Should the identity of those accused of crimes be withheld untill found guilty?

[drae 0]

I am just curious to see how others feel about this. I just read the USA Today article regarding the two Duke Lacrosse players that have been charged. They released their names as well as photos of these two boys. They will always be linked to these charges whether guilty or innocent. Is it really fair to protect the identity of the person that accuses and publicize the identity of those accused?

[freethefly 6]

Hard to really say. On one hand, if it is you, yourself, and you know that you are innocent then you would not want your identity in the media. On the other hand if the guy down the street just got arrested for any serious crime then yes, I would like to know what kind of person may be lurking and who that person is. But, that person may be innocent and is now being scrutinized injustly. Hard question to answer.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[Plucky 0]

Quote

On the other hand if the guy down the street just got arrested for any serious crime then yes, I would like to know what kind of person may be lurking and who that person is.

The idea (of voting 'yes' here) is that you would know after his case has been heard in a court.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The identity of these people is withheld until they are indicted.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

The govenment did protect the identities of a lot of suspects after 9-11. They protected their identities from their families and lawyers as well as the press. Better to be falsely accused in public than tried in secret.

[drae 0]

Quote

The identity of these people is withheld until they are indicted.

An indictment is not a guilty verdict. At the point of indictment only one side has been heard.

[billvon 2,991]

>At the point of indictment only one side has been heard.

Right. But the case has been heard by a grand jury, and they have decided that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. It is not a presumption of guilt, but it is an official suspicion of guilt.

In other words, the guy sitting at the table is more likely to have committed the crime he is charged with than anyone else in the courtroom.

[miked10270 0]

The Criminal-Justice System, indeed ALL the Legal System has traditionally been open & public so that it can be open to public scrutiny.

The problem is the relative newsworthiness of various events & the attendant media coverage. Doubltess the media will devote the front 6 pages to the initial allegations, while the eventual acquittal will merit a paragraph around page 26, right beneath the Haemmaroid Cream Adverts!

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

>At the point of indictment only one side has been heard.

Right. But the case has been heard by a grand jury, and they have decided that there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. It is not a presumption of guilt, but it is an official suspicion of guilt.

In other words, the guy sitting at the table is more likely to have committed the crime he is charged with than anyone else in the courtroom.

Frequently, but not always. In some US jurisdictions, indictment by a grand jury is needed to bring someone to trial on a felony charge. In some other US jurisdictions, the DA decides to charge, and then a judge at a preliminary hearing decides whether there's enough probable cause to send the case to trial.
In reality, grand juries virtually always (say, +/- 99% of the time) hand down whatever indictment the prosecutors ask for; it's basically a prosecutor's rubber stamp. Your chances of being bound over for trial for something (although not necessarily every charge the DA requests) at a preliminary hearing presided over by a judge are still probably at least ~85%, but it's still somewhat less of a prosecutor's rubber stamp than a grand jury is.

Quote

At the point of indictment only one side has been heard.

There actually is a lot of significance to that. Indictments and trials sometimes bear surprisingly little resembalnce to each other.

[likearock 2]

Quote

The identity of these people is withheld until they are indicted.

However, the identity of the accuser continues to be withheld. If, in fact, it is a false accusation (and I'm not saying it is in the Duke case), then this unbalanced policy is grossly unfair.