Do you think that someone should have anonymity until fully convicted?

Question

This question popped into my head a few weeks ago and with a news report this morning I was reminded of it.

With the discussion of bringing cameras into the UK courts and make them similar to other courts (particularly the US), this is obviously going to restrict any form of anonymity for both the accused and the victim. Are you for or against cameras in a courtroom? Adding onto that, do you think that a person should have anonymity until they are actually convicted of a crime, especially for crimes like murder or child abuse which have resulted in suicide for those wrongly accused in some previous cases?

Answer 1

Yes I like your idea, anonymity until convicted and no disclosure of the video tape until after.



I think it is asinine that we have started allowing cameras in the courtroom and stream it live, they should tape it, and if the person is convicted then release the tape to those that want to watch it. And also give the defendant the choice to release the video if declared innocent/not guilty.

Answer 2

No. It is in the interests of open justice that the names of those CHARGED with a criminal offence and facing trial should be known. This gives anyone with additional evidence (either way) the opportunity to come forward. It is a serious business to release the name of an alleged criminal and should certainly NOT be done until there is sufficient grounds to charge the person. Helping the police with their enquiries prior to a charge should not be a 'fishing trip'.



Recent cases in the UK of press and public vilification of an alleged suspect who was never charged and later emerged to be blameless shows the danger of releasing names too soon. Sadly, some groups of the British public cannot be trusted to act responsibly and may develop a mob mentality.



If this was ever in doubt, we have only to look at the the case this week of a disabled man who was abused by a mob (and then not treated well by the police) and who was then murdered because someone falsely accused him of being a paedophile and photographing children. In reality, the man was innocent and had photographed acts of vandalism as evidence to support his request for police assistance against harassment. He was a victim of harassment, then of false allegations, then of alleged police mishandling, then of more mob harassment and finally of murder ... and he was 100% innocent of any crime. I hope those involved reflect long and hard on the cruelty and criminality of their actions.



I dislike the idea of cameras in court. Our legal process is serious and sober and should not be reduced to a spectator sport. If it deters barristers unfairly badgering witnesses for fear of a public backlash, that might be a good thing. If it encourages barristers to grand-stand even more, it would be a bad thing. If a member of the public has that much interest in a case, that's what the public gallery is for.

Answer 3

Sometimes it happens that new evidence comes up from people that knew the indicted and heard about him on the media.