Another interesting discussion prior to this post with someone VERY dear to me must be credited with these... thoughts... before I proceed - it would be unfair to say this was my wholly brain child (whether you agree or disagree with my POV is a different issue).
Every newspaper carries stories of murder, theft and rape. For rape cases, the name of victim is never mentioned, or identity is protected for many reasons (honor of the victim being one of them). The accused's names are however quite wildly splashed around the news paper. In the case of murder and theft as well, if the names can be identified, then the names of the 'suspects' are mentioned, almost as having been guilty, if not already identified as guilty.
I (and I believe the bobbies are too) contend that by mentioning the name of these accused you are violating the latin principle Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence for the individual. Some opinion leaders offer that perhaps people can be on the lookout for these 'accused' people and be wary of them. My argument is this: If my friend X from Bombay commits a crime of some sort in the Northeastern part of India, who in great god's name is going to know who X is?
To really allow folks to be wary of the potentially guilty folks, a proper description should be published along with a sketch. f the individual is not guilty after the trial, then even if X is exonerated, the 'stigma' and suspicion remains (most notably in the case of the OJ Simpson trial).
No names should ever be mentioned for any of these cases until it has been established 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual is guilty. However, the opinion leaders do have a valid point about releasing the names (and potentially their descriptions) for the 'greater good' if you will, thus sacrificing what is a constitutional right in many countries (my home country included). And yet another case of individual versus collective good emerges...
Every newspaper carries stories of murder, theft and rape. For rape cases, the name of victim is never mentioned, or identity is protected for many reasons (honor of the victim being one of them). The accused's names are however quite wildly splashed around the news paper. In the case of murder and theft as well, if the names can be identified, then the names of the 'suspects' are mentioned, almost as having been guilty, if not already identified as guilty.
I (and I believe the bobbies are too) contend that by mentioning the name of these accused you are violating the latin principle Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat or the presumption of innocence for the individual. Some opinion leaders offer that perhaps people can be on the lookout for these 'accused' people and be wary of them. My argument is this: If my friend X from Bombay commits a crime of some sort in the Northeastern part of India, who in great god's name is going to know who X is?
To really allow folks to be wary of the potentially guilty folks, a proper description should be published along with a sketch. f the individual is not guilty after the trial, then even if X is exonerated, the 'stigma' and suspicion remains (most notably in the case of the OJ Simpson trial).
No names should ever be mentioned for any of these cases until it has been established 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the individual is guilty. However, the opinion leaders do have a valid point about releasing the names (and potentially their descriptions) for the 'greater good' if you will, thus sacrificing what is a constitutional right in many countries (my home country included). And yet another case of individual versus collective good emerges...
No comments:
Post a Comment