papers when they are charged with sexual assault. This should not happen until they are found GUILTY to actually doing the crime. Otherwise innocent lives and careers could be ruined! Discuss...

No.

Our courts are open to the public and this is a fundamental and necessary part of an open judicial system. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

No.

No. This is a case of making a rule where its actually behavioural change needed.

Despite this countries long history of innocent till proven guilty the 'no smoke without fire' attitude is still hugely prevalent.

Reply 5

limetang

Original post by L i b

Our courts are open to the public and this is a fundamental and necessary part of an open judicial system. Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

This. Justice must be open, what really needs to happen is a complete change in how the public are educated about justice. This SHOULD be done through schools the national curriculum should cover things like the presumption of innocence and why it is the absolute bedrock of any justice system. It should be made clear that the only point at which we should consider somebody guilty of a crime is post-conviction.

Reply 6

simon_g

Nobody's information (face, name, address) should be made public unless (s)he would be found guilty. If found not guilty (or even if no charges will be brought) someone's reputation will be in pieces, someone can be bullied out of the place they live.

Reply 7

thecatwithnohat

Original post by G8D

I don't see why celebs should get special treatment. Most if not all criminal proceedings (especially ones as damaging as sex crimes) should have a media embargo put upon them which is only lifted in the case of a guilty verdict or by the mandate of the victim of false accusations.

There are hundreds of sexual assault cases involving ordinary people, but I don't think every single one gets broadcast as much as it does with celebrities...

Reply 8

caravaggio2

Original post by thecatwithnohat

There are hundreds of sexual assault cases involving ordinary people, but I don't think every single one gets broadcast as much as it does with celebrities...

Maybe not national sir cliff style maybe, but it's very likely their family, friends, neighbours, work collegues will soon know.
I can see the argument from both sides, how more victims might come forward, but equally witnesses could come forward to say the victim was somewhere else at the time with them, but don't know anything about the allegation because they don't know the identity of the alleged victim when they read about it in the media. They don't know the case is relevant to them and what they saw that night.
This has happened in the past.
The identity of alleged victims is kept from the public because of the unique shaming nature of sex offences. The same shaming is brought on the alleged perpetrator.
Anonymity should be maintained for both until convicted.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 9

B-FJL3

A proposed solution to the problem of people being smeared by the Press:

1. Allow media outlets access, let them print what they want. As two posts have already said, justice must be open and visible to all, and of course the Press has a right to certain freedoms too.

2. However there is one condition... All media outlets must give the report of the verdict equal prominence to their reporting of the allegations.

Obviously I'd apply this universally, not just to celebrities. So, for example, if any paper wants to do a 6 page special pull-out on someone merely accused of a crime, and that person is declared not guilty, then they must do an equally loud and prominent 6 page special pull-out on how the person is innocent and why, etc...

So in answer to the OP, yes the news can be published but only on the condition that the media is essentially forced to recognise its responsibilities.

Reply 10

TheDefiniteArticle

The primary argument in favour of publicising any trial (though courts should remain open) is encouraging other victims to come forward, which not only helps their own cases, it also has evidential value in the first trial. How this should be balanced against the desire not to stigmatise the innocent is a tough decision.